And they aren’t.  They’re commercials targeted to the younger demographic.  And as the Super Bowl itself shows, the younger demographic isn’t where the cash is.  The advertising agencies had better wake up and smell the coffee: older, more conservative audiences are the ones that should be targeted now.

The networks and the NFL get it: we’re getting old as a country.  Seven of the last eight Super Bowl halftime shows have featured Boomer and Gen X icons: Paul McCartney (2005), the Rolling Stones (2006), Prince (2007), Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers (2008), Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band (2009), The Who (2010), and Madonna (2012)?  Perhaps the under-40 crowd remembers Madonna, but if they do, it’s in a very vague half-sleep state.

And yet America’s commercial advertisers seem to think that the most valuable audience is the 18-49 crowd.  For years, American advertising has been run on the notion that young audiences are more valuable than older audiences; that if you grab a youngster’s brand loyalty early, you’ll grab ‘em for life; and that older audiences are set in their ways.  That’s how so much liberal television has been sneaked past advertising honchos – young people tend to be liberal, and so the honchos figure that liberal television will appeal to the most lucrative demographic.  Even if more older people watch than younger people, the advertisers figure, they need to greenlight young-skewing programs to hit the target demo.

But the Super Bowl gives the lie to that.  The viewership was enormous, of course – over 111 million people watched the game – but the interesting part of the ratings breakdown is the age breakdown.  Among adults 18-49, the Super Bowl scored an incredible 40.5 rating; each ratings point is worth approximately 1.159 million viewers.  That means that somewhere around 47 million people aged 18-49 watched the game.  Where did the other 64 million people come from?  The older crowd and the younger crowd.  It’s fair to assume that the vast majority of that rating came from the older crowd (Nielsen age breakdowns are either pre-programmed into television devices, or manually input).  In other words, at least as many people 50+ watched the game as people 18-49.  Hence the entertainment choices at halftime.

Now, that doesn’t automatically mean that older audiences are worth targeting, of course.  But the Nielsens themselves say they are – a joint study by CBS (which nobody under the age of 50 has ever watched) and the Nielsens shows that, in the words of CBS Chief Research Officer David Poltrack, “There is no link, none, between the age of the specified demographic delivery of the campaign and the sales generated by that campaign.”  That’s why there was a seeming gap between the content of the commercials, which skewed younger, and the content of the halftime show, which skewed older: the networks understand that to get viewers, they need to aim older.

If the advertisers ever catch on, television may have to skew more conservative, too.

He was promptly sacked from last night’s broadcast of Monday Night Football:

Hank Williams, Jr., the voice famous for asking millions of football fans whether they’re ready for some football, has been pulled from tonight’s broadcast of “Monday Night Football” over a comment he made on Fox News this morning.

Williams, who sings the lead-in song to the game each week, criticized the president for his golf summit with House Speaker John Boehner this summer.

“It would be like Hitler playing golf with (Israeli leader) Benjamin Netanyahu,” Williams told “Fox & Friends.”

USA Today, among others, picked up the quote, speculating on whether the comparison would get Williams booted from the broadcast .

This afternoon, ESPN released a statement to the affirmative:

“While Hank Williams, Jr. is not an ESPN employee, we recognize that he is closely linked to our company through the open to Monday Night Football. We are extremely disappointed with his comments, and as a result we have decided to pull the open from tonight’s telecast.”

ESPN was fine when its Las Vegas radio affiliate joked about, and seemingly advocated for, the rape of Sarah Palin just a few weeks ago.

From my perspective, Williams didn’t call Obama “Hitler.” He made an exaggerated comparison to the political conflict between Obama and Boehner. (Perhaps a more appropriate analogy would have been Reagan and Gorbachev.) It seems that progressives are doing more to call Obama “Hitler” with their accusations than Williams implied with his remark. Of course, only Williams himself can clarify that. Regardless, ESPN yanked him from the broadcast. By the way, what’s with progressives’ new sensitivity over comparing a president to Hitler?

Williams’s job would likely be safe had he done what Mike Tyson did on an ESPN radio affiliate and joked about Palin rape.

Related:

ESPN’s Double Standard

—–

Not being a fan, I don’t normally watch a lot of football or even Super Bowl games. But my wife has been a Packer fanatic her entire life, we were invited to a party, and as I watched the pre-game today I was simply blown away (and moved) by how passionately the NFL puts its love for America and our troops out there for the entire world to see.

Hey, maybe that’s why the Super Bowl embarrasses the Academy Awards in the ratings year after year?

But when it was Hollywood’s turn to turn on the patriotism, one of their biggest stars couldn’t even remember the words to her own National Anthem. And obviously she hadn’t rehearsed enough to pretend she did.

Normally, I’m pretty forgiving of this kind of flub, but the symbolism here is simply too rich to ignore.

Some fifteen years ago, I attended a heavyweight title fight in Nashville. George Jones sang the National Anthem and it was quite simply the most beautiful rendition I’ve ever heard. Simple and heartfelt, and though I’m no country music fan, I’ve never forgotten it. 

What a contrast. No wonder the NFL and country music continue to thrive as DVD sales sink and pop music collapses.

Oh, and the Black Eyed Peas stunk the joint up, too.

Pat Tillman left one of the most sought after jobs on Earth as a star in the NFL to join the Army and volunteer as a Ranger. It was a noble, patriotic and selfless act that deserves to be his legacy. Unfortunately the circumstances surrounding his death get more attention than the sacrifice he made for this country. There is a movie coming out called “The Tillman Story” that seems to perpetuate some of the worst conspiracy theories about his death. It is important that we separate myths from reality. This piece will focus on the circumstances of the incident and the immediate reaction from the military in the weeks that followed.

Pat Tillman’s death in Afghanistan in 2004 was a tragic accident and resulted from fratricide. He was shot by members of his own unit who failed to identify an Afghan soldier and Tillman as friendlies. There are those who want to cast doubt on that and claim that there was a crime committed and that Tillman was murdered, but there is simply nothing in the evidence available that points to that. I have read hundreds of pages from the multiple investigations of the incident and there is simply no way to get that many people to tell almost exactly the same story of how the incident unfolded.

Tillman was on a patrol when one of the vehicles broke down and they were attempting to tow it back to their base. During the course of that the patrol split into two groups. Tillman and serial one were to head back via one route and the broken vehicle and serial two were to rendezvous with a recovery vehicle via another. Serial one left and shortly thereafter serial two did as well. The civilian truck towing the broken vehicle stated that he was unable to traverse one section of the route and serial two then redirected to follow the same route as serial one. They were unable to convey this change to serial one due to the extreme terrain. The second group came under enemy fire during this movement and began to attempt to clear themselves from the ambush site by moving forward.

Tillman and the members of the first group also heard the fire and began to react. They exited their vehicles and Tillman spotted one of the sources of enemy fire. He asked permission to assault that position and when it was granted, moved out and began maneuvering and firing upon it. As he was doing this one of the vehicles from the second serial rounded a corner and observed an Afghan soldier who was with Tillman firing an AK-47. The light conditions prevented them from identifying him as a friendly, so based on the proximity to the ambush site, his weapon and a dark face they took him under fire. Multiple weapons systems from the vehicle engaged and killed him. During this Tillman and another American took cover behind a rock.

There was a lull in fire after the Afghan was killed and Tillman stood up to identify himself shouting “I’m Pat Fu**ing Tillman, why are you shooting?”. Unfortunately all the Rangers in the vehicle saw was another silhouette and a possible threat and they shot and killed him. Almost immediately after this the driver of the vehicle that had fired rounded a corner and saw the vehicles from Tillman’s group and began yelling for a cease fire because there were friendlies in the area.

They immediately learned that they had killed Tillman and the other allied soldier and in all of the statements they made this was noted. But there are several more items that are regularly brought up as “evidence of some sort of cover up.” The first is that Tillman’s uniform and body armor were burned several days after this. This was done mistakenly by personnel who believed that because the gear was covered in blood that it represented a bio hazard. Although this was not the case, by this point it was common knowledge that this was a friendly fire incident and that Tillman’s body armor had been hit by multiple rounds identified as US because of the green markings on the bullets. There was no attempt to hide this fact and there was an investigation into the incident underway.

Another point of contention was that it took 5 weeks to tell the family that this was fratricide. That was a failure by the command to properly understand the reporting procedures. They should have told them at the initial notification that it was believed to be friendly fire, but that investigations were still underway. Instead they waited for the investigation to give them positive confirmation and that caused the family concern and made them suspicious. They commenced an inquiry, helped by Sen. John McCain, and submitted a list of questions about the incident. I have seen the questions and answers and they leave no reason to believe it was not an accident or that there was a concerted effort to deceive them.

The other major issue surrounds the award of a Silver Star to Tillman for this event. It is often posited that this was to deflect from the fact that this was a friendly fire incident. While that may be true, CPL Tillman was leading his men on an assault of an enemy position when he was killed. He was attacking and leading from the front and that is why the award was submitted. Was there an element of “this is Pat Tillman” involved? Almost certainly, but the idea that this was simply part of a cover up is unfair. The speed with which the award was approved has also been questioned, but the Rangers had a policy of rapid response for posthumous valor awards so the families could be presented the medal at or before the funeral. There were numerous examples of this from the unit to validate that.

Anyone who volunteers for the military during wartime deserves our respect and our thanks. Someone who leaves comfort and riches behind to do so especially. Pat Tillman’s death was an unfortunate accident, but it was not a conspiracy to kill him or to cover up the fact that his own men pulled the triggers. He deserves to be remembered for the sacrifice he made as a patriot and a brave US Army Ranger.

Qualcomm’s combined leftist ideology and male bashing in its two ads featuring a guy who is “spineless” and a heavy political video montage by Obama idolater Will.i.am. I guess his stage name is supposed to be clever but it makes me think he was just raised on a little too much Dr. Seuss. Can you imagine the flack a company would get if it let Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck produce a video montage for its Super Bowl commercial? Watch the above clip for visuals of everything from Castro to Al Gore “winning” Florida.

—–

When Audi’s “Green Police” ad showing government environmental cops arresting people for violating the planet first came on I thought it was a PSA for the Obama administration EPA policies. It wasn’t. Seems as long as you are driving an Audi diesel you are on the right side of the environmental fascists, for now!

—–

Bud Light’s corporate image of the American male is almost as low as the tech world’s view of women. Guys are beer swilling lay-abouts who will do just about anything to down a few Buds. If their ads were close to being funny I could let it go for the joke, but they were not. Thanks for that uplifting picture of male behavior.

—–

Once again this year the people who run “Go Daddy” got their pole dancing girl friends a gig on national TV.  I am beginning to think that GoDaddy.com’s ad agency is run by Larry Flynt. Their banned “Lola” ad about an NFL player who comes out of the closet to design ladies lingerie was on the level of a bad SNL skit (like there’s any other kind). They weren’t the only advertiser to get in on the sophomoric heavy sexual overtones bandwagon.

—–

Monster.com’s ad entitled “Beavers” was perhaps the most shockingly bad outing of the evening. It ends with some inferred bestiality. Hey, it’s a “beaver,” get it. Ha-ha he said, “Beaver!” Cut to people who are unemployed and using Monster to search for a job rolling on the ground laughing hysterically. Maybe that’s why they’re unemployed. Why do these two web firms continue to run this type of advertising? Maybe they have research that shows only mouth-breathing troglodytes use their websites. Maybe all tech firms are run by really nerdy guys who have never lost their virginity. I am at a loss to explain this trend. 

—–

E Trade has been running its campaign of computer enhanced talking baby ads for a few years now and they had a couple of cute ads especially one where a boy baby was talking on a video link to his girl baby-friend. The whole concept is getting a little predictable although it still has a high “cute” factor. Still, I don’t know how many multimillion dollar investors move their accounts to E Trade because of the funny “milk-a-holic” line.

—– 

The best single ad was a promo for “The Late Show with David Letterman.” Building on another ad Dave had done with Oprah Winfrey. The ad opens with Dave complaining that he is at the worst Super Bowl party ever. The camera pulls back to reveal Oprah sitting next to him trying to sooth his feelings and then pans to show Jay Leno sitting next to Oprah. Jay says’ “He’s just saying that ‘cause I’m here.”  Then Dave mocks Jay’s reply and an exasperated Oprah throws her hands in the air! Hilarious! It also shows that above all Jay and Dave are comics who put the funny about personal differences and even their own shows.

—– 

I loved the Abe Vigoda/Betty White spot for Snickers but my award for the best corporate spots goes to Doritos. For the past several years the folks at Doritos have not hired a big dollar ad firm but have run a national video competition which has produced a steady stream of funny innovative commercials. By unleashing the unfettered creative power of 300 million Americans to get their Super Bowl ads, the Frito-Lay Corporation has been one of the top rated Super Bowl advertisers and has richly rewarded those willing to do the work. Perhaps the Obama Administration should take notice.

Apparently, reading Jonathan Safran Foer’s book Eating Animals transformed her from a vegetarian to being a full-fledged vegan activist:

I’ve always been shy about being critical of others’ choices because I hate when people do that to me. I’m often interrogated about being vegetarian (e.g., “What if you find out that carrots feel pain, too? Then what’ll you eat?”).

I’ve also been afraid to feel as if I know better than someone else — a historically dangerous stance (I’m often reminded that “Hitler was a vegetarian, too, you know”). But this book reminded me that some things are just wrong. Perhaps others disagree with me that animals have personalities, but the highly documented torture of animals is unacceptable, and the human cost Foer describes in his book, of which I was previously unaware, is universally compelling.

But she somehow managed to overcome those fears and tell you exactly why you should think the way she does. Well done, Natalie!

I have not read the book, so I can’t comment on it in full. But when someone tells you that usually she doesn’t like to be “critical of others’ choices” or come across as if she “knows better than someone else,” you pretty much know that she’s about to be critical of your choices because she knows better than you do.

You know, there are plenty of reasons for being a vegetarian, or a vegan, if you so choose. Some, like Natalie, think eating animals is “mean.” Some people are vegetarian for religious reasons. Others do it because they think it’s a healthy choice and still others because they have difficulty in digesting meat and other animal products. That’s all fine and dandy. I have no problem accepting these personal choices because that’s what they are: personal choices.

I do, however, take issue when others feel the need to lecture the rest of us, intoning, as Natalie does, “We are not them. But, [Jonathan Safran Foer] urges, how will we define who we are?”

How does Natalie define herself? Well, she did sign the Free Roman Polanski petition and, in her HuffPo article, described Safran Foer’s philosophy by saying, “He posits that consideration, as promoted by Michael Pollan in ‘The Omnivore’s Dilemma,’ which has more to do with being polite to your tablemates than sticking to your own ideals, would be absurd if applied to any other belief (e.g., I don’t believe in rape, but if it’s what it takes to please my dinner hosts, then so be it).”

Nice moral equivocation: comparing not wanting to offend meat eaters with not wanting to offend rapists. Almost as charming as PETA comparing eating meat to the Holocaust.

But I’m not a Harvard grad, so perhaps I’m not as familiar with nuance as Natalie is.

Last year, in 10 Questions for Natalie Portman from TIME Magazine, she was asked if she thought Michael Vick should be allowed to play again for the NFL. Her answer:

I think mistreatment and cruelty to animals should be treated with the same seriousness as cruelty to people if not more. Animals are clearly never at fault.

I’m sure the family of 19-year-old Taylor Mitchell, an up-and-coming country music star in Canada, would agree. Mitchell was attacked by two coyotes while hiking solo at a national park in Nova Scotia. Sadly, she died from her injuries. Perhaps the coyotes didn’t like the way Mitchell looked at them. Or maybe they didn’t like her music. After all, animals are never at fault. I wonder: had someone else been there, armed with a gun, and shot the coyotes in order to save Mitchell’s life, would Natalie have decried it as barbaric? When animals attack humans, should we just step aside because nature is taking it’s course? “We are not them,” after all.

Here’s a question, Natalie: If a person and a dog were drowning and you could only save one, who would it be?

And one wonders what her stance on animal research is. Does she agree with PETA, a group that would ban not only eating animals and having them as pets, but all animal testing – even though their own vice president benefits from insulin for her diabetes, which was developed via animal research? Just curious.

Don’t misunderstand: I don’t approve of animal cruelty either, and believe that there should be some level of punishment to offenders – especially as cruelty toward animals is a sign that such barbarism and cruelty can escalate to violence toward people. Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, for example, started out by killing animals by impaling them on stakes [shudder]. And I also believe that animals raised for food should not suffer needlessly. Mary Elizabeth Williams of Salon concurs:

Portman’s galling assumption is that because most of the modern meat industry is notoriously fast, cheap and out of control, there’s no room for cleaner, more ethical practices. That there’s no distinction between the bird that came from a factory and the one that sustains a family farm. It utterly dismisses the efforts of farmers and consumers alike over the last few years to create a healthier, more locally based culture of eating. There’s certainly no mention of any of that in her article.

During my decade or so as a what I call a Star Trek liberal, I was also a vegetarian. I certainly didn’t grow up that way – as a child, I remember enjoying liverwurst sandwiches and steak tartare. It started out as a “health” thing, but eventually became more. I subscribed to a magazine devoted to vegetarianism, dabbled with all sorts of unusual recipes that took forever to cook, and brought my own main dishes to family dinners and veggie dogs and burgers to cookouts. I’m still teased, nearly a decade later, about the lentil loaf I brought to a holiday meal – Thanksgiving or Christmas; I can’t remember which one.

But being a vegetarian, or a vegan, does not necessarily guarantee good health or a great body. Ever look at Moby? Seriously, despite abstaining from meat (but not eggs or dairy), I struggled for years with the weight that I gained during two pregnancies. So much for health.

And it ain’t cheap to be a vegetarian unless all you eat is rice and beans. I understand Natalie is partial to soy cheese.

Also, looking back, I was very priggish about my vegetarianism and tended to lecture others about the perils of eating meat, how it was bad for you and the planet, blah blah. My older sister would call me on it, but I denied being boorish at the time. But now, I admit she was right. And boy, did I miss liverwurst! Slap some on bread with a thick coating of mayo – mmm, hits the spot.

Here’s what it comes down to: “If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.”  Nothing like “defining who we are” by trying to define who everyone else is, too.

Natalie says it’s not only fine for celebrities to try to influence people on issues like elections, but she might run for office herself one day:

“Maybe I can go into politics once I’m too ugly for Hollywood.”

Just what we need: another holier-than-thou lib running for office. Please, Natalie, stick to acting and leave the decision-making to the individual – as it should be. You don’t want to eat meat? Fine. But leave the rest of us alone.

And before you go, please pass the mayo.

Recently, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh was asked to bring his considerable financial help to a group trying to buy the St. Louis Rams in order to keep the team in St. Louis. Rush is a Missouri native and a huge fan of the game, so it seemed like a natural fit. Rush was to be a minority partner in the group. He wouldn’t be picking in the draft or calling plays, just putting his money up and perhaps switching his allegiance from his beloved Steelers to the lowly Rams.

The mention of Rush’s name is like nails on a chalkboard to some liberal elements in America. No opportunity to try to reduce his stature or influence on the political discussion is ignored. Any chance to stop anything Rush does is seen as a political statement. There is a far left-wing in the Democrat party that hates him and what he stands for so deeply that I think if Rush really wanted to stop the government takeover of health care all he would have to do is say that he supports it and those folks would assume it to be evil and walk away from their plans.  

So when Rush was mentioned as a part of the group bidding to take over the Rams, the call was sounded on the far left.  The usual suspects hurried to get in front of the cameras and denounce Mr. Limbaugh with lies and misquotes. Under political pressure, the NFL owners folded like the Lions’ defense and chose anti-Semites and race pimps for their new minority partners rather than a man who worked for his money. The excuse given was that Rush was too divisive a figure to be involved with the NFL. As if having Keith “Overbearing” Olbermann on the sidelines or the press box as an official part of the game isn’t enough to make a large percentage of NFL fans consider switching over to the figure skating on another network. There seems to be a bit of bias against conservatives in the NFL, and even though a number of RINO’s and country club Republicans own teams. Not a single owner spoke up for Rush, not one.

Don’t misunderstand, I believe it is the NFL owners’ proverbial ball and they are free to do as they wish. They want to pick appeasing the left over allowing Rush a few shares of a team, that’s their business. I won’t even get into the people that already own teams or parts of teams and what their backgrounds may be.

However, the next time they come to me and ask for my support to buy a ticket, watch a game or vote for a bond issue for a stadium, they can ask someone else. As of today, for me, the NFL no longer exists. I am thinking that there are a lot of folks who feel the same way. This past Sunday I watched no NFL football. You know what?  I’m still alive! Next Sunday I don’t know what I’ll be doing but it will be something besides watching the NFL.

Join me if you wish and maybe we can show the owners how capitalism works.

“And the game done chose me to bring pain to niggas and pussy holes, they one in the same.” - I’m Real, co-written by Jennifer Lopez, minority owner of the Miami Dolphins.

Amidst the uproar over Rush Limbaugh having to step aside from his participation in the bid to purchase the NFL’s St. Louis Rams over racially insensitive statements he never actually made, is the fact that current ACTUAL owners of an NFL team have said much worse than the false and the left says nothing.

Fergie: NFL Owner

Jennifer Lopez, whose Sondheim-like lyric genius is on display at the top of this post, holds the same status with the Miami Dolphins as Limbaugh would have with the Rams.  And, not only does she have co-writer credit on this offensive drivel, she also recorded and performed it live.  She continues to earn money in royalties for her genius use of the “N-Word.” My guess is that those who took issue with Limbaugh’s imaginary racial slur are OK with J-Lo’s actual racial slur because she looks a lot better in tight pants.

–

Meanwhile, another minority owner of the Dolphins has some controversial issues with public statements as well.  Recently, Dolphins minority owner Serena Williams broke quite a few FCC laws by letting loose an “F-word” filled tirade on live television during the US Open.  Then she menacingly threatened a side judge and was subsequently disqualified.  This kind of behavior and speech seems to be right in line with the NFL’s standards since I missed the press conference from Commissioner Roger Goodell condemning it.

Finally, we get to Fergie, some-time member of the Black Eyed Peas and some-time solo artist.  You betcha, she has also been approved as a minority owner of the Miami Dolphins. Fergie is a huge Obama supporter, so I guess the NFL thought it was pretty cool that she just performed her song “Glamorous” at the White House Easter egg hunt… an event for children. Here’s how the DC Examiner reported the event:

Lines like “wear them gold and diamond rings” and “I’m not clean, I’m not pristine” may not be the dream lyrics for their daughters to emulate, but the song’s repetition of the line “If you ain’t got no money take your broke a** home” made a few parents cringe. She did of course edit the curse word from the song Monday — but some of crowd members helpfully filled it in for her.

It gets better. Earlier this week, Goodell said of Limbaugh’s potential ownership, “Divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about.” Is he splitting hairs between “comments” and “lyrics?” Because these lyrics from a 2003 Black Eyed Peas song sounds pretty divisive to me:

Overseas, yeah, we try to stop terrorism
But we still got terrorists here livin’
In the USA, the big CIA …

A war is goin’ on but the reason’s undercover
The truth is kept secret, it’s swept under the rug

Nothing like accusing the CIA of terrorism and our government of lying to bring people together. Goodell also said, “We’re all held to a high standard here.”

Really? Does this meet his high standard?

Whatcha gonna do with all that junk
All that junk inside your trunk
I’ma get get get get you drunk
Get you love drunk off my hump
My hump my hump my hump my hump my hump
My hump my hump my hump my lovely little lumps

How about drinking so much that you wet your pants, mid-song, on stage, in front of a live audience?

This week the NFL did more to silence conservative political perspectives on the radio then liberals and their “Fairness Doctrine” could ever dream of doing.  By bowing to shrill political pressure they forced a group of potential buyers of the St. Louis Rams, headed by Dave Checkett, to drop Rush Limbaugh from the ownership team.  Forget for a moment that the heinous statements attributed to Limbaugh were never sourced or substantiated and completely false.  Also forget that Limbaugh, as a minority owner, would have no actual control or real influence over personnel or management decisions with the team.  None of that matters.

The left hates Limbaugh. He had to be stopped.

But Rush will be just fine.  They can’t shut him up; he’s too big.  And even if they do pass the “Fairness Doctrine,” he will move to satellite radio and finally give Mel Karmazin a healthy balance sheet.

No, the real danger in all of this is the chilling effect it has on the rest of the conservative world.  Those of us articulating our points of view and trying to persuade others.  Just like Rush has done for over two decades.  And now, the seed has been planted.  Someday, we might want to own a football team.  Hell, we’re capitalists!  Will something we say or write now be twisted around or even made up to smear us and keep us from fulfilling our dream?

Yes, the seed has been planted.  They’ve done what the intended to do.  It wasn’t about stopping Rush… it was done to stop all of us.  And they will lie if they have to, to get what they want.

Change? Yes.  Hope?  Not so much.

Even in these times when the once unthinkable is becoming increasingly unremarkable, the current controversy over whether Rush Limbaugh is potentially worthy to be an NFL owner crosses over from the simply outrageous to the utterly infuriating. I strongly believe that it also represents a seminal moment in our cultural history as well as the sad state of free speech in this country.

There are so many levels of insanity with this story that it is difficult to know where to begin.

First, the facts: Limbaugh is a part of a group that wants to buy the lowly St. Louis Rams so that the team will stay in Rush’s native Missouri. The group has not even made an official bid as of yet, is one of several potential buyers, and Rush would not even be the primary owner of the team.

Despite all of this, just the mere mention of his name has caused a literal hysteria in the public dialogue. Nearly everyone even remotely associated with the NFL (as well as many who have no direct connection at all) have expressed their, often completely ignorant, opinions on whether Rush is worthy to join the highly exclusive club of NFL owners.

The overwhelming view allowed to be expressed in the mainstream media has been irrationally negative towards Rush’s potential bid. The primary “justification” for these views has been the notion that Rush is somehow a racist and that because the league has a high percentage of black players that it would be wrong to have him be a part owner of a team.

What is the basis of this incendiary claim? Well, we all know (because the media tells us so) that strong conservatives are really racists so anything they say that sounds remotely racist must be presumed to be so. Therefore, because Rush resigned in 2003 from a position at ESPN because a legitimate observation about the media coverage of a black quarterback was deemed by Rush haters to somehow be “racist,” this is all the critics need to close the loop on their laughably inane circular argument.

Just after Limbaugh’s resignation, I wrote in my book “The Death of Free Speech” that Rush had made a big mistake because he was allowing the perception to be created that he was essentially, though unintentionally, admitting (by resigning without a fight) that he was indeed a “racist” and that this narrative would come back to haunt both him and the movement. Unfortunately, it appears that I was right.

But even more infuriating than the tactic of Rush’s opponents to take his past statements out of context (or, in some cases, just flat out make them up), is the audacity of those who have chosen to be most vocal about this issue.

It should go without saying that of the 300 million people in this country that Al Sharpton should be at the very back of the line when it comes to being the moral arbiter of who is or is not worthy of owning anything. The man was found guilty in a civil court for having blatantly lied when accusing an innocent man in the infamous Tawana Brawley case. That he is given any platform to speak on this or any other matter of social importance is a damning indictment of our entire society. And yet, here he is leading the charge in the cause to keep Limbaugh from simply buying property.

If that wasn’t enough, the first owner to speak out against the theoretical Limbaugh bid was Jim Irsay of the Indianapolis Colts. Irsay claims, “Sometimes when there are comments made that are inappropriate, incendiary, insensitive… It’s bigger than football. As a nation we have to watch the words that we say.”

Forgetting for a moment that Irsay clearly has no appreciation for free speech, any such comment on who would make a proper NFL owner coming from him fails to even pass the laugh test.

Ask the people of Baltimore about Irsay who helped his alcoholic and apparently insane father (who was known to drop profanities during live televised press conferences) take the Colts to Indianapolis in moving vans under the cover of darkness. I doubt anyone there will tell you Irsay is the model NFL owner. And by the way, under these bizarre, watered down, rules for racism, why was it not “racist” for the Colts to move from Baltimore to Indianapolis where the percentage of blacks in the neighborhood was exponentially smaller? (It should also be noted that there are quite a few black people in St. Louis who would like to keep their NFL team.)

Then there is the angle of who else is already an NFL owner. Al Davis is a clearly senile crazy man who has sued the league and moved his Raiders numerous times while turning them into an utter laughing stock on the field. But Davis is just the tip of the iceberg.

The transparent hypocrisy here could not have been more starkly displayed than on the pages of Wednesday’s USA Today. On the front page of their sports section the top headline was “Irsay, Goodell speak out against Limbaugh.” Directly under that article was a cover story on how the Miami Dolphins have incorporated numerous celebrities into their ownership team. Included among them are Marc Anthony, Gloria Estefan and the Williams’ sisters.

That’s right. Serena Williams, who recently threatened bodily harm to a lines woman on national television, is a part owner of the Dolphins. I must have missed the hand wringing from anyone associated with the NFL or the media about whether she was fit to be an NFL owner. Oh wait, I forgot. She is a black woman and is therefore beyond such scrutiny. After all, to even ask such questions would obviously be racist and, let’s face it, it’s no coincidence that the flock of celebrities picked to be Miami owners all happen to be members of strategically important minority groups.

Unfortunately, now that the momentum has started and it is more than safe (in fact, expected) for everyone involved to condemn Rush, the floodgates appear to be open. It frustrates the heck out of me that the Commissioner of the NFL has no fear at all of offending conservatives by bashing Rush. The reason? Largely because they tend to have day jobs and think for themselves, conservatives are really lousy at boycotts/protests. If a similar situation happened to say, Al Franken, the left would immediately be in attack mode and the apology would be immediate.

Quite simply, what is happening to Rush is beyond outrageous and frankly dangerous to the property and free speech rights of all Americans. This is so obvious that even Keith Olbermann (whose own appearance on Sunday night NFL telecasts should be seriously questioned) has somewhat supported Rush’s position here.

And yet my sense is that the general reaction from many conservatives is to not take this topic very seriously. Some seem to think the issue is frivolous or that Rush is doing this for publicity.

Folks, this is a huge deal. If Rush Limbaugh is not even allowed to be considered to be a minority owner of a property where his primary intent to help the community where he grew up, an incredibly dangerous precedent will have been set and the narrative that conservatism is synonymous with racist will be further cemented in the public consciousness.

Rush Limbaugh needs to fight this one right to the very end of the game, and we need to back him with everything we have.

If not, we will get what we deserve.

So sometimes, these Gregalogues write themselves.

I speak tonight of Al Sharpton, who just attacked Rush Limbaugh’s attempt to buy the St. Louis Rams (I believe it’s tetherball), sending a letter to commissioner Roger Goodell, saying the wildly popular conservative host has been “divisive.”

Divisive.

Now, I made a decision late in my odd career that any time Al Sharpton would enter the fray and make a charge like that, I would act as a one-man “Al Sharpton Historian.” My role: to give you background as to why there is no one on the planet less mentally or morally fit to make a statement about race (or anything, for that matter) than Al.

In a nutshell, he was largely responsible for the Tawana Brawley hoax. Now, if you were born in the 1980’s, you probably never heard about this 15-year-old black girl, but she went missing for four days back in 1987, eventually turning up covered in dog poop with racial slurs written all over her. She claimed she was repeatedly raped by up to six white men in the woods. One of them even had a badge. The then unknown and obese Al Sharpton saw an opportunity for quick fame (he was dead right on that one, by the by) and became an advisor to Brawley. Sharpton and his pals manipulated the event to horrific, freakish proportions, claiming Brawley had been raped 33 times by one prosecutor. Al also helped conjure up a conspiracy involving a creepy police cult that helped perpetrate the gang rape. But there was never any evidence, and the case fell apart. A grand jury called it all a hoax – and Sharpton was order to pay roughly 70 grand to the real victims. Others paid it for him.

So that concludes our “Al Sharpton History Minute.”

For the next “Al Sharpton History Minute,” wait patiently for a month or so – and whenever some kind of racial controversy arises, he’ll pop up like a blister, there to inflame but never heal.
At least he had good taste in track suits.

And if you disagree with me, then you’re probably a racist.

Tonight: Jim Norton, the lovely Anna David, Stephen Kruiser and Dr. Death himself, Michael Baden!