The latest insanity is from a writer named Stuart Elliott, with their latest piece of garbage titled "Super Bowl Ads of Cartoonish Violence, Perhaps Reflecting Toll of War"
A few excerpts will show you the sickness that prevails at the New York Times these days:
For instance, in a commercial for Bud Light beer, sold by Anheuser-Busch, one man beat the other at a game of rock, paper, scissors by throwing a rock at his opponent’s head.
In another Bud Light spot, face-slapping replaced fist-bumping as the cool way for people to show affection for one another. In a FedEx commercial, set on the moon, an astronaut was wiped out by a meteor. In a spot for Snickers candy, sold by Mars, two co-workers sought to prove their masculinity by tearing off patches of chest hair.
Now, I do not know about everyone else, but the only reason I even have the game ON is to see the commercials and I personally found the snickers commercial hysterical.
In case Mr. Elliott does not know this...... it is called HUMOR.
Not everyone finds the sam things funny, people have different tastes, but to see Iraq in everything is unhealthy and shows that Mr. Elliott needs to get out more, live a little and maybe make an appointment for a doctor, this problem MIGHT need medication.
Then, too, there was the unfortunate homonym at the heart of a commercial from Prudential Financial, titled “What Can a Rock Do?”
The problem with the spot, created internally at Prudential, was that whenever the announcer said, “a rock” — invoking the Prudential logo, the rock of Gibraltar — it sounded as if he were saying, yes, “Iraq.”
To be sure, sometimes “a rock” is just “a rock,” and someone who has watched the Super Bowl XIX years in a row only for the commercials may be inferring things that Madison Avenue never meant to imply.
May be inferring things? How about DEFINITELY inferring things.
Get out some guy, leave your keyboard, take a leave of absence, see a DR., take those little pills they give you and GET A LIFE, cause obviously you are seeing things that aren't there.
Is this what the New York Times considers "news" these days? It is clear why they have lost their credibility.
Utterly ridiculous.
This is the ridiculous item of the day.
The best analysis comes from The Moderate Voice:
The Times has long since forfeited its position at the pinnacle of American journalism. Since 2000, the Times has steadily declined into a hyperpartisan rag, obsessed with “getting” the Bush administration at any cost. While this has led to some accountability for questionable public policy decisions, such as the exposure of a secret warrantless wiretapping program existing in spite of FISA provisions for secret warrants and post hoc warrants that would allow for monitoring anyway, the anti-Bush obsession at the Times has also gone overboard to “expose” perfectly legal and uncontroversial programs, such as the NSA monitoring of international financial transactions essential to al-Qaeda operations. At every stage, the Times prioritizes bashing Bush above all other concerns.
Even in our post-heroic culture of snideness and cynicism, it is sad when the exalted are brought low.
Maybe we should supply some names and numbers to some good shrinks for this guy, Elliott.
.
