And the Beat Goes On

New drama is surrounding the Tim Tebow Super Bowl Commercial, which I’m sure everyone has heard about by this point. Now, a coalition of women’s groups is calling for CBS to scrap it’s plan to run the ad during the game.

The following is my take on the situation, if you disagree please feel free to voice your opinion below.

It’s really sad how we’ve come to this in America and this situation confuses me. I mean, we do have rights granted to all Americans by our Constitution. So, this coalition has the right to express themselves however they feel. BUT, so does Tebow, CBS, and Focus on the Family. I’m trying not to turn this into a  political, right wing/left wing pro-life/pro-choice debate, so bear with me, but I feel like it is very hypocritical for this group and others to be upset that this commercial is going to be run. They (here I’m talking about the Women’s Media Center) advocate freedom of choice, but only if that choice falls into something they agree with. They do not like the choice CBS is making to run this ad. See where I’m going with this? (I’m trying to keep it shallow, but that may not be the best example.)

“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.
I don’t know, maybe I’m taking it the wrong way, but to me it just sounds like another liberal organization finding something to raise sand about. I make it no secret that I am pro-life. And yes, I get slightly agitated when activist groups like PETA perform outlandish acts like throwing paint on people wearing fur coats. Or when the ACLU and Reverend Sharpton stick their noses in places where they don’t belong. But though I may get annoyed, it is their right, so I don’t make a fuss.
Again, we all have rights, so as long as nobody crosses a line, we all have a very large amount of freedom. (The PETA example is not a good one, b/c they usually do those things as a hit and run type deal, but if caught will suffer consequences. But it came to mind so I put it out there.)
Thus, if CBS chooses to run this ad, I don’t think people shouldn’t get so upset. We’ll have our fill of other commercials, and I’m sure MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) are probably upset that we’ll have a dozen or so Budweiser commercials, but at least they’re not making a national scene of it. I’ll stop here, I’d hate for it to get ugly.

12 Responses to “And the Beat Goes On”

  1. 1 Spence January 26, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    Your argument about rights is misplaced. Tebow has every right to buy that airtime, and the pro-choice group has every right to put out the news releases they do. You’d have the pro-choice group silenced, when in fact their method of operation is speech.

    “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

    I know you claim that the pro-choice group is trying to silence speech, but in reality they’re engaging in their first amendment right to speak out. Their economic threats of protests against CBS are also fully within constitutional rights as well.

    I suspect that if Tebow was advocating a position you were not in favor of, you would not have this reaction.

  2. 2 notsofast January 26, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    If they were trying to get the commercial outlawed by a government entity, you would be correct, but all they are doing is appealing to CBS to see it their way, and to voluntarily remove the add. Just like CBS has the right to air the add, they would have just as much right to pull the add if they perceived that it wasn’t in their interests to air it. That would not be an affront to freedom of speech.

    By the way, I liked your blog about Wilcox Co. My dad is from there, and I’ve been down there countless times in my 31 years.

  3. 3 Andy Coleman January 26, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    Amen brother! If you don’t want to see the commercial, turn the station when it comes on!

  4. 4 Pumpdawg January 26, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    If They can pay the millions for the air time then the commercial should air.If the pro-choice people disagree then they should pay their millions to counter with their own commercial instead of trying to strong-arm CBS.

  5. 5 HamDawg11 January 26, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    Everyone has a right to speak their position and, in effect, hope to influence CBS’s ultimate decision to air or not to air the commercial.

    I wish I could say that if Tebow’s stance were more popular with the American people, then there probably wouldn’t be any resistance. Actually, in my opinion, Tebow’s support of pro-life IS more agreeable with the majority of America, just not the mainstream media and the liberal left. Therein lies the rub….you have a select few with differing opinions than the majority, they just have the desire and energy to make their voice heard more so than the conservative base does.

    It’s a testament to where we are as a nation in 2010.

  6. 6 Derek January 26, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    The problem with the debate over the ad is the same problem with the abortion debate as a whole. There two issues involved and everybody seemingly wants them to fold into one issue. The two issues are:

    Is having an abortion morally acceptable?

    Should the government outlaw abortion?

    I personally answer “no” to both questions. The issue of having an abortion is a deeply personal and moral choice and one which I do not imagine ever making. However, simply because it is not a choice I would make, it does not follow that I want the government making these sorts of choices for me or anyone else. As immoral as I might find a convienence abortion, I find it just as appalling that the hand of government could point its finger at a couple trying to decide if they are capable of raising a down-syndrome baby and saying “we will make this decision for you.” The cognitive dissonance of the “anti-big gubmit right-wing” supporting having the government in that role is striking to say the least.

    Now to the ad. To the extent that the ad encourages people to respect life and to really reflect on the choice to have an abortion, then I am all for it. We need to get to a point where abortion is safe, legal and rare. If Focus on the Family focused its attention there, instead of effecting the political process so that their morality can be imposed upon those who do not share it, I think they could do a world of good.

    Likewise, the abortion rights lobby resists any attempts to bring the moral question of abortion to the forefront because, I can only assume, they believe that moral opposition will invite political opposition.

    We need to get to the point that we all recognize that while the right to an abortion will remain, we should seek to have a country where very few actually exercise it.

  7. 7 SkingleDawg January 26, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    Derek, I’m afraid it’s people just like yourself that want to stand on both sides of the aisle expressing that you want an unrealistic situation to occur that keeps this debate going without much resolution. You are correct in saying that the decision to have an abortion is a moral question but the government should defend life of those that can’t defend themselves at all times, not simply when it’s convenient. Individuals should have the right to choose whether or not to have a child and they do have that choice. They made that choice when they decided to conceive a child, or choose not to prevent it. Once you are past that point, there is no question and again the government should always defend life of the helpless…

    As for my thoughts on the actual ad itself. I have spent the last 4 years hating everything about Tim Teabow and now that he presents an issue that I completely support throws me a bit. I choose to continue to hate Tim Teabow and I hope he presents the issue without much self glorification…other than that I support his and CBS’s decision.

    • 8 Derek January 26, 2010 at 5:22 pm

      If only we could live in the magical world where every conception was by choice. Ever heard of rape? Ever heard of failed contraception? Ever heard of a situation where a doctor says that the mortality chances for your unborn child are less than 10%, but going through the delivery will reduce your chances of reproducing later by 50%? These are not choices for YOU to make for others. They are choices that we should trust individuals to make for themselves. Reflect for a moment on Tim Tebow’s comment that his mother was “brave” not to have had an abortion. Would she not have been much less “brave” if she had Tim under threat of prosecution by her government? The fact that it was even a subject for the Tebow family to discuss, given their devoutness, is all we need to know about where the government belongs in this decision making process. The entire reason that the Tim Tebow story is a story is because his mother had a choice and chose life. Not much of a story if YOU had made the choice for her through the power of your government.

      BTW: the only thing that is “unrealistic” is believing that prohibition means protecting life. Just like prohibition of drugs means no drugs right? In the event of the overturn of Roe, which will never happen mind you, there will be states that permit it and the practice will continue. If what you want really want is less abortions quit going the political and legal route and change peoples minds about the nature of the choice itself. I assume that this will be the message of the commercial and it is a good one.

      BTW2: Government does not protect the defenseless. Never has and never will. At most the Government has a system of rules designed to create a system where disputes between its citizens are resolved in an orderly fashion. The government’s interest is in preventing anarchy not in protecting the innocent or the defenseless. If you don’t believe me walk through some of the rougher neighborhoods around Atlanta at night and see how well your government protects your innocent and defenseless self. My supposition is not very well. They may or may not hold your assailant responsible but that will not prevent the assault.

  8. 9 HamDawg11 January 26, 2010 at 5:36 pm

    Derek, you’ve got some twisted logic…sure you don’t work for the gubmit?

    Does the assailant not know that there will be consequences for his actions? Does the person walking into the “rougher neighborhood” not have some idea that something bad could happen to them? Comparing this to an unborn child is not a good analogy in my opinion.

    We can get into the “abortion is murder” debate later, but the fact that there are laws against murder, there could easily be laws against abortion. Will it prevent them? No, but the one committing the act will know that what he is doing is illegal. Will it decrease the number of abortions performed? Absolutely.

    ‘course, sometimes you can’t mix logic and faith….

    • 10 Derek January 26, 2010 at 6:13 pm

      Crmies are committed by people who

      1) think they will not get caught
      2) are in such a state (anger, jeolousy, rage, doped up, etc… that the law is of no consequence to them

      Rarely do crminals do the act with getting caught in mind. The idea that laws or punishment have a deterrent effect is a joke. People are not, by and large, driven by deterrence. What people do and don’t do is a product of their own sense of right and wrong. For example, I speed pretty much always knowing that I may get a ticket and that my insurance rates may go sky high. The law and the enforcement thereof is irrelevent to me and most of the people sharing the road with me. However I would not drive in such a manner as to seriously threaten the lives and well being of my fellow travelers or pedestrians because that just wouldn’t be the right thing to do. I’m in a hurry, but I don’t want to hurt anyone.

      Just think about it: would you really kill someone if they took murder off the books tomorrow? I doubt it. I know I wouldn’t. However, there are people who would kill if the law was that they were to be executed upon arrest.

      Back in the day in England when any theft was a felony and any felony punishable by hanging, guess where one of the worst areas for pickpocketing offenses was? A: At the site of the hangings. For some reason moral people don’t believe that they don’t break the law because of their morality giving themselves less credit than they deserve while assuming criminals are immoral yet logical and giving them much more credit than they deserve.

      We see suicide bombings every day in the world and we assume that people are driven by deterrence?

  9. 11 Pumpdawg January 26, 2010 at 5:44 pm

    Is this still a Dawg blawg? This started out as a question about a commercial. Bottom line is money.

  1. 1 PETA at it Again « The Grit Tree Trackback on January 28, 2010 at 9:55 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: