No one wants to place blame when your team has just lost a Super Bowl that they were favored to win. Well, maybe people want to place blame, but it's usually the people who have nothing to do with the team who are the ones who are most willing to be the most vocal about the aforementioned championship shortcomings. But leave it to the supermodel wife of the losing Super Bowl quarterback to be the one to come out and say that her husband's team really sucked it up on Sunday and that he can't do everything on the team. Someone else has to catch the balls that he throws.
Apparently, on her way to meet her loser metrosexual husband, Gisele Bundchen had to endure taunts from Giants fans such as "Eli owns your husband!" She didn't seem to care for that very much and did the inadvisable. That's right. She shot back at the sports taunters. Now, responding to people who have just won a Super Bowl against your team for the second time in a row is probably about the most futile exercise that one could ever engage in. While I really enjoy sports, I find that sports talk is about the lowest form of communication in humans. It's just barely above grunting. But according to something called The Insider , Gisele exasperatingly explained to her detractors: "You (have) to catch the ball when you're supposed to catch the ball,My husband cannot [expletive] throw the ball and catch the ball at the same time. I can't believe they dropped the ball so many times." Yeah, she's not going to win any friends with that attitude.
And according to the players who heard about her little hissy fit after her Tommy lost, they felt that "It's like knocking someone when they are down." Yes, it's "like" that in the sense that that is exactly what happened. I'm kind of surprised that she let all of the taunting talk get to her to the point where she said something that she had to have known was going to come back and haunt her in the weird way that things haunt super hot people who are famous for...something. Don't get me wrong. It's one thing to support your husband. It's a totally different thing to support him by throwing all of his teammates under the bus at the same time. The video is below. It's hard to hear (which is why I included the dialogue), but trust me. It's her acting just like I would expect a spoiled supermodel to act when she doesn't get her way.
The Super Bowl was yesterday. I had a good time. I went to a friend's house and watched it amongst about 10 people. Good times. Good food. And little did we know that if we had only looked on Craigslist (and were partial to weirdos) that we could have had our food and drinks paid for (up to $1500 worth!) by some very odd and (seemingly) very lonely soul out there.
Seriously. Here is an ad that was posted on Craigslist on January 31, 2012. At least the guy was thinking ahead. I'll give him that. Don't get me wrong. He's likely a weirdo pervert who I wouldn't want within 50 miles of my home, let alone in my living room. But I like it when people don't wait until the last minute for things. I'll provide you with the text of this guy's very strange proposition, but just so you know I'm not making this up, behold!
And now, the text...
If you're planning on having a Super Bowl party this Sunday, I'm looking for a group of open minded people to let me watch them watch the game.
I'd prefer a party of mostly straight, young couples, but a lot of singles would be fine too, especially if there are guys there who get really into the game and paint their faces.
In return for letting me watch you, I will be more than happy to front the bill for all of your food and drinks, up to $1500. All I ask in return is to have a good view of the entire party and a private area to excuse myself to from time to time.
I'm pretty laid back and definitely won't bother you at all. In fact, if there's a way for me to sit out of view and still see everyone, that would be great. The last people who had me over for their Oscar party barely even knew I was there because I sat in a reading nook behind all the action. I could see and hear them but they couldn't really see or hear me. That kind of set-up would be ideal, if you have it. If not, we can improvise. Worse comes to worse I might just hang out in the bathroom for a little bit right before halftime and at the end of the game.
If interested, please email me before Saturday, and if possible include a picture of your party space and pictures of as many people who are attending the party as you can get your hands on.
OK, then. There are so many disturbing things about this that it's really hard to know where to start. I feel like I need a shower after reading that. This guy takes the whole "I wanna watch" thing to a completely different level. The whole part about him needing a "private area" is completely revolting. I might have "private areas" in my home, but they're not for that and they're certainly not for him and that! Good Lord, sir. Do people really paint their faces when they're watching the game at home? That seems...unnecessary. (Then again, I'm not sure that it's all that "necessary" when you're actually in attendance at the game either. I've never really understood the face painters. Or the chest painters. I don't get them either. But if you're painting your face to watch a game in your own living room, you might want to check yourself. Not like that!)
I can only shudder to think of what this guy looks like and what kind of a guy that he is. We already know that he's kind of guy that's willing to fork out up to $1500 for his kink. I don't know what that means exactly, but I don't think that it's good. I've heard of some strange requests before, but this is definitely one of the strangest. Now, if I could just sit back and hope that things don't get any weirder in this lifetime, I'd be happy. I'm dying to know if anyone took him up on his offer. Should I email him and ask? Hmmm. Do I really want to know? I kind of do. Actually, if someone did take him up on his offer, I'd really like to talk to them. I have several questions for people who are willing to let a complete stranger use their households private areas in exchange for a couple of bags of Funyuns and some dip.
Remember that 10 second Ferris Bueller clip from last week? Turns out, the spot wasn't promoting a sequel. It was just part of a much longer commercial that is promoting the Honda CR-V and will be aired during the Super bowl. And while I'm disappointed that we won't be totally able to catch up a little bit with Ferris, we do get a slight glimpse into what his life might be. (Try and forget that he's married to Sarah Jessica Parker. It really ruins the suspension of disbelief if you can't get the image of her out of your head.) Below is the full commercial. When it airs during the Super Bowl, they will only show a one minute version instead of this full two-and-a-half minute version. I don't know what that's all about. Something to do with $3.5 million per 30-second commercial slot or something. Whatever...
We all know that Sunday's rendition of the Star Spangled Banner at the Super Bowl was less than perfect. But in comparison to other renditions, hey, it wasn't that bad. Don't believe me. Take a gander at this. The video below was shot a couple of years ago in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Apparently, "Officers from across Hamilton County Tennessee gather in front a memorial to remember fallen law enforcement officers." That's all I know. Well, that and that the "singing" of the "anthem" is nothing like I've ever heard before. It kind of sounds the same as the anthem penned by a one Francis Scott Key. Kind of. And the guy "singing" is kind of carrying a tune, so I guess that's why it's called singing. Other than that, there aren't a lot of similarities to the national anthem of the United States actually being sung. No. In fact, there are very few if, in fact, any more than the ones I have just cited. Take a listen. Recognize any of it? It's OK if you don't. It's barely recognizable as much of anything.
See? I told you. Look, I admire anyone who can get up and try to sing in front of others, especially for something as important as a memorial for fallen law enforcement officers. I really do. But for something that important, don't you think that maybe you should just do a quick scan of the words? Maybe even rehearse it once or twice the day before? Carry the lyrics up there with you if you need to. It's OK. I won't think less of you. (Well, I won't think less of you if you read the lyrics and get it right. If you have lyrics written down and you still can't come up with the correct wording? That's odd and I cannot be a party to something like that.) But when you're up there "singing" as if your vocabulary has just been put on "Shuffle" and random words are just flying out of your mouth in a semi-discernible tune? That's exactly how you end up on YouTube and that's exactly how you end up the subject of today's post. And really, those are two things that I don't think many of us would ever strive for.
Congratulations to the Green Bay Packers on a Super Bowl game well played. While I enjoyed the game, I really think that the commercials were not up to par. And if you're going to try to tell me that it isn't about the commercials, well, you'd be wrong. If you're forking over $3 million for a thirty second ad spot, you're supposed to kick it up a notch. But I'm not really here to talk about the commercials. No, I'm here to talk about the national anthem. And I think I shall start out by asking, "What in the what was that?" The anthem, most of it, was sung by a one Christina Aguilera. She claimed, at the time that she was anointed vocal belter of national tuneage, that she had "... been performing the anthem since I was seven years old and I must say the Super Bowl is a dream come true." A quick check of Wikipedia shows that Ms. Aguilera is now thirty years old. That should have given her twenty three years to practice. Too bad it wasn't twenty four.
See, she appeared (translation: she totally did) to have forgotten the words or remembered the words incorrectly at one point. I only say this because instead of singing "O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming", she came up with "What so proudly we watched at the twilight's last gleaming." Yeah, that's not right at all. She managed to correctly place and sing the words "we watched", but other than that, I had no idea what she was talking about. It's like she kind of took the second line from the anthem "What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming" and kind of mixed it in with what she was supposed to sing. And while she didn't really miss a beat while she sang it, it was still wrong.
The video of her debacle is below. If it doesn't play, try clicking here and watching it over at YouTube. I wasn't really all that fond of how she sang the rest of the song, albeit correctly. I guess I like it better when the high notes are hit instead of being taken down an octave so that they're doable for the average singer. And while I'm not calling Christina Aguilera average, her performance certainly was.
Sorry for yesterday's post being super uber late. I haven't felt all that great in the last couple of days. (I don't like to say that I'm sick or getting sick because I don't like to be sick. I figure if I just avoid that terminology, everything will be fine. Try it yourself! Though you should probably be warned that it doesn't really work. Like, at all.)
So, I'm going to keep in line with the theme of Super Bowl commercials. (What? One day does not a theme make? You try feeling like I do and then saying that. Trust me. One day does a theme make!) Bud Light always seems to win when it comes to most amusing Super Bowl ads. And again, I'm not just referring to the ones that make it on the air. I have another favorite that came no where close to being aired and it is hilarious as well. It kind of has a similar theme to the Swear Jar commercial. (See?! Bud Light thought that one of something could make for a theme! I don't see why I can't.) If it worked for them, it's going to work for me. (I hope to be back in tiptop form shortly. I've been doing this every day for three years. I can't stop now! It might be some sort of Internet record!) Behold!
It's less than a week until the Super Bowl. And that means less than a week to some awesome commercials. Granted, they're not as good as they used to be. But there's usually at least one or two that will really stand out for years to come. And those that do stand out? Well, we can usually thank Bud Light for those. In fact, some of the best Super Bowl commercials (in my never to be humble opinion) are the ones that never aired. But, thanks to the accessibility of the Innerwebs and the YouTube, now they are available every day, all the time! How great is that? Pretty great, that is correct. And allow me to demonstrate just how pretty great it is with probably what is my all time favorite, never aired on TV, Bud Light ad. They call it, humbly enough, The Swear Jar. Enjoy it, you effers.
The Super Bowl was played yesterday. Congratulations to the New Orleans Saints on their amazing victory! The game itself was superb. It was very exciting and I'm really glad that I watched it. What wasn't so exciting and what I wasn't so thrilled to have been subjected to was the halftime performance of The Who.
If you were wondering just how old the members of The Who are, you weren't the only one. The number four most frequently searched topic of yesterday according toGoogle Trends was "how old is roger daltrey". Roger Daltrey is 65 and Pete Townshend is equally geezer-ific at 64. Now, I'm not saying that if you're old that you still can't bring the rock like you did when you were younger. But before decimating this particular performance, I want to point out that the song "My Generation" was conspicuously absent from the song list. There's a reason for that and it lies somewhere in the lyric of "Hope I die before I get old." Well, that didn't happen, as they're clearly old and clearly alive. The lyric could have easily been changed to "Hope I die before I make an ass out of myself by performing at the Super Bowl when I am clearly past my prime and unable to fake it any longer."
I'm not sure exactly who the chap was that was seated behind the drums. All I know is that is was not the original drummer of The Who. The original drummer was Keith Moon and he died in 1978. I'm pretty sure that he was one in a long string of musicians that was unceremoniously found face down in his own vomit. There's a lot of ways that you can leave this world, but I've gotta think that head first in a puddle of your own excrement is one of the least dignified methods available, wouldn't you?
I will credit Roger Daltrey with continuing to have an enormous lung capacity to belt out these songs, as it was evident during his performance that he was capable not so much of carrying a tune as much as he was simply shouting the songs. He was sporting some sort of pale blue eyewear that wasn't always evident that is was, in fact, a pair of glasses. For a good three minutes, I thought the man had way overdone it on the eye shadow. (Also, his harmonica playing days seem to be behind him as well.
And old man Pete can definitely still play that axe of his. They music part was fine. It was the singing/yelling part that wasn't so fine. Oh, and the sheer terror that Pete Townshend's shirt, which began to unbutton at the bottom, might actually come flying all the way off, leaving viewers to gape at the spectacle of a bare chested, 64-year old British man surrounded by several colorful laser beams and a vast array of pyrotechnics.
Overall, it was probably the worst Super Bowl halftime show I have ever seen. It was one of the worst live musical performances that I have ever seen outside of the Super Bowl as well. I don't have any problem with the elderly performing their classics, but only as long as they can actually perform them. Who was last year's entertainer? Bruce Springsteen? He's an oldster and he did just fine (right up until he slid across the stage in his too tight leather pants and plowed into a cameraman). Prince was awesome. I know he's not old, but it has been quite a while since he's had a hit (and if that song that he wrote for the Minnesota Vikings is any indication, it's going to be quite a while before he has another). He did fine. Was it Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction that caused the halftime entertainment to veer from something that people enjoy watching to something that has people who are under 25 just cringing and confused? Was that it? Nipplegate? Was that the problem?
All I know is that if we never see The Who perform live again, it will probably be for the best. I'm happy and thankful for all of the songs that they have given us over the years (most notably those that were written and originally performed when they were just kids and likely high as freaking kites), but there's no need for me to actually perform the songs any longer. I know it's them. Isn't that good enough. Man, I hope so. I certainly don't want to be subjected to anything like that anytime soon. The video of a large portion of this debacle is below. See for yourself.
We've got the Super Bowl just right around the corner. Well, it's next week. I realize that's a pretty big corner, but it's still pretty close. And when it's Super Bowl time, that's when the station that's airing the game starts to wrap up finalizing all of the commercials that are going to be shown during the game. Already there is a lot of controversy over some of the ads and they've got nothing to do with those cute Clydesdales.
What we have stirring up some fake controversy (yep, another fakeroversy) is an ad that was paid for by the Christian conservative group Focus on the Family. Conservative. Family. Yep. You guessed it. They're "pro-life", also known as anti-abortion. This ad is going to convey the meaning behind the theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." It is also going to contain a one Tim Tebow (apparently a really good collegiate quarterback for Florida) and a one Pam Tebow, the mother of the aforementioned Tim.
According to the huffy folks over there at theHuffington Post the ad will be "...chronicling Pam Tebow's 1987 pregnancy. After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child and gave birth to Tim." Um, OK. But can I just say something here? I want my freaking Clydesdales back!!
Look, do I personally care if this group wants to buy this ad time? No, not really. I'm not offended by it. It doesn't particularly bother me because of the subject matter. However, lately it has come to light that abortion has been illegal in the Philippines since the 1930s and it would have been odd for the doctors there to recommend such a procedure. See, that does bother me. You want to send your anti-abortion message to a bazillion people watching a football game? I guess if you have the money for that, you can do so. But I'd really rather that you didn't. And here's why:
I like the commercials during the Super Bowl. I find them to be interesting and hilarious. (And in the case of the GoDaddy commercials, I find them to be interesting and...uh....um...what? Oh. Sorry. I was just envisioning GoDaddy commercials of the past and got distracted. GoDaddy isn't so much pro-life or pro-choice as much as it is pro-breasts.) I want to see interesting and hilarious commercials during the Super Bowl. I especially want to see interesting and hilarious commercials during the Super Bowl if I am watching said game at a venue with other people, some of which may or may not have imbibed just a little bit too much of any sort of alcoholic beverage furnished for said viewing.
You're never going to come to a nationwide consensus on whether or not abortion is OK or not. And from what I can tell, people have some really strong opinions about the whole matter. Don't believe me? Just ask that dude down in Kansas who blew away the abortion doc whilst he was sitting in church. I'm thinking that if your opinion is so strong that it leads you to justify blowing other people away with a gun while they're in church that you're not going to be swayed very easily to see the other side's point of view, you know what I'm saying?
And the last thing I want is a room full of people who may or may not have been drinking and who may or may not have extremely strong opinions about this whole abortion matter. That right there could turn the Super Bowl into the Super Brawl. It's supposed to be fun! Why do are we being subjected to commercials about abortions?!
Can you imagine if this sort of thing catches on? What if next year, instead of having all of the cute little dogs and horses unite in their ways to pull some sort of decrepit wagon into Small Town, USA so that all of the residents can have icy cold beer (some with a minimal amount of calories), we were instead subjected to political ads? And abortion ads? And gay marriage ads? And grandparent visitation rights ads? Oh, my God, I'd hang myself.
We could find ourselves in the not so distant future, sitting down for the big game with our family and friends with some youngsters, hopefully belonging to said family and friends. We could find ourselves saying to said youngsters, "You know, Billy...it wasn't that long ago that the commercials during the Super Bowl were really funny! Yes! Funny! There used to be these horses...Clydesdales, they were called...furry hooves, boy were they a hoot! But now, we've just got these political commercials all the time and...my God! How many of these with President Hillary are we going to have to sit through?!" That would be rough. Really. Rough.
It's not a controversy that CBS sold a commercial spot for an ad that is going to be anti-abortion. It's not. It's a fakeroversy. If there's such a problem with it, what say you pro-abortion folks roll out your own ad and get your message out there as well. And actually, I wish that they would. I'd find that very interesting, because I'm not all that aware of many pro-abortion advertising mediums of late. It's a tricky thing to advocate without sounding like a villain, I get that. But maybe try the Clydesdales! People really enjoy those!
Really, what are people worried about? That the ad is going to sway people into what? Not having abortions? I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think that anyone out there that is contemplating an abortion is going to change her mind simply because of the possibility that their child could grow up to be a college football quarterback. I don't think the reason that they're considering the abortion in the first place is because they're worried that the youngster won't be good at sports. I think that has next to nothing to do with the decision. Besides, the only people that one would have to be concerned with being swayed by something like this would be the Supreme Court. And from what I can tell, they're about as anxious to have anything to do with the subject as I am, that is to say, they don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. Nor do I think that they're the sort of bunch that's going to be swayed by a freaking ad airing during the Super Bowl.
By the way, below is a Bud Light ad which was rejected as a Super Bowl ad a couple of years ago. Apparently, its subject matter was not suitable for the big game. Suitable or not, its freaking hilarious. And I'd rather watch that than I would watch a commercial having anything to do with abortion.
I can only hope that this will be the last "serious" ad which will air during the Super Bowl. We're not wanting to have brawls with drunken family members because of an argument instigated by an anti-abortion commercial. We're wanting to be happy drunks. Drunk and happy and covered in grease and sauce from too many Buffalo wings. That's what we want. We're America. It's what we strive for. Now...where are those horses? What about that talking E*Trade kid? He's a riot.
Wait! It's just come to my attention that the actors in the above disallowed Bud Light commercial have an encore commercial. Please, please, please let it make it to the Super Bowl this year. We can handle this can't we?
Can we PLEASE let this GO?!?! Actually, the answer is finally, FINALLY, yes. Well, maybe. If I have to hear one more time about the "wardrobe malfunction" of the 2004 Super Bowl Halftime Show with Justin Timberlake, Janet Jackson and surprise unannounced guest, Janet's Nipple, I'm going to lose it. Yes, we all saw her breast. Yes, it was lovely. It's time to move on. But actually, I think this time, we might really be nearing the end of NipGate. Four freakin' years later.
It all started years ago, during a time in which halftime shows at the Super Bowl consisted of marching bands from high schools you never heard of from the rural midwest. Yet 2004 brought us Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake, two names you hear a lot about, but really, not much more than that. (Seriously. The last time you saw Justin Timberlake in public was....? The halftime show in 2004. Correct.) As and they performed their song having to do with, um, sex? I guess. (Aren't they all about sex? Or wanting it? Or not getting it? Or thinking about it? Or having it? Something like that.) And 90 million people were watching (actually, it was halftime, so at least half of those folks were either in the bathroom, getting something to eat or outside having a smoke, so maybe 45 million. 55 million tops.) as they heard Justin Timberlake belt out, "Gonna have you naked by the end of this song!" Oh, how prophetic that phrase turned out to be.
Next thing you know, Justin reaches over to Janet's bustier-like-breast-push-up-made-out-of-leather-or-something-shiny-thing and simulates a grabbing/ripping-off motion. Only it wasn't so simulated. And that's when the "wardrobe malfunction" heard 'round the world did occur. In the words of Seinfeld's own Jerry Seinfeld, "I'm not sure, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I see a nipple." Words echoing that same sentiment came flying out of the mouths of at least 45 million people that Sunday evening in January. "Was that...?" "Did I see...?" "That was her....." "Did he..." "I just saw Janet Jackson's boob."
Now the way that the press overreacted (shocker, I know), not to mention the FCC, you'd have thought they both stripped down and started filming a porno right there on the 50-yard line. The FCC fined CBS $500,000. CBS then immediately changed their policy to have video delay during live events. (Good plan.) They also challenged the $500,000 fine in court. And yesterday, 4 1/2 years later, CBS won. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the FCC "acted arbitrarily and capriciously" when it issued the fine. It also said, basically, that "the FCC deviated from its nearly 30-year practice of fining indecent broadcast programming only when it was so "pervasive as to amount to 'shock treatment' for the audience." And clearly, Nip Gate did not amount to 'shock treatment' for the audience, as it only lasted for nine-sixteenths of a second. Wait. What?
Correct. Nine-sixteenths of a second was how long Janet Jackson's right breast was exposed. (Hell, seeing a breast for nine-sixteenths of a second? That constitutes "a date" over here.) And four and a half years later, those nine-sixteenths of a second still come back to haunt. And naturally, there are those who feel the need to issue inflammatory statements about just such a ruling. "Those" meaning people who tend to belong to groups like the Parents Television Council. ("Those" also meaning people who tend to overreact to most things and also tend to blow things out of proportion and skew them in such a way that you'd reach the conclusion that whoever was responsible for whatever atrocity they were denouncing was, in fact, a Nazi.)
For example, take Tim Winter, of the Parents Television Council. His reaction was, "If a striptease during the Super Bowl in front of 90 million people — including millions of children — doesn't fit the parameters of broadcast indecency, then what does?" OK, if you think that a nine-sixteenths of a second glimpse at a nipple qualifies as a "striptease", then you have really been missing out on quite a bit, sir. But if it does fit your definition of "striptease", I still don't think that it fits the "parameters of broadcast indecency." If it were really a "striptease" it would fit the parameters of stupidity if that was the plan all along. But it wasn't and it wasn't, so it's not. So there.
So, finally! A bit of common sense injected into a court ruling. Who knew? Who cares? I'm just glad they were being reasonable over there on the bench. Thus, I'd like to thank that 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals for recognizing that accidents do occur. That's right. Sometimes, nip happens.
No one wants to place blame when your team has just lost a Super Bowl that they were favored to win. Well, maybe people want to place blame, but it's usually the people who have nothing to do with the team who are the ones who are most willing to be the most vocal about the aforementioned championship shortcomings. But leave it to the supermodel wife of the losing Super Bowl quarterback to be the one to come out and say that her husband's team really sucked it up on Sunday and that he can't do everything on the team. Someone else has to catch the balls that he throws.
taunts from Giants fans such as "Eli owns your husband!" She didn't seem to care for that very much and did the inadvisable. That's right. She shot back at the sports taunters. Now, responding to people who have just won a Super Bowl against your team for the second time in a row is probably about the most futile exercise that one could ever engage in. While I really enjoy sports, I find that sports talk is about the lowest form of communication in humans. It's just barely above grunting. But according to something called The Insider , Gisele exasperatingly explained to her detractors: "You (have) to catch the ball when you're supposed to catch the ball,My husband cannot [expletive] throw the ball and catch the ball at the same time. I can't believe they dropped the ball so many times." Yeah, she's not going to win any friends with that attitude. 
And according to the players who heard about her little hissy fit after her Tommy lost, they felt that "It's like knocking someone when they are down." Yes, it's "like" that in the sense that that is exactly what happened. I'm kind of surprised that she let all of the taunting talk get to her to the point where she said something that she had to have known was going to come back and haunt her in the weird way that things haunt super hot people who are famous for...something. Don't get me wrong. It's one thing to support your husband. It's a totally different thing to support him by throwing all of his teammates under the bus at the same time. The video is below. It's hard to hear (which is why I included the dialogue), but trust me. It's her acting just like I would expect a spoiled supermodel to act when she doesn't get her way. 
Sphere: Related Content
