The BLOG Flume -- Let's Lighten Up

Laugh at the insanity rampant in the courtroom, in the parks on TV and in Las Vegas.

Written by Russell Meyer
Published: November 18, 2004 at 11:36 AM

Despite being light on news, my last flume sparked a furious debate. This flume is a bit Disney-heavy, but contains some lighter fare while providing enough fodder out there for all you Disney-bashers, enjoy…

On a Serious Note
Orlando Sentinel 11/17/04

It’s time for the labor unions to vote on a new proposal submitted by Disney execs. The deal will increase pay and decrease healthcare premiums, but still does not appear to be enough for HERE and Teamsters leaders. The two more dominant unions are urging membership to vote down the proposal, while Disney and other union leaders are urging an agreement and end to the negotiations. Universal health care and its ramifications aside, unions, while in many cases beneficial to large groups of employees working for massive companies, prove yet again that they have the ability to gum-up the system. What’s at issue here is the power of unions even in a “right to work” state, where a large percentage of employees are not even union members.

Eisner Takes the Gloves Off
Orlando Sentinel 11/17/04

Michael Eisner was placed under high scrutiny as he faced cross-examination in the Delaware Chancery Court trial where shareholders are seeking damages against Eisner. "I accepted the fact that the contract said what it said," Eisner stated on the record, but he also stated that he would have rather the cash go to the Walt Disney Company if he could have done that. He insists that the board had full knowledge of the details of the contract, but minutes from the meeting that the contract was discussed were not available.

To put it another way…

Oh, woe is me, I decided to give someone a BIG FAT contract with separation stipulations, and then fire them so they could cash in… I would rather the money go back to the company that I work for so that I could capitalize on it and fatten my own wallet. You knew what was happening. Remember I told you in that secret meeting when no minutes were taken. Just accept it. It’s not MY fault…


New Characters Taking Over
Orlando Sentinel 11/17/04

Disney unveiled two new additions to its Orlando theme parks and announced plans for Typhoon Lagoon.

First, Stitch’s Great Escape officially opened in the Magic Kingdom to the public, complete with adorable little kids and toilet paper on Cinderella’s Castle. Yes, that right, the castle was “tp-ed” overnight, adding so much class to the “happiest place on earth.” What’s next, flaming bags of poo on the drawbridge? While reviews on this site offer mixed opinions on the revamping of the incredibly scary Alien Encounter, opinion from the Sentinel gives a more positive spin.

Secondly, Disney officially debuted its additions to the Living Seas additions. A familiar Aussie can tell you all about nature at Bruce’s Shark World. Also, Crush the sea turtle can teach your children about the ocean using “real time” animation technology. That way, all of the kiddies can learn about marine biology in a means reminiscent of the intellectual rambling of Keanu Reeves…Whoa!

Finally, Disney made it official by announcing their plans to add a series of slides and flumes to Typhoon Lagoon. “Crush ‘N’ Gusher,” which sounds more like what happens when you sit on a jelly donut than a water slide, is Disney’s spin on the popular “Master Blaster” water coaster. The slides will be part of Hideaway Bay, a brand new section of the park, and will take riders through steep drops and “gravity defying inclines,” as they travel through a tropical fruit facility. While the addition sounds great, the name needs some serious work.

ABC Pushes the Envelope on MNF
USAToday 11/17/04

In a slightly theme park related story, ABC issues an apology for its Desperate Housewives Monday Night Football introduction featuring Terrell Owens and Nicollette Sheridan. While I found the spot incredibly amusing, many others found it offensive. While the scene was a bit racy, it was no more than the usual fare found on Desperate Housewives, the #2 prime time television show. The MNF intro appeared in the same 9:00 PM time slot as DH, and did not reveal any “naughty bits.” The NFL is cringing over the complaints and fears another Janet/Justin debacle. While TV has become increasingly more raunchy over the past 10 years, to complain about a spot that is no more offensive than the show that inspired it is hypocritical. Will the FCC ever let us make up our own minds about what’s appropriate?

Are You Nuts Enough?

As if there wasn’t enough stuff on the top of the 1,149 foot Stratosphere Tower in Las Vegas, soon you will be able to go INSANE. Insanity, the newly named ride which has been rumored for the past year, will spin riders on an inverted centrifuge reaching speeds up to 40 MPH and 3 G’s of force on its riders. Add to that the fact that you will be looking straight down at Las Vegas and moving up to 65 feet away from the side of the tower, and the ride starts to really deserve its name. Insanity will take up the remaining real estate on the top of the tower joining The Big Shot, High Roller, and X-Scream. While a “Top Thrill Dragster” style roller coaster ascending the side of the tower was denied by the city council, the Stratosphere has countered with two of the most unique and terrifying rides on the planet. Whatever you do, LOOK DOWN!!

Yet Another Indoor Waterpark
Business North 11/17/04

Yet another indoor waterpark is popping up in a northern climate. The Edge, a $20 million 35,000 square foot tropical escape, broke ground today in Duluth, MN. The park is scheduled to open in fall 2005. With Cedar Point’s Castaway Bay, Deep River (Crown Point, IN), and 3 Great Wolf Lodges (Williamsburg, VA, The Poconos, PA, and Niagara Falls, Ontario) opening in the next year, the indoor waterpark business is “springing” up everywhere. Can we maybe get a decent indoor theme park?

Readers' Opinions

From Robert Niles on November 18, 2004 at 11:40 AM
When I worked at Disney World, I was not a member of the union, but, believe me, I supported and appreciated the union's attempts to get me the best possible deal.

Laurie's in the musician's union and has negotiated contracts before. So I've got some personal experience to say... if the negotiations aren't messy and acromonious, both sides are not doing their jobs to get their side the best deal.

Let 'em gum up the works. That's part of negotiating. If that gets the workers a better deal, while avoiding missed paychecks from a strike, then the union leaders are doing their job well.

As for MNF, let's not forget that thye bit was on the air at 6 p.m. here on the west coast -- three hours before Desperate Housewives scheduled time.

Finally, on Vegas: Shouldn't a ride that holds you hundreds of feet out over the pavement of the strip have some "mob loan-shark shakedown" theme?

From Ray Schroeder on November 18, 2004 at 11:57 AM
Why is this country so prudish? I just came back from vacation in Italy. You should see what goes on in Europe when it come to TV. I was watching Italian, German, Czech, and Hungarian TV. There is nudity in their programs, commercials, during the weather forcast on German TV, and even in the Italian Comedy movie on the flight home on Alitalia.
What's the BIG DEAL. It's the human body. We all have one. No one looks in the mirror? Do we bathe with our cloths on? Come on... Europeans think we are out of our minds. They have a far more healthy outlook when it comes to the human body and sex.
From Arthur Cashin on November 18, 2004 at 1:09 PM
People forgot one very important fact in the the whole Monday Night Football controversy.

While it may have been on at 9PM in the East, this was on at 6PM on the West Coast! How many kids were home from school watching this game?

While people may think that we are being prudish about this, I think the stunt was completely inappropriate for 6PM.

From Kenny Hitt on November 18, 2004 at 1:40 PM
Not to mention that Nicolette Sheridan is kind of...fugly.

But regardless, yeah, this is a football game. They were advertising Desperate Housewives, a show aimed at the adult female demographic, during a show that is primarily male in viewership, plus it's a little TOO racy for football, especially considering the new family-friendly image the NFL is trying to project.

From Robert Niles on November 18, 2004 at 2:43 PM
Well, we don't put on the TV during the school week while the kids are awake in our household, so I missed the opening (but I did watch it later on ifilm.)

Next to the erection pill ads and the beer ads promoting threesomes and other drunken escapades, this promo didn't seem any more child unfriendly than the other stuff tacked around a football game. But then again, my kids are growing up in L.A., so they don't care about the NFL or football anyway.

FWIW, ditto on Sheridan. Now, if the clip had featured Eva Longoria... *then* we'd be having a different conversation.

From J. Dana on November 18, 2004 at 5:34 PM
For the record, Desperate Housewives wins its timeslot for male viewers, 18-35. So this NFL ad wasn't just arbitrary...out of place, maybe--but not haphazard.

And Ray, about the nudity on TV a video if that's what you want, but our popular culture is already WAAAAAY too oversexualized....TV is (was) primarily family entertainment--all members of the family. To say, "Well, they do it in Italy/France/Germany/etc" doesn't win you too many admirers. Big deal. Then let them do it. It used to be that families could watch tv together...why do you want to muck that up even further? Sure, everyone's got a naked body, but dude, because of something called DECENCY and VALUES, we don't all just parade around naked (plus, that would ruin any chance I have of finding a date). I know, I know--those of you who hate to be reminded of values are gonna jump all over me. I don't care. Like I said, go rent a video and grab your tissues....that's what it's all about for you anyway.

From Derek Potter on November 18, 2004 at 6:57 PM
This whole Desperate Housewives thing boggles my mind. Here we have the NFL sitting in their high tower...a league that partners with all of the male erection pill companies and the beer commercials with the "twins" and the girls who get in a pool and catfight.....telling the world yet again what's right and what's wrong. I will give you this. MNF airs early on the west coast, but then again so does Desperate Housewives...not to mention a plethora of other shows that feature things that I would consider worse than this. Let's look at the soaps that air during the afternoon when the kids get out of school. Shows like Blind Date, Elimidate, and the 5th Wheel feature things far worse and are aired at the same times. The early west coast TV time doesn't hold much water when it comes down to it. Some families may watch the NFL, but to be quite honest, I don't know of any of them, and what demographic watches football the most?....males 18-35. Another thing, it's not ok that it airs on MNF, but it's ok that every news channel airs it over and over again on it's programs, including Disney's own ESPN. This is just another example of hypocrisy and double standardism by the old fashioned NFL brass.

I agree that nudity has no place on network television, but is what we saw even considered that?? nope. If the NFL wants to promote it's family needs to start by not putting up with crap like the fight that went down with the Steelers/Browns game. A naked back never influenced a child, but images of their heroes fighting on the field sure do.
Let's look at what they have done to project their family image. They piss and moan when nudity is implied and not seen when nobody else does, they crack down on lighthearted end zone celebrations that make everyone but them laugh, and they establish ridiculous rules that protect big money offensive players such as receivers and quarterbacks from getting hit...while defensive lineman are out for the season because of chopblocking (hypocrisy at it's finest...all in the name of money and ratings). All of these things are said to have been done in the name of the family image, but in reality they demonstrate the NFL brass' need to make themselves relevant. What they have managed to do instead is tarnish the purity and tradition of the game while also hindering it from evolving with today's society. Certain sportswriters have dubbed the NFL the "no fun league" I agree wholeheartedly with them.

Robert, I agree with you as well. Eva Longoria would have been a much much better choice for the role.

From Robert Niles on November 18, 2004 at 7:04 PM
Personally, I'd rather my kids see naked bodies than people injuring or killing one another. I find it rather ridiculous that a film with a body count in the thousands, a bloody amputation and an image of a child watching his father be decapitated can get a PG in the United States, but a film with an image of a fully naked woman automatically gets a R. But I've always been one to prefer sex over violence.

(ba da CHING!)

But can't I just watch a freakin' football game without all the silly intros, "Punk'd"-wannabe halftime shows and assorted other silliness?

From Chuck Campbell on November 18, 2004 at 8:07 PM
Speaking of sexual content in seemingly inappropriate places, I understand that two of the new slides at Typhoon Lagoon will be named "Banana Blaster" and "Coconut Crusher." Hmm--I wonder if they'll do anything with mangoes or melons?
From Kenny Hitt on November 18, 2004 at 10:31 PM
See, that's where we differ, Rob. I grew up in a house that welcomed violence and gore. The bloodier, the better. Hell, my dad took me to my first Schwarzenegger pic at the age of 10, it was TOTAL RECALL.
From Jayson Myers on November 19, 2004 at 8:06 AM
If you never talk about trains with your children. If you always spell the word train, you put your hand over their eyes when trains are around, and you make it this giant secret. Then what do children want to know about and experience? Yep, Trains.

Now go back and take the word trains out the sentences and put the word naked body there. Oh geez, get over the naked body. It is a beautiful creation. Hard core porn, yeah maybe not, a naked back? Geez, get over yourself.

From Kenny Hitt on November 19, 2004 at 8:33 AM
Except that it's really just not acceptable to get people sexually aroused during the opening section of a football game. It makes for uncomfortable situations.
From Jason Moore on November 19, 2004 at 9:08 AM
and in the continuing saga... Now there are some morons that are saying that they were more offended by the fact that it was a mixed race coupling (white woman with black player)than they were by the sexual nature. I would expect such sillyness from a biggoted white person, but one of the people quoted as having a problem with this was Tony Dungy, a black coach.

I'm beggining to think that with the elections over, people are just still riled up and sorely in need of something to whine about.

From Kenny Hitt on November 19, 2004 at 10:45 AM
And, according to, it supposedly is demeaning to women.

You know, let's just say that the spot was a little to adult-oriented for primetime and leave it at that. No need to bring political correctness into the mix.

Regardless, the NFL denouced it, ABC apologized, and it's not gonna happen again.

From J. Dana on November 19, 2004 at 5:44 PM
By the way, the Housewives intro didn't bother me...and (egad!) I actually thought it was clever. I still believe we've oversaturated our entertainment with so much sexuality that anything that doesn't pander to that idea is deemed "kiddy fare." What a shame. Housewives is pretty risque (for crying out loud, one of the wives is having a torid sexual affair with a high-school kid), but it's also pretty well-written. Excessive violence isn't my favorite thing either, but you know, for some reason it doesn't bother me nearly as much as excessive sexuality. I mean, the Wizard of Oz is considered one of the most wholesome family movies ever made, and the witch was crushed by a house, the other one melted away. King Kong killed lots of folks. Dracula sucked blood. Rhett Butler didn't give a damn. All these movies are lasting testaments to great film-making without resorting to flashing an ass or a boob. If nudity is used, it should be absolutely essential to the story--and frankly, you'd be hard pressed to list too many films in that category.
From Derek Potter on November 19, 2004 at 5:58 PM
Isn't it funny that we and our children witness thousands of acts of violence on television a year without a thought as to how it will affect us or our children....yet something sexually suggestive comes on TV and people make a big stink about it. It wasn't even nudity, it was implied nudity, and the people who are implying these racial undertones are even further back in the stone age than the self righteous brass who get on the air and preach against these few minutes of racy TV like it was the end of mankind. All those guys must have been watching that night, and I'm sure that their minds were thinking pure thoughts when they saw the towel came off.......yea right.

My problem isn't really that the people don't like the ad, my problem is the obvious hypocrisy and double standard at work here. The NFL is in absolutely no position to preach on the issue of decency and family values because they as a company have never practiced what they preach. Maybe it wasn't in completely good taste for them to air the piece, but this happened 5 days ago and the media is still jabbering about this in their top stories. Just an example of how taboo the subject of sex still is in this country.

From Robert Niles on November 19, 2004 at 8:17 PM
Actually, I think it's a reflection of how much Americans love talking and thinking about sex.

But... we're afraid that other Americans look down upon such thoughts. So we wait for an opportunity to talk about sex in a dismissive manner, so we can deny that we really like it... all the while we talk about it anyway. See also Rice, Donna; Hill, Anita; Lewinsky, Monica; Jackson, Janet; etc.

From Jason Lester on November 19, 2004 at 11:20 PM
Jeez people! I was in Europe too recently and they are very sexual. What's the problem? It's the human body. You can't deny sex doesn't exisit. For heaven's sake people.
From J. Dana on November 20, 2004 at 11:11 AM
Um, Jason, just for a matter of semantics (or actually, correct word usage), yes, we CAN deny that sex DOESN'T exist....see, even sex talk can be enlightening.

(in case you're left wondering, your double negative implied you were denying the existence of sex, and thus destroying the human species, not to mention beer sales).

From mark walker on November 20, 2004 at 1:34 PM
Hang on a sec, I thought we were talking about theme parks on this site, NOT sex. In fact, I don't think anybodys made a proper comment. I'll start by saying an amazing fact. Did you know Dueling Dragons was the first ever dueling inverted coaster?!
From Derek Potter on November 20, 2004 at 6:32 PM
Did you know that this thread was about the Disney company's channel ABC airing Monday Night Football and the controversy surrounding the intro? Is it a stretch, but there are plenty of threads out there about dueling dragons.

On another note, did anyone see the ungodly mess of a riot between the Pacers and Pistons? As a person who is admittedly desensitized to violence, I have to say that this scene was still very disturbing....take a look at that film and tell me which image is more indecent...professional athletes fighting fans, or a lighthearted skit being acted out with a naked back being shown.

From Robert Niles on November 20, 2004 at 8:21 PM
As someone who's been faithfully following the Indiana Pacers since, oh, about 1972, I'm still in shock. (Though as a fan who also follows the Colorado Avalanche, I'm not surprised by anything that happens in Detroit. Yeah, that's right Detroit fans -- an Avs and Pacers fan. I'm your worst nightmare....)

What really sickens me is that Artest started to do the right thing -- walk away from Wallace -- and would have been fine if a fan hadn't done something stupid. Artest is a fool for reacting, but the Pistons were the bigger fools for not having cops and crowd control to bust up the fan before Artest could even rise from table.

I hope the NBA tosses Artest and Jackson for 15 games each and O'Neal and Wallace for five. Then it should toss the Detroit fans for a game -- make the Pistons refund the ticket money and play a game in an empty Palace. Then ban (those highly lucrative) beer sales for Detroit's next home game.

Of course, this incident won't rise to the level of the MNF skit because (a) Americans are less publicly concerned with criticizing violence than sex and (b) Americans are more privately interested in thinking about Nicolette Sheridan in a towel than Ron Artest clocking a fan.

From Ben Mills on November 21, 2004 at 10:08 AM
I'll admit something now...

Although I'm a previous offender, these "didn't this site used to be about theme parks" posts are actually starting to get on my nerves. TPI is partly as successful as it is because it allows RELEVANT tangents to appear. You take away those, and it really won't be much different from any of the dorky theme park sites that clutter the web.

You wanna talk about theme parks. WE GET IT. If you're sooo desperate to discuss rollercoasters and the likes, start a thread! Not only will this please Robert immensely, it will also give you an outlet to discuss more relevant things. But let's not waste the 50 posts discussing why those posts shouldn't exist in the first place, else the entire universe might collapse upon itself.

From J. Dana on November 21, 2004 at 6:36 PM
I made a conscious though casual decision to stop watching pro basketball when Latrell Sprewell choked his coach--twice--and the coach was in more hot water than Latrell. Latrell should have had his butt fired. It didn't matter to me how much punishment was levied (although MORE should have been the case), the fact remains that NBA "athletes" are now nothing more than prima donna rock stars who don't have a clue how to behave. Sure, fans can be jerks...but when you're paid upwards of multiple millions of dollars, then it's YOUR JOB to take it. I don't mind the high salaries...I DO mind the jerks who can't behave. For all its faults, college sports is basketball's only saving grace.
From Kenny Hitt on November 21, 2004 at 6:44 PM

Artest has been suspended for the rest of the season.

Indiana's Stephen Jackson was suspended for 30 games and Jermaine O'Neal for 25. Detroit's Ben Wallace drew a six-game ban, while Pacers guard Anthony Johnson got five games.

Four players were suspended for a game apiece: Indiana's Reggie Miller, and Detroit's Chauncey Billups, Elden Campbell and Derrick Coleman.

From Jason Lester on November 21, 2004 at 6:46 PM
Well J, I'm sorry for my double negative.

Can't anyone say something without getting blasted. Oh, and ya, that fight was absolutely crazy. I was like what the hell is going on.

From Robert Niles on November 21, 2004 at 11:54 PM
Ugh. I'm fine with Artest and Jackson, but O'Neal strikes me as way too harsh. Though Stern said that video showed O'Neal was trying to go into the stands, too. I suppose that would justify the 25 games, then.

As a Pacers fan, all I've got left now is the Ewing Theory. And the Colts. Hey, maybe Northwestern can win this weekend and get into a bowl....

From Tim Hillman on November 22, 2004 at 6:14 AM
Jeez! I've been watching Monday Night Raw for the violence and the sex. Maybe I should give up on the WWE and tune into the NFL and the NBA for my thrills.
From Kenny Hitt on November 22, 2004 at 7:05 AM
I once went to a boxing match and a BASKETBALL game broke out!


Thank you folks, I'll be here all week, try the veal! Remember, the 9:30 show is COMPLETELY different from the 7:30 show, and be sure to tip your waitress!

From Jason Moore on November 22, 2004 at 8:47 AM
It should also be pointed out that Artest's suspension is "unpaid", which means he's gonna lose about $5 million. I'm sure it won't leave him in poverty, but hopefully it will be enough to make him and other ballers take notice and think before they act out.
From J. Dana on November 22, 2004 at 12:22 PM
To Jason Lester: just having a little fun...God knows we need it.
From Bill Lentz on November 22, 2004 at 4:29 PM
Not letting a beaten horse off easy, I figured I would take a shot with the stick for a while, as it comes to the MNF intro.

As to the concerns voiced that the promo wasn't appropriate for children tuned in at 9 p.m. ET (6pm PST) to watch MNF, there is an interesting piece of information that can be gleaned from the ratings -- more children, both ages 2 to 11 and 12 to 17, are watching Housewives, which also airs at 9 p.m. (EST AND PST), than are watching Monday Night Football, although both shows only get a small slice of the young viewers.

Desperate Houswives, gets 2.1 percent of those 2 to 11 and 4.3 percent of those 12 to 17, while Monday Night Football grabs only 1.4 percent of the pre-teen group and 2.1 percent of the older children.

How can there be that many people be upset when there are twice as many of our poor "impressionable teens" watching Desperate Housewives already?

From Robert Niles on November 22, 2004 at 7:24 PM
Care to credit a source for that, Bill? 'Cause if you do, you've got today's gold star for an actual incident of numbers-based journalism on the site.

What parents are letting kids ages 2-11 watch TV from 9-10 p.m.? Much less letting them watch Desperate Housewives?

Desperate, indeed.

From Bill Lentz on November 23, 2004 at 5:23 AM
I can not take credit for the research of the ratings data, I had picked it up from an article I had read. I dug around and found it again.

CNN Money article, by Chris Isadore, from Nov 19.

The ratings I stated are stuck in at the very end of the article.

From Tim Hillman on November 23, 2004 at 5:58 AM
Bill, there's an easy answer to your question. Even though more kids are watching "Desperate Housewives" than MNF, people are upset because their expectations for the content of MNF were challenged. "Desperate Housewives" is supposed to be sexy and trashy. MNF is supposed to be exciting and athletic with a little bit of sexiness thrown in. The uproar is all about the wrong content in front of the wrong audience. So, in this case, the statistics are meaningless.
From Jason Moore on November 23, 2004 at 7:37 AM
So what you're saying Tim is that football fans don't expect to see half naked women during their broadcasts? That's funny considering the tactics employed for selling beer (and other products) during every single comercial break. Hey maybe that's the problem! If ol' whats her name had a beer was suggestively carressing an ice cold beer instead of a big bad baller, maybe we wouldn't be having such an uproar.

I think those viewership stats speak volumes myself.

From Tim Hillman on November 23, 2004 at 10:14 AM
Two issues here, Jason. The first is the sexual content of MNF and the commercials associated with it. Most of us who watch MNF expect to see some sexuality. Whether or not we like it is irrelevant. It is there, and we are mentally prepared to see it, and as you pointed out beer commercials are the most notorious offenders for using sex to push their product. Now here's the distinction between the T.O. spot and the beer commercials. Most of us, including children, are well aware that the scenarios presented in beer commercials are far into the realm of the implausible and as a result have very little impression on our perception of life. The T.O. spot crossed the line when it presented a real life role model (Yeah, for some kids T.O is a role model.) in an overtly sexual situation. In this age of the "Kobe Bryant sex trial" and the "Magic Johnson HIV from a groupie" this is exactly the wrong message to send; especially when the kids who are watching MNF are sports fans.

That brings up the second point; the viewership statistics. Just because nearly twice as many kids in the above mentioned demographics watch "Desperate Housewives" as watch MNF doesn't mean that they are the same kids. The parents who allow their children to watch "Desperate Housewives" may not have the same values as the parents of the MNF crowd. Thus I maintain that using the viewership statistics to support an argument that the furor over the spot may be unwarranted is incorrect.

From Derek Potter on November 23, 2004 at 6:31 PM
My point was that the whole MNF thing is nothing compared to what transpired on television at the Pacers/Pistons game. There are a few images that I have retained by watching the clip over and over again on every newscast. One that sticks in particular was the image of a boy about 10 or so who was in the stands crying his eyes out at the sight of the fight. Once again tell me which is worse for a child to watch. Not only did we see it in the NBA, we saw it at an NCAA football game as well. The fight with Clemson and South Carolina was just as bad. When did suggestive, pseudo-sexual images become the fatal poison of our children's minds? Kind of like rock and roll was in the 50's I guess.

As much as they want to promote their fake "family" image, the NFL uses sex to promote just as much as the next, the difference is that they don't do it directly. Instead they allow their sponsors to freely use sex in promoting their products, and the NFL tries to project this "clean hands" image by crucifying things like this little skit. TO and the Eagles didn't get in any trouble, so that tells me the the NFL is making all this fuss not because they really disagree, but because they want to protect their little faux image, even though anybody who watches NFL games regularly probably sees at least one sexually suggestive ad per commercial break....Total hypocrisy.

One more thing....who in the world is letting their children watch Desperate Housewives???

From Jason Lester on November 24, 2004 at 7:36 PM
I'm 12 and I watch Desperate Housewives. I think it's hilarious, but my parents are more concerned about excessive nudity then a bit of TV innuendo.

Park tickets

Weekly newsletter

New attraction reviews

News archive