- The Washington Times - Saturday, November 20, 2004

Football shenanigans

I just finished reading Deborah Simmons’ column “Ready for some football, eh?” (Op-Ed, Friday), and I can’t help but think that she’s missed the point of the big flap over the … What? The game? No, an intro sequence.

But an intro that was an ad for what? More casual sex? Seems so. When is enough enough?

I must say I rarely watch TV anymore. It seems as though every time I do, there are more and more subtle and not-so-subtle ways to push the idea that sex is the one thing everyone should be doing with anyone at any time and in any place.

It’s not even the matter of dropping the towel. Dressed or undressed, the message is the same. And to such a degree that some think teens need condoms. The smut movement has been very successful.

ANN SHOCH

Fort Washington

Come on now, ABC and the NFL. This stunt before “Monday Night Football” was contrived for programming purposes, notwithstanding the league’s and the network’s act of contrition.

These television and football executives are smart enough to know controversial sensationalism promotes discussion among those around the office water cooler, which leads to a ratings jump in the telecast’s weekly viewing standings.

If one is under such an illusion to actually believe the sincerity of their regret, check out the cheerleader outfits during the next ballgame. It’s all about sex, which coalesces with the violence of football.

And for those who have criticized ABC’s “Saving Private Ryan” Veterans Day evening: This presentation, at least, was made with the intent to foster a historical context in the collective mind of the American people of what the GI must endure during the “fog of war.”

Many of today’s Americans seem to show a greater sense of indignation over “Ryan’s” battlefield language than the hell of war itself, whereupon thousands die, suffer or live with horrendous wounds for the remainder of their lives merely for the sake of politics and ideology.

As Aretha Franklin once crooned, “Who’s zoomin’ who?”

EARL BEAL

Terre Haute, Ind.

I’ve watched pro football since the mid-1940s and enjoy the strategic planning, rules, execution, talent and skills of the coaches and players.

Why, then, do we allow, as I remember Don Meredith used to call them, “Dickey Do Dances” in the end zone?

Jim Brown said it best recently: The players today spend more time planning about what they will do in the end zone than how to get there. Fines are insignificant to these millionaire showboaters.

Let’s stiffen the rules and suspend them for a few games. After all, those who are paid the most and are critically important to a team’s success end up in the end zone more frequently. Suspensions will stop this gyrating-not-affiliated-with-the-game-of-football nonsense.

JOCK SWANSTROM

Spokane Valley, Wash.

A shining example

As a proud black American, I congratulate Condoleezza Rice on her recent well- deserved presidential appointment to secretary of state (“Bush names Rice as secretary of state,” Page 1, Wednesday) after serving as national security adviser for the past four years.

If national civil rights and women’s organizations were true to their supposed missions, Miss Rice would be their superstar poster girl. They should be holding her high as a shining example of what minorities and women can achieve in America through education, hard work and character.

However, I guarantee that this brilliant, outstanding black woman will not be on the A-list of the NAACP or National Organization for Women. Imagine, the highest black woman in America being dissed by the nation’s premier minority and women’s organizations.

Why such disdain for Miss Rice? Her success does not support their real agenda of promoting victimhood. These groups thrive on the myth that the American dream is unavailable to women and minorities.

Without question, women and minorities have been wronged in the past and probably still are, although to much lesser degrees. But America has come a long way, baby. The leadership of these groups has not.

Oddly, even the mainstream media shows disdain for nonwhiny successful women and minorities. Liberal groups and media almost have a “Who do you think you are, making it without us?” attitude. When the media interview Miss Rice, it’s more like a pit bull attack. And yet, with elegance and grace, she smiles and answers their agenda-driven questions.

Meanwhile, rappers who degrade women and promote violence against one another and even against the police are defended by civil rights and women’s groups and warmly embraced by the media as great artists, visionaries and insightful interpreters of real America.

Fortunately, young Americans are smarter and more intuitive than the left might think. They know Miss Rice is the real deal and someone to emulate. She has inspired and will continue to inspire, in even greater numbers, women and minorities to come up higher and achieve their American dream.

Miss Rice is an American hero and a national treasure. Congratulations again, Condi. You go, girl.

LLOYD MARCUS

Deltona, Fla.

Keep pressure on White House

I agree with Ian de Silva that illegal immigration is a serious moral issue. (“Immigration: a moral issue,” Op-Ed, Friday). It evens trumps the horrors of abortion because even though abortion destroys babies, illegal immigration destroys an entire nation.

Illegal immigration is destroying America by creating cultural, economic and security chaos. It is even undermining the integrity of the ballot box, from which Americans derive their cherished freedom.

Even more alarming, Vice President Dick Cheney recently commented that terrorists might be planning to smuggle weapons of mass destruction across our porous borders. Consequently, illegal immigration may kill people (including babies), too — hundreds of thousands of them in one fell swoop, blown to bits in a mushroom cloud.

Social conservatives need to include illegal immigration in their moral grab bag and pressure the White House and Congress to stop this blatant betrayal of our country. If illegal immigration persists, we should remove the Benedict Arnold incumbents of both parties in the 2006 primaries.

LOU VENTICINQUE

Jamison, Pa.

An obstructionist in the Senate?

In light of the Democrats’ losses in the Senate, I find Sen. Harry Reid’s arrogance (“Reid picked as minority leader,” Nation, Wednesday) in light of the direction the electorate has chosen — tort and Social Security reform — surprising. Though Mr. Reid won re-election with 61 percent of the vote in Nevada, I believe he forgets that he barely won the 1998 election with only hundreds of votes to spare. Many physicians throughout the nation contributed to the campaign of John Thune to help defeat Sen. Tom Daschle in South Dakota. It is a shame that we will have to wait until 2010 to do the same for Mr. Reid. Hopefully, he becomes more in tune and enlightened to the direction the nation’s voters have chosen and doesn’t use the antiquated filibuster rules (60 votes to allow consideration of legislation) of the Senate to become the obstructionist your article seems to suggest he wishes to become.

DR. GEORGE L. WEBER

Philadelphia

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide