You know, Murphy’s Law always wins out. Just when I decide I’ve got to lighten up on the blog, perhaps write something totally lighthearted or something related to my profession, this pops up:
For those of you who haven’t clicked the link and read it, allow me guess what you’re thinking: GoDaddy.com had another advertisement banned for having too many scantly clad women. (Or, one woman too scantly clad.)
No this article is about an ad featuring 2007 Heisman Trophy Winner Tim Tebow and his Mom. It seems back in 1987, Tim’s Mom was a missionary and got sick while pregnant in the Philippines. The doctors advised her to have an abortion. She didn’t, and you guessed it, had a Heisman Trophy Winning son.
It sounds like a story that should leave you feeling all warm and fuzzy. Here’s a kid who’s likely headed to the NFL who almost didn’t exist. Instead, what’s the reaction?
Various women’s organizations want CBS to drop the ad. I suppose they could have argued that this is a sexually oriented topic, and wasn’t appropriate for a family hour, but they didn’t go there. Here’s a quote from the above referenced article:
The protest letter from the Women's Media Center suggested that CBS should have turned down the ad in part because it was conceived by Focus on the Family.
"By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers," the letter said.
That’s a lot to absorb in one shot. Even assuming that everything the Women’s Media Center said is true, I wonder what ever happened to “The views expressed in this commercial do not necessarily reflect those of this station or its affiliates.” Did they throw that line away? What makes it null and void?
The argument actually deteriorated from here:
Terry O'Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women, said she had respect for the private choices made by women such as Pam Tebow but condemned the planned ad as "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning."
How do you make that argument with a straight face? “I respect your choices, even thought I think they’re offensive and demeaning.” “I like this beer, even though I think it tastes like elephant urine.” It’s a direct and transparent contradiction. I know that the greatest sin of all in American society is being close minded, but you can’t look open minded by saying stuff like this.
"That's not being respectful of other people's lives," O'Neill said. "It is offensive to hold one way out as being a superior way over everybody else's."
Does Terry O’Neill really want to break out the duct tape and silence anyone who doesn’t agree with Terry O’Neill?
Duct tape is great stuff folks. It doesn’t care where it’s applied. It’s cheap. Anyone can get it. If you can put it across Tim Tebow’s mouth, you can put it across Terry O’Neill’s mouth…and my mouth…and your mouth.
Perhaps that’s the goal. Get society where you like it, and tape everyone up so it can’t change. It’s not a new concept. The founding fathers were wise when they included the First Amendment in the Constitution, but they weren’t clairvoyant. They knew that societies will oppress when allowed.
The funniest part about all of this is that the article was actually censored after it was posted. They took out a comment made by Gregg Doyel of CBSSports, which is how the article originally ended. He called Super Bowl Sunday, "the holiest day of the year" and stating that "February 7 is simply not the day to have that discussion." I didn’t get a chance to write my blog until after that pristine comment was deleted from the article, and I had to Google the comment to find it again:
Lewis Black has a Skit to the effect that he has no religion, but he always watches the Super Bowl…and it’s on a Sunday, so at least he’s trying. This sounded so much like that skit, I thought perhaps at first Lew might have cried copyright infringement.
What was the original purpose of ending the piece that way? It sounds like this was the paragraph that was supposed to include our opinion—as if most people are running around like children with their hands over their ears saying “La, La, La, I can’t hear you” over and over.
This leaves us with another question: Why did they delete the comment? Was Doyel being profound and illustrating the insanity of the whole thing? His remarks imply that the everyday man wants to remain ignorant and enjoy his pastimes. Did he slide this by everyone at first, until the editors realized what he really meant?
Or did he really believe that ignorance is bliss and people only want to be ignorant right now?
If he’s wrong, he’s merely insulting his readers. If he’s right, he might accidentally shake people out of their bliss.
Either way we can’t have that. Someone might be offended.