The real context of MIA's finger gesture at the super bowl halftime show

If you watched the halftime show of this year's Super Bowl (rather unexciting, more of a carbon copy of the one after the 2007 season) you might've seen rapper M.I.A sticking up her middle finger for a moment. Then the screen suddenly cuts to an aerial view of the field and blurs very quickly. If you were wondering why NBC blurred the whole screen for a second after MIA finished her performance it was because the network realized what MIA did and thought the blur could censor the action on time. It didn't, and I presume that NBC had some sort of tape delay system. But it does confirm the opinion that MIA's action was so quick that many people wouldn't notice exactly which finger she was sticking up. In fact, Time magazine TV critic James Poniewoznik commented: "M.I.A...apparently briefly flipped off the camera in a gesture so shocking that I had no idea she even did it until NBC issued an apology for it." An Associated Press report also quoted a viewer who only realized the next morning what MIA did.

Here's the video.

And here's the official music video for Madonna's "Give Me All Your Luvin'". Go to the 2:39 mark, where MIA's part is. When she raps "I don't give a sh..." she points out her index finger as in mimicking firing a gun. Hmm. So could it be that MIA might've accidentally moved her wrong finger? A possibility. UK tabloid The Sun quotes an anonymous insider: "M.I.A. did nothing similar in rehearsals," and also alleged that Madonna disapproved of MIA's action.

And of course, the good ol' Parents Television Council had to weigh in. (No long-winded column yet about "OOGA BOOGA DECLINING DECENCY STANDARDS IN AMERICA!" by PTC founder/former president/now advisor/continuing columnist Brent Bozell.) Current PTC president Tim Winter was quoted in the same AP source: "Most families would agree that the middle finger aimed directly at them is not appropriate, especially during the most-watched television event of the year."

The PTC's full statement is here, and furthermore Winter stated: "It has been eight years since the Janet Jackson striptease, and both NBC and the NFL knew full well what might happen. They chose a lineup full of performers who have based their careers on shock, profanity and titillation." The performers in this year's halftime show indeed don't lack controversy. Headliner Madonna has been provocative throughout her nearly 30-year pop music career and has especially inflamed the "pro-family" crowd, for example in 1989 soft drink brand Pepsi canceled a planned TV commercial with Madonna because the American Family Association complained about the singer's "Like a Virgin" music video using Christian symbolism and boycotted Pepsi for planning the ad. And as i blogged about earlier Brent Bozell had gripes with co-performer Nicki Minaj, who also had a wardrobe malfunction on a Good Morning America TV performance last year. Cee-Lo had a popular hit with "Fuck You" (on the radio "Forget You"), of course that would inflame Bozell's sensibilities (the golden passage in this column? "Any radio edit is just a lame Band-Aid for a pus-filled boil."). Another Bozell-founded Cultural Guardian, the Culture and Media Institute, also targeted MIA over her song "Lovalot" because its chorus sounded like "I love Allah"...oh no, those evil pop musicians can NOT be singing about ALLAH and MUSLIMS to our precious kids' ears!!!! But other than the performers' controversial backgrounds, what other evidence does Winter have to claim NBC knew another Janet Jackson moment would happen? In fact Winter had nothing to say about the suggestive dancing in the halftime show, and had the middle finger incident not occurred would he even have issued a Monday morning statement? Furthermore, the song selection wasn't highly offensive (unlike the Super Bowl show with Janet Jackson with songs like "Rock Your Body" and "Shake Ya Tailfeather"). From wikipedia: The setlist included "Vogue," a medley of Madonna's "Music" and LMFAO's two largest hits ("Party Rock Anthem" and "Sexy and I Know It,"...), followed by "Give Me All Your Luvin'," "Open Your Heart," "Express Yourself" (in a duet with [Cee-Lo] Green), and the finale, "Like a Prayer"."

Wonder why PTC doesn't have a complaint form to the FCC on its front page (even as of right now) unlike back in February 2004 after the Janet Jackson incident? The "Hilicon Valley" blog at TheHill.com explains: "A spokeswoman for the Parents Television Council said the organization won't ask the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to fine NBC over the incident, but "we're certain others will do so whether we encourage them to or not."" In fact, if the FCC decides to fine NBC over this incident, MIA is contractually bound to pitch in. It seems by not actively pursuing formal complaints over MIA's middle finger, PTC is silently acknowledging that this is a weaker case than Janet Jackson's breast.

Bozell, take your blindfold off.

The conservative cultural crusader Brent Bozell's latest column "The Double Standard on 'Hoes'" attacks Nicki Minaj's horrible new song "Stupid Hoe". In a way as a heavy Republican-hating lefty I wish I could actually agree with him for once! But I take issue with this passage:

It seems rather clear that Imus deserved some punishment, even if his dismissal might be excessive. So why were the Reverends [Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton] applauded universally for their activism?

Because all of their fuss wasn’t about “public decency” or “degradation” or media companies “mainstreaming racism and sexism," not really. It was about race, and about how whites cannot say “indecent” things about blacks, not even in jest. But blacks can use those very same words, however they wish, with the ugliest of intentions if desired, with impunity. Where are Jackson and Sharpton over 'Stupid Hoe" now? Cricket, cricket.

Did Bozell and the other CONservative pundits miss how the black activists also took rappers to task after the Imus controversy? Like Sharpton's march on May 3, 2007 calling for an end to the use of the B-word and N-word in hip hop lyrics? Or Def Jam Records founder Russell Simmons calling on record labels to drop the B, H, and N words? Or Sharpton's National Action Network having a Decency Initiative that "advocates against the entertainment industry’s use of capitalizing off of denigrating lyrics to describe black culture."

Funny how Bozell warns his readers: "Don’t hurt your brain trying to make sense" of the lyrics of the Minaj song. Well, I think that many people have lost more brain cells reading Bozell's selectively-researched rants and Catholic apologetics. Furthermore, Bozell contradicts himself by asserting that rappers can advance their careers by using "ho" but then pointing out "YouTube watchers gave the Minaj video about twice as many Dislikes as Likes" (as I type this the video now has 111,027 likes and 232,539 dislikes.) Given that reaction I don't think Bozell has much to whine about now.

Furthermore, on the Dec. 23 edition of Fox News' Sean Hannity TV show Bozell called Obama a "skinny ghetto crackhead". So after that instance Bozell has lost his right to call for decency in culture.

Not even 11PM is out of reach of the PTC...

PTC's newest "Worst Cable Content of the Week" targets E! Entertainment network's late night talk show Chelsea Lately. (I won't watch any garbage on E! and prefer David Letterman and Jimmy Fallon and Craig Ferguson, but I find PTC just as dumb as Handler.) Putting the usual PTC banter about everyone subsidizing offensive programming aside, why target a late night show? The author listed several jokes with sexual and even a political bent, quoting a Bill Maher appearance:

Maher: “Religion makes people crazy…[religious people] just can’t think straight.”

Chelsea: “I hate Newt Gingrich, and everyone watching this show must also hate him…The point is to influence all my young girl [fans] who don’t know any better. You must hate Newt Gingrich, you understand?”

Hmm, when did the PTC ever target Fox News Channel for broadcasting Republican talking points as news all of the day and night? Or talk radio? You can hear worse things than "religious people can't think straight" on those outlets. And of course the usual message: " every cable subscriber in America – Democrat or Republican, parent or grandparent, religionist or teetotaler – is FORCED by cable giant (and E! and NBC owner) Comcast to subsidize Chelsea Lately"...but of course, does the author not realize that channels like EWTN or Fox News or the Word Network are subsidized by the godless liberal cable subscribers? More laughable is the PTC's claim that "Comcast [is] glamorizing Chelsea Handler’s irresponsible lifestyle and behavior to millions of children." If your kids are watching TV on school nights at 11PM then you are an irresponsible parent.

PTC reviewed shows for the week of Jan. 9-Jan. 13 and found they were all rated "TV-PG-DLS" (parental guidance suggested due to suggestive dialogue, language, and sexual situations). Well again this is a late night show. And my check of the zap2it.com and eonline.com listings finds that all of this week's Chelsea shows will be rated TV-14-DLS as the PTC desires; think about TV-14 as the movie PG-13 rating. If PTC is so outraged about Chelsea Handler why not target what David Letterman and Jay Leno are saying on the public airwaves at 11PM every night?

The really scary story about Newt Gingrich the media did NOT discuss

I quit watching the evening news shows on ABC/CBS/NBC around the time after Charles Gibson retired and the morning shows (even worse in terms of serious news vs. entertainment) waaaaay earlier. I get my news now from the PBS Newshour, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and various Internet sites as well. Now Newt Gingrich is being confronted with a claim from his 2nd ex wife that he asked for an open marriage after he was caught cheating with his mistress turned current wife. On Thursday night's CNN debate, moderator John King opened the debate giving Gingrich and opportunity to respond. Gingrich went off on an angry attack on the media for bringing up this story:

Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine. My two daughters wrote the head of ABC and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate.

Astonishingly, Gingrich never took accountability for his own bad behavior. (So much for the party of personal responsibility...or as the has-been candidate, fellow Georgian, and creepy man Herman Cain put it..."blame yourself!") Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus took Gingrich to task in her column "Newt Gingrich blames media for a mess he created".

We get the idea that Gingrich is a moral hypocrite for stumping for family values despite his history of marital infidelity. But there's this scarier part of Gingrich, what he would do as president. The Guardian, a British newspaper, reported on Wednesday, "Newt Gingrich: I would ignore supreme court as president":

Newt Gingrich has pledged that on his first day as president he will set up a constitutional showdown by ordering the military to defy a supreme court ruling extending some legal rights to foreign terrorism suspects and captured enemy combatants in US custody.

The Republican contender told a forum of anti-abortion activists ahead of South Carolina's primary election that as president he would ignore supreme court rulings he regards as legally flawed. He implied that would also extend to the 1973 decision, Roe vs Wade, legalising abortion.

"If the court makes a fundamentally wrong decision, the president can in fact ignore it," said Gingrich to cheers.

(...)

Gingrich said the first confrontation would be over its historic ruling, known as the Boumediene decision, that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantánamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in US courts.

And this isn't the first time Gingrich has suggested such a view towards Sup. Ct. cases, see "Newt Gingrich says he'd defy Supreme Court rulings he opposed" (LA Times, 12/17/11).

The Seriously, America? tumblr commented: "Andrew Jackson took this approach—so it’s been tried. It resulted in the Trail of Tears." (That case Pres. Jackson ignored would be Worcester v. Georgia...and I recently learned that Worcester is pronounced "wusster" not "war-ces-ter") Also, Gingrich seems to be swimming into Nixonian territory, as the disgraced Richard Nixon famously said in the 1977 David Frost interview: "...when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

More likely in the media you'll hear about Gingrich's personal life or horse race type issues than how candidates would approach different areas of government. Searching for media coverage of Gingrich's supreme court views, I found that CNN's Situation Room afternoon news show on Dec. 19 devoted a whole interview with legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin about Gingrich's December statement (search "activist judge" in this transcript and you'll get there). On Dec. 27, host Wolf Blitzer interviewed Gingrich and included a question about Gingrich's view on activist judges:

BLITZER: ...On justices of the Supreme Court, lower courts, you've made some very controversial comments that if you disagree adamantly with some of their decisions, you wouldn't hesitate to subpoena these guys, these judges, bring them forward, and not -- and basically ignore their decisions.

I asked Jeffrey Toobin, our Senior Legal Analyst, he's an authority on the US Supreme Court, as you probably know. I asked him whether or not you have a basis from which to speak on this issue, and I'll play the clip --

GINGRICH: OK.

BLITZER: -- of what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: The courts have the last word. You don't like it, you can change the constitution, you can have new justices on the Supreme Court, you can even impeach a federal judge.

But you cannot haul them in and beat them up in front of a Congressional committee. You cannot use the police to intimidate judges. That is something that is fundamentally against American constitutional history.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GINGRICH: Well, he's wrong --

BLITZER: All right. Jeffrey Toobin.

GINGRICH: Look, Jeffrey's wrong on two counts. First of all, the courts are not the last word. The courts are one of three last words. The constitution's designed around a balance of power between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. There is on superior branch. Hamilton --

BLITZER: But until new legislation is passed --

GINGRICH: No.

BLITZER: -- the rule of the -- the decision of the Supreme Court stands.

GINGRICH: Only in the case of the law. Not in -- only in the case. Lincoln says in his 1861 inaugural address the Dred Scott case extending slavery over the whole country is not the law of the land. And he says, furthermore, you would eliminate our freedom if nine people could decide it.

Jefferson, when asked if the Supreme Court was supreme over the president and the Congress said that is absurd. That would be an oligarchy.

Jeffrey ought to look at the 54-page paper at Newt.org where, as a historian, we lay out the historic case. Alexander Hamilton says the courts would never pick a fight with the legislature and the executive because, in fact, they would lose the fight. Now, that implies something about relative strength.

Lastly, he has made my case. He said judges can be impeached. The first step towards impeachment is hearing testimony. The question I was asked was, could Congress compel testimony? By definition in an impeachment case, they can compel testimony.

Other broadcast media coverage of Gingrich criticizing activist judges (from a Lexisnexis search):

• (an aside) Reuters did a critical article about Gingrich's comments about arresting judges: "Gingrich's nods to history don't impress scholars"
• NBC's Mike Viqureira commented at the end of a generic report about the Saturday 12/17 developments of primary campaigns: "[Gingrich] has more controversial comments tonight about what he calls liberal activist judges, today telling reporters on a conference call that some judges should be subpoenaed to testify before Congress to explain their rulings, sometimes for whole courts to be abolished in some circumstances, even suggesting that presidents can ignore judicial rulings that they don't like." That was it. (NBC Nightly News, 12/17/11, see 1:45 mark of the linked video)
• The next Sunday morning, CBS's Bob Schieffer asked Gingrich about his comments, and Gingrich reaffirmed his position. (Face the Nation, 12/18/11)
• The following Monday, Gingrich did more judicial-bashing at a speech in Iowa, and NPR did a full story (All Things Considered, 12/19/11)
• Also, MSNBC's Ed Schultz interviewed Rice University historian Douglas Brinkley from a critical angle about Gingrich's comments (The Ed Show, 12/19/11)
• MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell interviewed former Minnesota Republican chair and Michele Bachmann chief of staff Ron Carey (The Last Word, 12/19/11)
• Otherwise, LexisNexis produces no results from ABC, CBS, and NBC reporting on Gingrich's comments on 12/19 or anytime later.. I watched the PBS Newshour that day and heard nothing there either. Lexis also showed modest coverage by the cable networks. This topic drew much discussion on the Democratic Underground forum.
  
• The conclusion: the media just forgets like a Republican elephant and wants sensationalism, not substance.
  

Hard to be patient with a team that gives up leads so easily

Not just San Jose State's football team, which gave up yet another opportunity to win last Saturday in Logan, losing to Utah State 34-33 and thus losing bowl eligibility (I'd rather there be a playoff system in college football a la the NCAA basketball tournament, but I'll save that for another blog).

In the meantime, SJSU basketball came off a very close 51-50 win in its home opener v UC Irvine. The win resulted from the referees deciding that a UC Irvine player didn't get a successful shot off his hands before the buzzer. A similar thing happened in SJSU's 75-74 WAC tournament win last season v Hawaii, as seen in this fan-created video (starting at the 1:25 mark)



Tonight, SJSU lost at the War Memorial Arena to San Francisco 83-81 in overtime. The Spartans rallied from a 20-8 deficit early in the 1st quarter to lead 37-35 at halftime. Then the Spartans had led as many as 8 for the majority of the 2nd half (similar to the previous game v UCI) before San Francisco rallied to force OT, tied 71 both. USF began OT with a 7-2 run. Finally, SJSU had the chance to tie or win with a three after USF's Cody Doolin missed both free throws. There were 7 seconds left. James Kinney (a transfer from the Mid-American Conference Ohio and then the jr. college Eastern Utah) tried a desperation half-court shot when he really could've gotten within reasonable range for a buzzer beater. No good. Although SJSU had a good defensive effort and Keith Shamburger once again showed his offensive talents--he even opened the 2nd half with two consecutive three-pointers--the team just found yet another way to give the game away in the last minute. A similar OT loss happened in Feb. 2011 v Nevada, except the loss was by 8.

San Jose State has yet to win on the road but has another opportunity Saturday night when the Spartans face cross-town rival Santa Clara. Unlike the past two games in which SJSU made less than 30% of field goals, tonight the Spartans made 48.5%. Because it's so early in the season, average statistics are not reliably predictable, as Santa Clara has a 39.1% FG average based on two lopsided games: 44.8% v the D-III UC Merced and 32.8% v the defending Big West champions UC Santa Barbara. SJSU's average, in contrast, so far is a measly 28%. The past two of SJSU's games were within close margins, while SJSU's opening game was a 79-52 loss to Cal Poly. On the individual player level, it appears that Santa Clara has the offensive advantage in its leading scorer. A comparison:

• Keith Shamburger (SJSU) averages: 35 mins, 12.5 points, 2.5 rebounds, 3 assists, 30% field goals made, 73.3% free throws, 22.2% 3-pointers. Committed 7 turnovers. Grabbed 5 rebounds, all defensive.
  
• Kevin Foster (SCU): 21 mins, 14.5 points, 2 rebounds, 3.5 assists, 33.3% field goals, 71.4% free throws, 28.6% 3-pointers. Committed 2 turnovers. Of 4 rebounds, 2 each in offense and defense.

But again, keep in mind that these statistics could be skewed in favor of SCU because the team played a D-III opponent for its first game. It's interesting to note that SJSU had better field goal and 3 point percentages in losing to USF than UCSB had winning over SCU:

• Field goals: SJSU 48.5% v USF, UCSB 47.5% v SCU
• 3 pointers: SJSU 35.7% v USF, UCBS 30.0% v SCU

San Jose State will have a truly competitive game against Santa Clara on Saturday night if the team improves on offense, most of all, and enforces the defense against the Broncos.

Dear Brent Bozell, you're not entitled to have everyone respect your beliefs

Ah, Brent Bozell. The man who longs for the days when people would unquestionably submit to conservative Christianity and when TV was so squeaky-clean that CBS couldn't show Elvis shaking his hips. Now he's out with his latest "wah wah wah why won't the media respect my beliefs" column "The Anti-God Book, By 'God'":

Those prestigious publishers at Simon & Schuster selected All Saints Day to unleash the book world's latest attempt at mocking Christianity. It’s called "The Last Testament, by God."

The author is David Javerbaum, a top writer for 11 years for "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central, perhaps America's leading religion-hating TV network. Is it any surprise that the critics are loving it?

Publishers Weekly raves, "The Almighty opens up in this blithely blasphemous satire of monotheism." God, in this alleged autobiography, is "a complex, troubled Deity: vain, petulant, desperate for praise and burnt offerings, guiltily pensive in the after-wrath of unhinged smitings. Adherents of every Abrahamic faith will find plenty of hilarious, offensive manna for thought in these revelations." Kirkus Reviews bluntly adds, "Damned comical. Amen."

”Hilarious, offensive.” What they mean is that it’s hilarious because it’s offensive.

When has Bozell ever said that Rush Limbaugh is popular because he's offensive? It's true in a sense that Javerbaum's book is offensive to a certain segment of the US population, but keep in mind that fewer Americans choose to be religious in this age. Could it be why it's easier in the mainstream to mock religion? I thought that people like Bozell advocated free market economics (that's why he founded the Business and Media Institute as part of his right-wing Media Research Center).

Furthermore, Bozell neglects to mention Simon & Schuster's conservative imprint Sentinel that has published authors such as Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and Alfred Regnery.

When he criticized anti-Christian themes he perceived in the Showtime programs Dexter and Californication (keep in mind that Showtime is a pay cable network) in "Jesus Is Not a Serial Killer", he huffed that Showtime executives lacked respect for Jesus, the figure who makes us good if we follow him, concluding: "You think of the hundreds upon hundreds of people involved in this Showtime enteprise - the actors, producers, promotional and marketing staff, the blue-suit executives in New York, the advertising agencies. And of those hundreds and hundreds, not one will stand up to defend Our Lord? How sad."

Uhh, Brent, there is plenty of pro-Christian programming all over the broadcast channels, and there are even entire cable networks (EWTN, God TV, TBN, Word Network) that are devoted to preaching the Gospels. Again, considering how those cable networks with those violent TV-MA programming that Bozell thinks are rotting American culture: what's the value of those cable channels being premium if Bozell got to be CEO and fill the schedule with G-rated films, Leave It to Beaver reruns, and Sunday school all week? Since the mid-1990s with the Parents Television Council, Bozell has been pushing for the mainstream TV networks to be more family-friendly (hmm, code word for pro-Christian?), and that's why you'll hear the PTC complain every time a TV show dares to be sexual or has a dramatic storyline that happens to be violent. But do TV audiences really prefer tame, non-confrontational programming or the shows on premium cable? Let the ratings tell the story. If there wasn't such a demand for Dexter, TV networks would've stuck with the tame side.

All that Bozell can do to justify his archaic views is to play the religion/persecuted Christian card. That's it: no reasoning, logic, or reality-based evidence whatsoever.

ESPN=Evangelical Suckers Promoting Nonsense

So the Detroit Lions were allegedly mocking Tim Tebow's prayer pose. Tebow denies it. A holier-than-thou ESPN columnist Jemele Hill does though: "Lions disrespected Tim Tebow's faith"!

Detroit linebacker Stephen Tulloch openly mocked Tebow's prayer pose -- a new phenomenon known across the Internet as "Tebowing" -- after sacking Tebow in the second quarter.

Tulloch explained directly after the game and on Twitter that he was just having some fun at the quarterback's expense.

"Football is a form of entertainment," Tulloch tweeted. "Have a sense of humor. I wasn't mocking GOD!"

(...)

Tulloch and Scheffler probably didn't intend to disrespect Tebow's faith with their celebrations. But if Tebow were Muslim or Jewish, would Tulloch and Scheffler have been so quick to execute a prayer parody? Would columnists, such as my friend Dan Wetzel -- whom I respect a great deal -- encourage those who were offended by Tulloch's and Scheffler's Tebowing to just lighten up?

"I think the linebacker for the Lions was attempting to not mock God, but to mock Tebow and have fun with it," said Gordon Thiessen, the director for training and resources for the Nebraska Fellowship of Christian Athletes, "but it was still in bad taste and inappropriate, at best."

(...)

Prayer is a sacred component of any religion. Making fun of someone else's spiritual connection is on par with ridiculing them about their family. You don't have to be a Christian to get that, just someone who understands the concept of respect.

Ms. Hill, c'mon. Have whatever religious beliefs or none as you want...no one is obligated to agree with those beliefs. Can't you tell the difference between attacking people and attacking ideas? Religion deserves to be criticized and ridiculed even though it is a constitutional right in the US. Go ahead and believe in hell or practice witchcraft if you want. I'm never ever going to embrace that superstitious nonsense. It's frustrating that most mainstream media voices such as Hill are quicker to defend religion instead of considering that religion isn't as positive and inspiring as it promotes itself. I wish PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris had more media exposure to their ideas.

Does believing in God and following the Ten Commandments have ANY, I repeat, ANY objective connection with being able to throw complete passes or make defensive stops? NO. BTW, thank you to ESPN.com commenters (the most liked comments are critical of Hill's commentary). Furthermore, Tebow had the audacity to lose his face in the Super Bowl before the 2010 draft with an incredibly stupid Super Bowl commercial for the Christian fundamentalist group Focus on the Family in which he essentially credits his promise to a great football career to his mother choosing to carry him to term despite recommendations otherwise from doctors.

Now on to Tebow's performance as an NFL player. Tebow is now in his 2nd professional season with the Denver Broncos. As a rookie, he played 9 games and started 5; he completed 50% of his passes over 654 yards for 5 touchdowns and 3 interceptions. Passes averaged 8 yards each. Ran for 6 TDs too. 82.1 rating. Thing is, will Tebow have a great NFL career or will he become a bust a la JaMarcus Russell or a mediocre and at age 30 will become a motivational speaker or preacher? Let's compare Tebow's rookie stats with those of other great QBs (source: NFL.com player profiles):

• John Elway (also played for the Broncos) in 1983: 47.5% completed over 1,663 yards. 6.4 yards/pass. Passed for 7 TDs and ran in 1. 54.9 rating.
• Drafted in 1987, Rich Gannon played his first season as starter in 1990. He had a 52.1% completion rate for 16 TDs and 16 INTs. 68.9 rating.
• Drafted in 1991 by Atlanta Falcons, Brett Favre played as a starter the first time in 1992 with the Green Bay Packers. 64.1% completed over 3,227 yards for 18 TDs and 13 INTs. 85.3 rating.
• Aaron Rodgers of the Packers played his first 3 pro seasons as Favre's backup before starting all 16 games of 2008. Stats: 63.6% for 28 TDs and 13 INTs. 93.8 rating.

So far, Tebow hasn't broken out big early in his career like Elway, Gannon, Favre, and Rodgers have.

Guess what, Jemele Hill and other brainless Christian apologists? This isn't a Christian nation anymore, and fewer and fewer in America want to be associated with such uselessness. Yes I know I'm gonna get spam from godbots and anger from narrow-minded fundies. But still. It's the 21st century and we should be over this idiocy already.