Of all the sports, football seems to be run by the most “conservative” crowd and the Super Bowl, as often as not, seems the showcase for white, southern, conservative America – complete with military color guard, flyovers, country music and the like. When they do have a mainstream singer, it is usually an old veteran performer, well past their prime – and safe.
Not that they haven’t been burned before – Janet Jackson, in her late 30s, should have been a safe pick, but she turned that pick on its head with her famous wardrobe malfunction (ironically the last time the Carolina Panthers made the Super Bowl).
I wasn’t watching intently. I kind of saw the halftime show, but being not a big fan of Beyoncé or Coldplay or Bruno Mars, I was more interested in taking a quick nap than watching the show. I saw it and nothing controversial registered with me.
According to news accounts, the game itself was the third most-watched ever, and the viewership peaked for the halftime show with about 115.5 million tuning in.
I thought nothing of the attire of Beyoncé or her entourage of dancers – it looked like a fairly conventional set up to me. So I was surprised to read about all the furor it had caused. Bemused is probably a better word.
The controversy was that Beyoncé’s dancers wore attire that, according to Entertainment Weekly, “paid tribute to the Black Panthers and, by extension, the Black Lives Matter movement that Beyoncé sings about on the new cut.”
Of course I didn’t see the new video, by Beyoncé for Beyoncé, which shows, according to one account, “a young black boy standing with his hands up against a row of police officers — a reference to the Black Lives Matter movement, which has protested racial disparities in the criminal justice system and particularly police use of force. And it ends with a police car drowning in rising waters — a callback to Hurricane Katrina and systemic neglect and abuse of the black community in New Orleans.”
It didn’t take long for conservative voices to call this out. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani on Monday called Beyoncé’s “attack” on police officers “outrageous.”
He said on Fox and Friends, “I thought it was really outrageous that she used it as a platform to attack police officers who are the people who protect her and protect us, and keep us alive. And what we should be doing in the African-American community, and all communities, is build up respect for police officers. And focus on the fact that when something does go wrong, OK. We’ll work on that. But the vast majority of police officers risk their lives to keep us safe.”
Then there was Congressman Peter King, who said, “Beyoncé may be a gifted entertainer but no one should really care what she thinks about any serious issue confronting our nation.”
Which is interesting, because, if you don’t care, perhaps you might not want to comment on things. In a Facebook message he criticized the Super Bowl show and video as “just one more example of how acceptable it has become to be anti-police when it is the men and women in blue who put their lives on the line for all of us and deserve our strong support.”
The Washington Post notes, “What wasn’t shown on-screen but is now catching fire online is a quieter political display that occurred after the halftime show, when a group of Beyoncé’s dancers were approached by two organizers for the Black Lives Matter movement Bay Area chapter.
“Ronnisha Johnson and Rheema Emy Calloway knew what they wanted out of their halftime show tickets: a way to spread the story of Mario Woods, a 26-year-old black man who was shot and killed by San Francisco police officers in December, to a larger audience than they had ever had before.
“As Beyoncé’s dancers walked off the field with their fists in the air, Johnson and Calloway ran up to a group of them with a sign that read ‘Justice 4 Mario Woods.’”
Mario Woods is just the latest in a series of controversial shootings of black men, and this one took place in San Francisco itself. Recently the mayor has called for a federal investigation and the handling of the matter has led many to call for Police Chief Greg Suhr to resign.
So while it may seem strange for conservatives to be criticizing a popular musician, and Rudy Guiliani and Peter King versus Beyoncé is a losing battle for conservatives, the reality is they are going after not Beyoncé but the BLM movement itself.
There are those who argue that we should leave politics outside of the Super Bowl – something I would be glad to oblige as soon as the military shows and the tributes to our foreign wars end. For years I have had to tolerate the militarization of sports and, in particular, the NFL and especially the Super Bowl.
As an opponent of our foreign wars, I increasingly resent the heroism being pushed into entertainment. Want to support the troops? I would suggest a more appropriate venue. If you want to continue to argue for their inclusion, you have no right to criticize Beyoncé for this fairly silent and benign tribute to a part of our history that isn’t from days gone by.
It will be interesting to see how the NFL chooses to handle this controversy, but if I’m a betting man, I bet on a country act next halftime show.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Beyonce is awesome. Bring on the Dixie Chicks.
If you are an artist and you use your art for political commentary, no matter if I disagree with you, I support you 100%.
However, if you are the Dixie Chicks and just spout off your political hate speech, I reject you and reject your art.
The last time the Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Maines flapped her gums in a nasty denigrating attack on President Bush it killed the country music careers of the band when they were at their peek. And now she is at it again. Maybe they should change their names to the Dixie Idiots.
The Cold Play, Bruno Mars and Byonce show at half time was one of the best I have seen. All three are at the peek of their careers. Even though I think the Black Lives Matter movement is idiotic and socially destructive to any hope of advancing the lives of blacks, I applaud Byonce for making her point with her art… and not just exploiting her access to media to spout off partisan and vitriolic political hate speech.
Can’t really argue with that.
Well that can’t be satisfying for you! 😉
Well fortunately I knew if I waited ten minutes that would change.
LOL. Yes, you and I are not going to agree on much for this topic.
Funny though… I’m sure we both agree with the desired end, end goals… just not the methods to get there.
Frankly and David
“However, if you are the Dixie Chicks and just spout off your political hate speech”
And I would agree also if the author was consistent across the ideologic spectrum. However, I have not heard a single negative comment from Frankly about the use of “political hate speech” when it comes to the frequently vile pronouncements attacking minorities and women that come from the mouth of the reality star and showman who is currently the Republican frontrunner for the Presidency. This makes me doubt the sincerity of the author who I think may be purely using it to promote a particular political agenda.
Evidently this is “hate speech”:
But this is probably just, y’know, boys will be boys:
“Beyonce may be a gifted entertainer but on one should really care what she thinks about any serious issue confronting our nation.”
I would say that this should apply equally to Donald Trump.
America. Seriously, America.
One side makes a statement, the other pushes back. Brilliance comes in sending the message subtly powerful without pushing it in the other’s face, so it becomes a discussion rather than a division.
I’ve no problem with celebrating heroism, if it’s not blind. I’ve no problem bringing injustice to minorities to light, if flat criminals aren’t glorified as symbols.
The police car symbol as described is on the edge. I never demonize the police as a whole, nor do I glorify them as perfect. I heard a panel of mixed police departments on the radio that acknowledged, almost universally, about 25% of cops shouldn’t be cops.
If “we” — the public, the oppressed, and the decent police officers, could all agree on that reality and work together to flush that bad 1/4, or at least acknowledge together that it exists, that would be a start. Of course, not protecting stone criminals comes as the flip side.
I don’t know how that plays out, or if it’s too F-ing Kumbaya. The other reality of all human kind is we band together to protect “our own”, even when some in our tribe are evil. Be that others in our ethnic/religious identity or among fellow officers.
So . . . damn, if it gets slightly better over time, and slightly better again, that’s the best we can hope for. In viewing my half-century glipse, there has been that general upward trend.
Very well done. Your coffee kicks in early!
Gee Zeus Key Riced! It’s only Rock n Roll, they were wearing COSTUMES and what, nobody in Davis ever gave to the free breakfast for children fund? Crackers, please.
David wrote:
> Mario Woods is just the latest in a series of controversial
> shootings of unarmed black men
I don’t think that the SF cops needed to shoot Woods 15 times, but I would not call a guy (that just stabbed someone and put them in the hospital) holding a knife “unarmed”. I’m wondering if David would also call OJ an “unarmed black man”?
“Still armed with the kitchen knife allegedly used in the stabbing, Woods was reportedly pepper-sprayed and shot with less-lethal beanbag ammunition but was still standing and refusing to surrender, according to police. Officers demanded he drop the knife, but Woods moved towards an officer who was approaching him, and was subsequently shot 15 times.”
http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2015/12/03/man-shot-by-sfpd-idd-as-mario-woods-was-on-gang-injunction
Good point. I’m starting to mix up some of these cases in my mind. In this case I was confusing Woods for the guy who went on a high speed chase and got beaten but not shot
“…I bet on a country act next halftime show.”
Good luck avoiding controversy with them, too. You might be surprised to know that there are as many extroverted and opinionated performers in that genre as any other.
This is clearly a case of a hammer seeking nails.
I am starting to recognize the emerging demand related to the modern Black Lives Matter movement.
First it was the elimination of slavery. Millions of primarily white young men gave their lives for this cause.
Next it was the elimination of all public and institutional remnants of racism.
Ironically, those that supported the abolition of slavery and then later the people that supported the Civil Rights movement, did so from a basis of our founding governing documents that conclude that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
But the modern Black Lives Matter movement no longer has any connection to our founding governing documents. The emerging demand is clearly a push for a reserve racism where blacks are given extra chances just because of their membership in this racial group that continues to languish in over-representation in negative outcomes. So the demand is a new world order where blacks don’t get held to the same standards of civil and lawful behavior. Where blacks are pulled and pushed forward and propped up after they fall down and down again.
Here is the problem with this emerging demand: Darwinism.
But the good news for artists like Byonce and social justice crusaders like David… this new demand will perpetuate the supply of material for their work.
Have you actually looked up what the Black Lives Matter movement is demanding? Your analysis bears no resemblance to their principles and demands. http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/
Exactly Don. My view here is that the call is for reform. There is pushback rhetoric off course on that, but I’ve had a number of talks with police officials in recent weeks including this morning and I feel like they are getting the message that they have to change tactics and approaches..
This is a bunch of meaningless, emotive, subjective double-talk that might have well been developed by the liberal wing of the DNC (which is 90% of the whole these days).
“Safe-Spaces” is a euphemism for getting extra benefits to “compensate” for group differences that are today mislabeled by the left and left media as signs of racism, but are really generally just a sign of negative differences in group behavior.
Are Asians asking for safe spaces too? Nope.
Law enforcement can improve, but it is the current scapegoat that deflect from the true causes of the problems.
Don’t you find it interesting that there is no list of concrete and actionable solutions being proposed by the black lives matter activists other than “safe spaces” and for the cops to stand down?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-lives-matter-policy-demands_us_55d7392ae4b0a40aa3aa9443
Great. How?
You keep using that term, but it’s not one of their demands.
First of all, these are what the Huffington Post published… not what is on the BLM website you posted. Nice deflection. But let’s address them:
1. End Broken Window Policing – Translation – less law enforcement attention to neighborhoods where there is a lot of crime… which tend to be black neighborhoods. Basically getting the cops to stand down.
2. Community oversight – Nebulous. No specifics. What does this mean other than a community organization that has the power to make the cops stand down?
3. Limit Use of Force – Getting the cops to stand down.
4. Independently Investigate & Prosecute – I assume this means cops and not criminals. No details provided. Because we already have the best justice system in the world, I can’t even guess what this means in practical and useful terms. But it is obvious that this is an idea for there to be more threat towards the cops to get them to stand down.
5. Community Representation – See #2. This is just a repeat.
6. Body cams / film by the police – Already happening but interesting how this is being challenged now as film backs the actions of the cops.
7. Training – Nebulous. What training? Cops are already some of the most trained professionals.
8. End For Profit Policing – WTH is this? How about we eliminate for profit crime and then we don’t need much law enforcement? Novel argument for getting the cops to stand down.
9. Demilitarization – So then what do the cops do when the criminals use weapons of war? And how does this even connect with black lives matter? It is obvious just another move to get the cops to stand down.
10. Fair police union contracts – This more than anything is evidence that BLM is just a left political tool. Part of the reason that we have 10-15% bad cops is that the union makes it impossible for management to fire bad cops.
The deflection is you failing to acknowledge that they have, in fact, made very specific proposals. So your statement that “Don’t you find it interesting that there is no list of concrete and actionable solutions being proposed by the black lives matter activists” was incorrect. They have been very specific.
Broken Window policing is now considered by many to simply be a method of enforcing minor infractions in a manner that costs poor communities and results in excessive police interaction with ethnic minorities over trivial offenses. Community policing is often presented as a better alternative.
Community oversight is anything but “nebulous.” It involves citizen commissions.
Limiting use of force is not “getting police to stand down”. (What is with it with your constant use of that phrase?).
Independent investigation of police actions involves either a special commission, or oversight provided by state or federal government. That already happens, but on an ad hoc basis. It probably should be formalized.
Community representation is not “nebulous.” Citizen commissions can be very useful. The only other method of oversight of a police agency would be by grand jury or federal prosecutors. I’d think police might prefer citizen commissions.
Training is not “nebulous.” It is very specific. If there are some cops over-reacting, if there is excessive force occurring, if there is a perception that people of color are being approached and treated differently or violently, then training seems like a pretty basic first step in dealing with those problems.
I don’t actually know what “for profit policing” is.
Demilitarization is something that I know you will never agree with. But it is often perceived that police using military weaponry give the appearance of an occupying force. The police force of a community should come from that community, be a part of the community, be overseen by the community, and should not appear to be an occupying army.
Personally I could not care less about police union contracts. Perhaps they think that’s a way to get some buy-in to their goals from officers.
Please make an effort sometimes to view the collective actions of others in a less partisan manner. It seems that your comments reflect knee-jerk reactions. I don’t agree with all the goals of the Black Lives Matter movement, nor with their tactics, but it is worth acknowledging that this is an attempt to pull together the black community around some shared values and specific policy goals. Your derision and hostility tends to cheapen the discourse.
Not at all. They are mostly nebulous political talking points.
I think you are just not used to having anyone challenge this politically-correct BS and so it feels like hostility. Frankly, because I am, the hostility is 100% from the BLM and social justice activist folk on the topic of race. And they absolutely do not represent what the black community needs. They represent what they want.
Let’s start with the following point. I agree 100% that we need to drastically improve outcomes in the black community.
Your feeling of derision and hostility is only a knee-jerk reaction for reading points that threaten to take away this cause from your political and ideological playbook.
I actually have basically no “political and ideological playbook” with respect to racial or urban justice/policing issues. I know very little about them because I have almost no direct experience with those issues. Nor, I suspect, do you. I do see that there are widely shared perceptions in the black urban community about those issues. If there is a perception, there is an issue; the perception itself is an issue. If a community is, in fact, coming together and presenting a set of problems, perceptions, and grievances, it is generally wise to acknowledge that at least the perceptions are valid and real, that there may be a basis of problems, and that the process for addressing the grievances will be useful.
You routinely disparage the perception and deny that it has any validity, thereby denying that there is any problem. You fail to accept that the black community has any reason for concern or any valid issues involving police behavior.
It is time for conservatives to stop hiding behind their accusations of “political correctness.” That isn’t the issue.
Seems to me that’s largely for the black community do decide.
Very interesting comment. Do you want to rethink it, or stick with it?
Do you think all communities always know what they need, or if given the power to decide the fate of their community would mostly pursue what they want? Did the community of Flint Michigan do what they needed, or what they wanted?
Does the uber-educated community of Davis know what it needs, or just what it wants?
And how do you reconcile so many white liberals being involved in deciding the “needs” and wants of the black community? Are maybe the people of the black community being brainwashed by these political operatives to opine for what is bad for them?
Maybe the people of Greece are a good example for how communities deciding what is good for them.
Why can’t more large companies just have employees that self-manage… making all the right decisions for what is good for them, and not just breaking down in conflict over what each individual wants?
So let’s say the black community gets to decide and crime explodes (like it is appearing to do as the cops stand down). What then? Last I checked the people of a community that resorts to crime will do crimes outside of their community. Don’t the people of those other communities have a say?
Again, yours was a very interesting comment. Sheds light on a few things. Primarily the fact that you slip into supporting central control verses distributed control when it suits your worldview.
Then please tell me who you feel should decide “what the black community needs.” That’s what I was responding to.
This sentence makes no sense, particularly in the context of our discussion. Feel free to clarify.
So does the community make the decisions about plastic grocery bags, or gay marriage… or does a minority of “smarter” people?
If there’s an interpretation of this sentence in the context of the comment that is not overtly racist, please explain.
I, too, would like to hear how a lay person defines and connects Darwinism to this discussion.
It does not have anything to do with a racial group unless that racial group is singled out for being deserving of special “help”.
So in that context, the Black Lives Matter activists and their supporting liberal social justice activists are demonstrating racist tendencies both individually and collectively. But more importantly they are guilty of demanding policies that serve to perpetuate, rather than eliminate, the bad behavior that results in negative outcomes. When you implement policies to accommodate bad behavior in the name of racial equality or any other group-ism pursuit, you train the human condition to model more of that bad behavior. You essentially evolve more humans to behave badly. And there are going to be evolutionary (biological, physiological, social and cultural) mutations that develop to make these behaviors the new normal.
Clearly you misunderstand evolution and natural selection and are confusing them with the concepts of acquired characteristics and Social Darwinism. Two discredited misapplications of the theory of evolution.
However it does fit neatly into your world view.
Hmm… well I think you might need to get caught up on your reading…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Sdqg-jn_tBk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogamy_%28sociology%29
But maybe you really have not studied these theories very much.
Or maybe you think black human animals somehow don’t apply to the theories?
Frankly – You have confirmed my original assumption and illustrated the adage, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Here’s something to add to your reading list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
You can add the Baldwin Effect as a third discredited application of the Theory of Evolution to the previous two. Interesting one of the pages you link included this:
“In the 1960s, evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr contended that the Baldwin-effect theory was untenable because (1) the argument is stated in terms of the individual genotype, whereas what is really exposed to the selection pressure is a phenotypically and genetically variable population, (2) it is not sufficiently emphasized that the degree of modification of the phenotype is in itself genetically controlled, and (3) it is assumed that phenotypic rigidity is selectively superior to phenotypic flexibility.”
One of the other links showed a skeptical Richard Dawkins trying to explain how the Baldwin Effect might work but it is clear that his mechanism is speculative and he is doubtful that the Baldwin Effect is real.
To get from the references you cite to the conclusions you make requires an enormous leap of faith in a largely unaccepted evolutionary process. Your view does however fit nicely into the ideas of the Heritage Foundation work you cited as an additional reference. Of course Heritage has never been known as any sort of authority on evolution.
No, the Baldwin effect has not been discredited. It is still debated. Adaptive learning is the key here.
But I understand why you would want to discredit it since it would likely rock your worldviews on race.
Global warming is still being debated too but for most people the debate is settled. I think the same can be said about the Baldwin Effect. If it was real you would think you could come up with an example that is widely accepted after so many years.
Also you should know that there is no genetic basis for race. Most geneticists agree that the genetic differences between humans are so small that race in humans doesn’t actually have any meaning.
http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/race-finished
And this…
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/opinion/spalding-welfare-state-dependency/
Frankly
“Or maybe you think black human animals somehow don’t apply to the theories?”
I think that you may not fully appreciate the implications of the Baldwin effect as it relates to human animals regardless of their skin color.
My first point is that the life span of finches in the wild is approximately 5 years, in captivity approximately 5-9 years. Thus generational observation is possible over much shorter periods of time than with humans. This means that we cannot really assess whether or not humans are demonstrating this effect and how it is playing out.
One small example. Let’s take a colony of finches. We know that finches that are able to observe the behaviors imitate those behaviors and may over multiple generations demonstrate higher and higher numbers of the population who manifest the adaptive behavior. What we do not know is what would occur if the finches were prevented from observing the adaptive behavior. I suspect that they would effectively be blocked by this informational deprivation.
Now let’s look at the history of African Americans. During the years of slavery ( and yes, since you brought up the Baldwin effect, this is certainly fair game) there was systemic deprivation of the ability of African Americans to acquire adaptive behaviors ( literacy, acquisition of ownership and managerial skills, opportunity for civic engagement, control over their own associations including the integrity of their families) in a white imposed system of inequality . What we created were generations of people who, at the hands of whites, were deprived of these abilities.
Now you have implied in many, many comments here on the Vanguard that slavery is no longer an issue. Essentially blacks should just shrug it all off and succeed, because of course, regardless of whether or not their forebears were slaves, and thus artificially deprived according to the basic premise of the Baldwin effect, that should not matter to you because slavery has been over for what you consider enough time to completely recover from slavery.
Now I do not pretend to know whether or not the Baldwin effect manifests in humans because I suspect that our lifespans are too long for us to be able to collect sufficient data to measure any possible effect. But I think that it is safe to say that if the Baldwin effect were to be measurable in this situation, it would clearly demonstrate that animals that are deliberately, systemically and comprehensively deprived of the ability to learn the most adaptive skills by others of the same species, then they will have no ability to pass on to their offspring the adaptive traits and skills and would thus be permanently disadvantaged by the deprivation introduced by the dominant group.
What is confusing to me is your touting the Baldwin effect while not seeming to understand that, if correct with regard to black human beings, is completely non supportive of your usual premise that slavery no longer matters.
What is the statute of limitations of the long-term group behavior impacts from adaptive learning? For example, Asians have a long history of being enslaved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Asia
I am not discounting your point, I am just questioning how long we make excuses for the standards of bad group behavior because of something that happened to their relatives several generations ago. I tend to think that we can solve these type of problems in a generation or two at the most.
Frankly
“I am just questioning how long we make excuses for the standards of bad group behavior because of something that happened to their relatives several generations ago. I tend to think that we can solve these type of problems in a generation or two at the most.”
I know that you believe that. But your belief flies in the face of the long term determinants of evolutionary change. Changes in populations that have rapid reproductive turnover rates ( insects and finches ) occur rapidly and are readily observable. Changes occurring in organisms having relatively long life spans ( humans, tortoises) evolve so slowly that we are unaware that it is happening.
I do not see this is “making excuses”, the Baldwin effect, if applicable at all ( and remember it was you who suggested applicability) is not an excuse, but rather an explanation. And I would truly be interested in any evidence you have that such an effect would be reversible “within a generation or two at most “since I am sure that you are aware that true evolutionary change for humans occurs over many generations, not a couple. If your evidence is strong, I will be happy to reconsider.
Housing discrimination patterns continued until much more recently than “several generations ago” and effectively create the demographic patterns of many urban areas that we still have today. Economic development has always been unequal with respect to minority communities. Conservatives like to believe that racial discrimination is over, and that everyone now has equal opportunity. But not everyone has equal resources to make use of opportunity.
Didn’t see any of this on the BLM list of demands…
If the Poorer communities fought for making their children better than they, supported their children and communities and improved life by getting along with people instead of trying to bring more crime and strife to their lives, maybe that would help? Nah.
Instead another episode of COPS Reloaded proves to me people like the way they live, are entertained by their drunken stupors, and the people they hurt are just discriminating against them. Right!
“Or maybe you think black human animals somehow don’t apply to the theories?”
Aside from what this comment reveals about yourself, actually, natural selection does apply to the group in question but not how you think.
The people you describe have more melanin in their skin. As a result they get skin cancer at lower rates than people with lighter skin. This gives them a selective advantage here in sunny California. I recently went to the dermatologist for a skin cancer screening. While in the waiting room I noticed everyone there had light skin.
Wow… you have taken complex scientific theories about how life-forms develop and change and cheapened them into a simple case of difference in melatonin. I wish I could like in your black and white world… it would be so much more relaxing.
Actually I have simplified it for you and here is a reference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_cancer
It is, of course, more complex.
Lesson Two:
People with more melanin have a more difficult time making vitamin D and are more susceptible to Ricketts. As a result we have something called balancing selection where lighter skinned people have a selective advantage at high latitudes and people with darker skin have a selective advantage at lower latitudes. Now that travel is easy people live in in all different locations than in the old days when people didn’t travel. As a result people need to be more aware about how their skin color might effect their health with regard to these variables.
Of course natural selection is a complex phenomenon but where you are getting into trouble is that you are trying to fit a natural process into your world view but that is not how it works. The reason we call it natural selection is because nature is doing the selecting. What you are doing is called Social Darwinism. It has been used by communists, capitalists and national socialists to rationalize the systems they want to impose. All of them have been debunked as a misuse of the process of evolution and natural selection just as I have so easily done with you here at the Vanguard.
I will tell you this, in a town with as many people who understand evolution and natural selection as Davis, you would be well advised to stay away from such arguments that reveal your lack of understanding in this area. You will save yourself much embarrassment.
Sure just like many of those same people stick their nose an opine on business and economics… something they know little to nothing about. I have no concern whatsoever about my opinions being an “embarrassment” given what I read and hear coming out of the mouths of these well-educated people you seem to bow down to.
I think the embarrassment should be all yours for attempting to talk down like that.
I read everything and get to know the posters quite well, and you are routinely out of your expertise but perfectly happy to type an opinion. The difference between you and me is that I would never even infer elitism in knowledge (unless provoked like this) and I would gladly debate just on facts.
And by the way, you still have not backed your initial points. You are failing big time. And I think it must be frustrating to you.
I think you mean you wouldn’t imply elitism.
Are you inferring or implying his grammatical lacking?
Thank You. I wondered if anyone would read these late postings so I was sitting here chuckling to myself. I’m so glad you get the joke.
Super Bowl is aptly named. Everything happening before, during, and after the Super Bowl is Super-sized and all of it is calculated, contrived, and inflated. We know it and yet we annually allow ourselves to be taken by it.
Janet Jackson gained Super Bowl mortality by “accidentally” revealing a body-part that displayed on just about every movie and cable-TV production. Because the wardrobe malfunction took place during a Super Bowl it will be Janet’s most notable entertainment achievement.
But what about Lady Ga Ga? Contrary to David’s depiction of a Super Bowl entertainment format, nothing about her is conventional or conservative. Here is another entertainer who is more celebrated for her attempts to gain recognition than her singing ability. I freely confess I’ve never had the desire to attend a Lady Ga Ga concert and was in a semi-stupor when she strutted on to the stage in her latest outfit. I thought, “Please don’t use the National Anthem to tell the world, It’s all about me!”
And the Lady nailed it. That was the absolute best rendition of the Star Spangled Banner I’ve ever heard, calling on hundreds of previous examples of a difficult song to sing. It gave me chills and and a profound respect for one Lady Ga Ga. Underneath all that visual nonsense is an incredible singer. For me, that my biggest Super Bowl highlight and a reminder that we should look beyond the packaging and hype of all of our contemporary products.
“And the Lady nailed it.”
Yes she did!
” I have no concern whatsoever about my opinions being an “embarrassment” given what I read and hear coming out of the mouths of these well-educated people you seem to bow down to.”
Fear of well educated people? A clearly primitive response to the unknown, perhaps biologically driven, but plainly anti-intellectual.
http://www.thenation.com/article/out-place-0/
http://www.whyrepublicanshateeducation.com/
“I read everything and get to know the posters quite well, and you are routinely out of your expertise but perfectly happy to type an opinion. ”
Such a deflection from the reactionary white man who posts so often about what liberals and minorities think. Moderators can’t stop you from proving theories about the conservative brain.
http://reverbpress.com/politics/proof-republicans-are-stupid/