From the New York Times: apparently, we're supposed to believe that violence depicted in this year's Super Bowl ads reflect the toll of the Iraq war. Somehow, in what can only amount to rampant over-analyzation and blatant agenda-pushing, Stuart Elliott of the New York Times has deduced that all of this violence in the advertising is a result of the war.
How is this news? How is this fit to print?
How does it make any sense?
The truth is, it doesn't. It makes about as much sense as a non-binding resolution to stop the troop surge...which makes Stuart Elliott (and the NYT editorial board, big surprise) as big liberal wackos as the Democrats in Congress.
No comments:
Post a Comment