> They often have
> several people with widely varying beliefs who argue it
> out and don't solve
> anything... because they're not given a reason to solve
> anything. Instead
> they try to grab as much camera time as possible and often
> drive home canned
> rhetoric that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
There's a comment about these shows in an entry in my anti-blog (
http://www.turnkey.to/ike ) which describes them as "Celebrity Let's
Make A Point".
> In the end the "winning team" would get something (perhaps
> money donated to a charity of their mutual choosing)
This of course assumes that they can agree on a charity.
> while the losing teams would be embarrassed in some
> meaningless way (perhaps by getting "slimed" a la
> Nickelodeon).
I say make each of them contribute out of pocket to a charity chosen
by their partner which is antithetical to their own beliefs. :) I
could just see Al Franken making Rush contribute to the United Negro
College Fund. (Not that rush is an outright racist - at least not
publicly - but I don't get the impression that he thinks highly of the
UNCF.)
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1
http://www.fusiontap.com
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
