Posted on 09/26/2006 6:01:32 AM PDT by LS
I watched the full TiVo-d MNF football this morning, and was a little disturbed by some of the things that I heard.
First off, I rooted for the Saints. I like their team, and they are a classic "underdog" story. I hope they win every game until they lose to my Cowboys in the NFC Championship.
BUT . . . the message that seemed to come across---I could be wrong---was that football "was" the future of NO, that it was all the city had. Having Spike Lee in the booth didn't help, but beyond that, it seemed like the reconstruction of the SuperDome, which, I'm guessing, was done overwhelmingly with tax dollars was kind of the wrong message to be sending.
I could have missed it, but I didn't see the "success stories" being featured of the private companies that had come back (have any?) or the private-sector's successful rebuilding of communities. (They did mention Harry Connick, Jr.'s program, but didn't really focus on its success.
I guess my concern is that the underlying feeling was that if ALL a city has is a football team---no political leaders who can rally the public, no civic leaders who can create an atmosphere of confidence, and no entrepreneurs (aside from Emeril, who has done a whale of a job) who are creating jobs---then you don't have much.
Now, I do think it could be a reasonable business strategy to re-build from the "inside out," and bring back tourism, sports teams, restaurants, hotels, etc. But that would require something the MNF team didn't want to touch: the incredible corruption of Nagin and the LA scene, and the necessity of having a strong, reliable police force that will make tourists feel safe. (Last couple of times I was in NO, I did not feel safe.)
Am I making too much of this, or were others here troubled?
Good question, and I don't know. Dallas fans are NOT happy with BP's offense, but we've never been able to pin down if it's the line, the QB, or Parcells.
I think eventually they will have an option to let you pick the camera angle you want to see. So you can stay focused on the game (or you can choose to look at the cheerleaders).
Yah, that was George Gilder's prediction on "Life After Television," or whatever his book was called. But I haven't seen it yet.
I know that Dallas fans (I kinda root for the Boys, but I'm a Lions fan (have pity on me)) have been disappointed in Parcells, for when he came here they all had visions of Super Bowls dancing in their heads, especially after the 10-6 season.
But when you think of where this thing was before Parcells came here, he's done a pretty good job of at least changing the culture to the point where Dallas is a year or two away from being a SB Contender again.
That's my point---it wasn't even MOSTLY about football. The cameras were not on the field as much as they should be. I NEVER want to see those bozos in the booth.
I'm not a BP basher. I do think his offense is stultified. But his drafting (Spears, Ware, James, Jones, Fasano, Canty, Watkins) has been especially good recently.
I live in Louisiana, and the reasons you mentioned are why I watched the Astros game last night.
I bet they didn't get through two minutes the whole game without mentioning Katrina, and that's all we ever hear down here anyway, it really gets tiring.
I was also turned off by the bands and hype- it's a football game, for crying out loud!
Anyway---LET'S GO 'STROS!
New Orleans has never had their priorites straight, why should they start now?
Geaux Tigers (Detroit that is!)
Parcells has never won a Super Bowl without Belichick, but Belichick has won Super Bowls without Parcells...
So, are you saying it was too much about the people in the booth?
I can easily agree.
But your original post seemed to say it was making the rebirth of New Orleans all about the football team.
Yeah, but Belechik has never won SuperBowls without Brady. Gimme Brady, you keep Belichick, and we'll see who wins Super Bowls.
Both. It was about everything except football, with a political undertone about how rotten we were for not helping more.
1. If I find myself in a situation -- in person -- where charity or some kind of assistance is required (e.g., helping a stranded motorist in a rural area).
2. If a friend or family member is in need.
3. If I receive a solicitation for a charitable effort and I personally know someone who is involved in the work and can vouch for its validity and effectiveness.
One thing I will never do under any circumstances is contribute money or do an act of charity in the aftermath of a disaster that only affects me on a personal level through media reports. There's no way in hell I'm writing a check to the Red Cross just because some @sshole like Geraldo Rivera is on television telling me about a "crisis" in New Orleans -- or just because some @sshole like Bill Clinton is out there raising money for "relief efforts" in some Third World sh!t-hole.
That may sound harsh, but it saves a lot of unnecessary aggravation and ensures that charity ends up being exactly what it is supposed to be.
"I hope they win every game until they lose to my Cowboys Redskins in the NFC Championship.
There, fixed it. ;-)"
LOL! Go Skins!
Good rules. I can't say that I regret my time and food donations for the Katrina people, but there was SOOOOO much that was donated, it boggled the mind to see it all. In the future, I'll be a bit less emotional and more level headed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.