SUPER BOWL NOTES

I said yesterday that I would talk about the Stones' halftime performance today, which I will, but a couple of other issues came up regarding the NFL championship game, so I've decided to put together something of a grab bag post.

Here goes.

For starters, I got a couple of interesting comments on yesterday's post. First my old pal Matt:

Man, the refs gave Pittsburgh that win. Highway robbery!

You know, it was probably because I was rooting for the Steelers that the officials' calls didn't seem so out of line to me. However, that was just my overall impression--I tried to remember some of the calls, and it wasn't an easy thing to do. I remember a pass interference call against Seattle in the first half that I discussed with the people with whom I was watching the game; our consenus was that it was pretty strict officiating, but within the letter of the rules. On the other hand, the Seahawk defender barely touched the Steeler receiver, so I understand that my subjective understanding of the call is arguable. My guess is that there were probably a few more penalties falling into this subjective category for me, but I just don't recall them.

Does anybody else out there in Real Art land agree with Matt? I'd like to hear about some more dubious penalties, ball spots, etc.

My buddy from Baytown, Adam, made this observation:

How 'bout that dude on the Seahawks who's from Baytown, I had no idea until he said his name and then "Baytown, Texas", my dad said he went to Lee.

OF COURSE he went to Lee. After all, Lee is Baytown's traditional football powerhouse; my and Adam's school, Sterling, is lucky to break even on the season. I like to think that if we'd won a few more games, teaching there wouldn't have been so bad. Anyway, how's that Lee quarterback who plays for Iowa doing? He's got a couple of years of college eligibility left. Anybody think he'll make it into the draft?

Onto the Stones. It's nice to know that the old guys can still rock. And it was a rocking performance. Really rousing performances of a couple of Rolling Stones standards: their rendition of "Satisfaction" was better than the 60s single I thought, much heavier, lots more guitar distortion. I was unfamiliar with the second song "Rough Justice" because its on their new album, which I haven't heard yet, but virtually every review of it I've read says it's a new classic. I really ought to get it.


Mick's still got it.

I spent nearly twenty four hours being disappointed by a moment of what I thought was self-censorship during the opening song "Start Me Up," which is now a bigtime sports anthem. Jagger's got a line toward the end of the song that goes "you make a dead man come," which used to make me giggle back when the song was on the charts in the early 80s. What everybody heard last night, however was simply "you make a dead man..." I figured, oh well, they made their decision on the subject back in the 60s when they sang "let's spend some time together" on the Ed Sullivan show instead of the more familiar "let's spend the night together." Bad boys they may be, but when a lot of money is on the line, they're obviously team players, and, no doubt, the TV people are still freaked out by Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" a couple of years ago. But, man, if Paul McCartney was able to make a drug reference during halftime last year, in the line from "Get Back" that goes "Jo Jo left his home in Tuscon Arizona for some California grass," why couldn't Mick say "come?"

Turns out, however, that I was completely wrong. Jagger did sing the naughty line. ABC bleeped it. From the Houston Chronicle:

Stones, the edited version

They might not have flashed any body parts — except for Mick Jagger's well-toned stomach — but the Rolling Stones made ABC glad it imposed a five-second tape delay on the Super Bowl halftime show.

Two sexually explicit lyrics were excised from the rock legends' performance Sunday. The only song to avoid the editor was (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction, a 41-year-old song about sexual frustration.

In Start Me Up, ABC's editors silenced one word, a reference to a woman's sexual sway over a dead man. The lyrics for Rough Justice included a synonym for rooster that the network also deemed worth cutting out.

Click here for more, although I've excerpted entirely the only bit about the Stones; the rest is mostly about the game.

Not knowing "Rough Justice," I didn't realize it had been censored. So, I'm not really angry with ABC--they did the wrong thing, but I understand why. On the other hand, I'm damned proud of the Stones' sense of artistic integrity. Standing firm on what one believes is, perhaps, the most important virtue an individual can have in these days of illusion and lies. I just love it when aging icons give me reason to think that disillusionment might not be such a good idea.



Strangely, nobody seems to care about the overt sexuality of the Stones well known tongue icon. I feel pretty certain that the image is not supposed to be some sort of juvenile insult: no, the big tongue is about oral sex, or at least, that's what I've always thought. After all, the logo was designed by pop artist Andy Warhol at around the same time, I think, that he designed the cover to the Stones album Sticky Fingers, which is essentially a picture of Jagger's crotch, complete with a working zipper. I guess people only see what they want to see.

It's also nice to note that Keith Richards is still alive. Well, okay, he's actually been dead since the 70s, but the voodoo that keeps his body animated seems to still be in full force.



Where can I get some of that?

Finally, I'm giving the final word the whole event to Noam Chomsky, courtesy of Mike over at This is not a compliment, courtesy of Little Miss Messycovers, courtesy of...well...somebody else. From the documentary film Manufacturing Consent:

And in fact it's striking to see the intelligence that's used by ordinary people in [discussions of] sports [as opposed to political and social issues]. I mean, you listen to radio stations where people call in -- they have the most exotic information [more laughter] and understanding about all kind of arcane issues. And the press undoubtedly does a lot with this.

You know, I remember in high school, already I was pretty old. I suddenly asked myself at one point, why do I care if my high school team wins the football game? [laugbter] I mean, I don't know anybody on the team, you know? [audience roars] I mean, they have nothing to do with me, I mean, why I am cheering for my team? It doesn't mean any -- it doesn't make sense. But the point is, it does make sense: it's a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority, and group cohesion behind leadership elements -- in fact, it's training in irrational jingoism. That's also a feature of competitive sports. I think if you look closely at these things, I think, typically, they do have functions, and that's why energy is devoted to supporting them and creating a basis for them and advertisers are willing to pay for them and so on.

Click here for the rest.

God, Chomsky's so brilliant. Two important points. First, Americans actually are pretty darned intelligent; it's just that all their brains are successfully diverted into rather meaningless pursuits. If all the intellectual ability in this country was actually used in service of the nation, I think we'd be living in a much better place. Second, football is fascist. This is no joke. The entire culture of football is organized like the military, and the metaphor of the game itself is war. Glorifying football is glorifying war and top-down authortirianism; there's no doubt about it. I guess that's why so many players and coaches are conservative. But god, I love football. If we had a healthier society, one that had a better understanding of democracy, we'd probably not be so influenced by the fascism of football, so I don't think it's the game itself. Nonetheless, I have to call a spade a spade: for our current society, football, as a social force, makes things worse, not better.

Of course, I never think about any of that while watching a game.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$