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!

For instance, I understand why liberals opposed invading Iraq.  It was because George W. Bush instigated it.  They voiced no objections when Bill Clinton took us into Somalia and Kosovo, and now that Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan, you don’t hear them whining that it’s a quagmire, that the Afghanis had nothing to do with 9/11 or demanding that Obama spell out his exit strategy and specify the date of withdrawal.  But, given all that, I would have thought that at least the tree-huggers would have campaigned for regime change in Iraq, based not on Saddam Hussein’s gassing of the Kurds and his history of torture and rape, God forbid, but for having set fire to the oil fields of Kuwait in 1991, probably the worst man-made ecological disaster in history. 

It is beginning to look as if the various fascists, racists and astroturfers who have been showing up at town halls may have stopped Obama from taking his next step in  destroying America.  But Obama and his cronies are like those creatures in scary movies; just when you think they’re dead and buried, they reach a hand up from the grave and grab someone’s ankle. 

Somebody summed up ObamaCare very neatly.  In an e-mail that was forwarded to me, it said: “Let me get this straight.  We’re going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose head said he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it but exempts them from abiding by it, signed by a President who smokes and is also exempted, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese and financed by a country that’s nearly broke.  What could possibly go wrong?” 

Of course we keep hearing the left-wing lunkheads tell us how glorious single payer health care is, pointing to Canada and England as sterling examples of medical Nirvana.  Yet the BBC reported that there is a five month wait to have surgery for a slipped disc or to have a hernia repaired, eight months for cataract surgery, 11 months for a hip replacement and an entire year if you need to have your knee worked on.  So I guess the best thing an Englishman can do is claim he needs to have surgery for a hernia and when, after five months, they wheel him into the operating room, break the news that it’s really his damn knee that’s been acting up. 

One thing that’s been made clear is that whether it’s last year’s amnesty bill or this Frankensteinian health care monstrosity, the people still retain some clout when they stand up and start acting like Americans and not like a herd of sheep waiting to be shorn by the likes of Henry Waxman, Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi.  As someone once observed, in order to make politicians see the light, they first need to feel the heat.  Or as Ronald Reagan put it so eloquently:  “Government isn’t the solution.  Government is the problem.” 

If there’s one thing you have to say about liberal politicians, it’s that they regard consistency pretty much the way they regard their constituents; namely with arrogant contempt.  It’s liberals, after all, who are constantly telling us that women have absolute autonomy over their own bodies, so long as the topic under discussion happens to be abortions.  But when it comes to everything else, they are quite content to leave all medical decisions in the hands of the federal government, up to and including the rationing of health care to babies and the elderly.  Gee, and we all thought the Nazis were bad! 

Because I live in California, I occasionally am lucky enough to receive an e-mail from Barbara Boxer.  The other day, she let me know that she’s hard at work on a Bill of Rights for Passengers.  The rest of us are concerned about Iran and North Korea building a nuclear bomb and about Obama sovietizing the United States, but Boxer is worried about disgruntled airline passengers. 

I sent her ladyship the following message:  “President Obama is trying to morph America into a socialist tyranny, complete with commissars and armed thugs, and you’re worrying about airliners sitting on the tarmac?  Most Americans do not support the pork-stuffed stimulus bill, cap & trade, the pandering to the UAW and the CEIU, the financing of ACORN or the abomination known as ObamaCare, and you’re busy pushing legislation so that airline passengers won’t occasionally suffer some minor discomfort?  Just for the record, we’d all gladly just settle for a little more legroom.  Are you trying to give new meaning to “inconsequential,” ma’am?” 

Finally, lest someone gets the idea that I only pick on liberals, I have a bone to pick with Sean Hannity.  I recently heard him give absolution to Michael Vick.  He was ready to forgive Vick his trespasses because, after all, Vick had served 18 months in jail and he had apologized.  The problem is, one, Vick should have been sentenced to at least 10 years; two, inasmuch as Hannity wasn’t one of Vick’s victims, he’s not entitled to accept his apology; and, three, the time for remorse and possibly redemption, it seems to me, is before you’re arrested.  After that, it’s only defense strategy — whether what’s at stake is a more severe sentence or trying to salvage a multi-million dollar NFL career. 

This is a guy, after all, who beat, drowned, hanged and electrocuted dogs for no other reason than that they lost fights to other dogs, and because, sadist that he is, he could.  Imagine if quarterbacks who lost games were treated like that. 

All I can say is, defensive linemen of the NFL — have at him!