Fox doesn't even TRY any more...

My takeway: If you are stupid enough or ignorant enough to think there could be palm trees in Madison Wisconsin, you might still be watching Fox News. Or at least, that's likely the calculus over at Faux, so why put any effort into that Journalism stuff? It's not like the core audience cares...

For the rest of humanity, let the mockery commence.

Oh, as for CNN, and other "Liberal Media," - maybe it might be time to spend more time on the real issues of the day, and less time on Charlie Sheen.

Janeane Garofalo is Foxbushed! And Hannity is SO proud!

The blogosphere is all a-twitter of the confrontation between Ambush Journalist Ken Pittman and Janeane Garofalo.

I shall leave all of the commentary on this aside, to simply observe, trenchantly, that there is a certain basic intent behind ambushing someone.

The idea is to use the element of surprise to get the victim to blurt out something embarrassing and awkward for them.

Regardless of the journalistic ethics or the intent; the form has been variously practiced for good or ill and can elicit many things.

Unfortunately, sometimes it can elicit your own ass, handed you on tape.

At times like this, an actual journalist - or at least, a proper news director, would guffaw, observe with some degree of professional commiseration that "that didn't go well" and suggest that the tape might be improved by being demagnetized, lest someone with a different editorial slant use it to impeach one's journalistic credentials, integrity, judgment, discretion, intelligence, political affiliation and, in my particular case, make innocent-seeming speculations of possible ties to racist organizations.

Surely stupidity alone could not explain this tape being run by both Sustren and Hannity on two separate, high-profile programs. Clearly there must be an agenda. And it seems to be to defend people standing around with racist dinks holding racist signs as "patriots."

I understand Garofalo's confusion on that point, myself. As, well, would anyone with the wit to understand why mixed messages cannot be unmixed using a naked assertion and stirred with rightious indignation.

But that would be the intelligent perspective. This is Sean Hannity and Fox News.

Hannity alleges - and with such a straight face and contemptuous sneer that one cannot question the sincerity of his delusional state - that this exchange PROVES that Garofalo is a "dangerous radical." Then he runs the same footage with only minor editing that does nothing whatsoever to support that assertion.



If it's "radical" to think that a bunch of people standing around chatting with those holding blatantly racist signs may be reasonably presumed to also be racists, paint me a "radical."

I'd refer to it as "common sense," or possibly "situational awareness." But this observation that it's quite impossible to have anything sensible survive association with such visible idiocy is lost on Sean Hannity.

Nor is it in any way a political observation to say that it should hurt to be this stupid.

"If this be treason, make the most of it."

Fox Populi T-Shirt by webcarve

Whatever you may think of the Daily Kos; as a group they are unrivaled at picking out particularly idiotic statements by Republicans. Of course, the ammunition is provided with political intent - but all the sharp edges were lovingly crafted by the intended targets. If there is one great observation political critique to evolve over the last several years, it is this: "It shouldn't be this easy."

The fact that the following accusation of treason against Colin Powell is compounded by getting a "me too" from a fox news host is a matter that should be of bipartisan concern - and yet it can be presumed it is not, will not be and that pointing it out will be attributed to "political score-settling" or "lib'rul propaganda." I'm no liberal - but I become less and less interested in pointing out the apparently too-subtle distinctions between my own views and those of classical or modern Liberals. I'm unable to find words both small and rude enough to communicate.

And that, dear readers, is a significant problem. That is not merely a "political" issue. For treason is a rather consequential word to be attaching to a disaffected political ally.

If this accusation ever comes to Gen. Powell's attention - and I cannot imagine why anyone would think it significant enough to mention to him, nor would I expect him to consider Fox to be a source of reliable intelligence - I can only imagine that the very apt Patrick Henry quotation I chose to entitle this article might cross his mind.

If Colin Powell is a "Bad Republican," one wonders what a "Good Republican" looks like. Even more troubling, the speaker equates disloyalty to the Republican Party with disloyalty to the state. That is the sort of assumption that should have you checking your personal weapons to make sure they will function properly at sudden need.

But it does lead us to consider what "Loyal Republicans" look like.

Well, there's no lack of examples; Take Sen Dave Vitter (R, LA). Here's how he explains his tactic of holding up Obama's choice for FEMA chief just before hurricane season.

"Almost four years after Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, communities like Cameron Parish and Grand Isle are still waiting on an answer from FEMA so that fire stations and other key facilities can be rebuilt," Vitter said. "And FEMA is complaining about a short delay of this nomination vote? It seems like they have their priorities mixed up. I'm eager to end all of this delay; I hope FEMA is."

Gee, Dave, that means that, during those four years as a valued member of the majority party, you were unable to fulfill your most significant duty as a Senator - to get federal dollars for critical infrastructure? You could not shake loose any money for these critical infrastructure matters? Couldn't form some sort of activist coalition? Do a little lobbying of various agencies and federal entities? Schmooze committee heads?

Considering your failure to do your job when you belonged to a party that made every decision in favor of Republicans and controlled every aspect of the decision making structure - perhaps it's not so unreasonable that the White House dismisses this as a purely political stunt. There's good reason to doubt you have any genuine interest in dealing with the needs of those who supposedly elected you. (Assuming, of course, they actually did.)

There is a place in politics for stunts, and it's reasonable to consider the timing, the skill and the objective. I think you need to go ask Ron Paul for a few tips. Because, you see, you don't hold up the President on a time critical appointment when your stated reason for doing amounts to "because I'm incompetent."

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was notably blunt:

When asked about Vitter's reasoning, Gibbs said "the best way to get moving on any concerns that he has with FEMA is to get somebody of the utmost regard at the helm of FEMA to make progress."

"And I think his constituents would expect that same level of professionalism," Gibbs said.

One would think - but after eight years of prompt, high quality (R) service, they are probably relieved that the federal government has not designated New Orleans as a nuclear waste repository.

You see, this is the sort of public servant you get when blind loyalty to Party is the only required qualification. And while the equations may have differing variables across the aisle - results do not seem to indicate that they add up to significantly higher values.

There are a lot of places where people have simply given up on trying to get rid of obviously corrupt and conspicuously incompetent leaders. It's clear that the process itself is so badly compromised that going through the motions of participatory democracy seems - and in many cases likely is - a complete waste of effort.

Speaking of incompetence - Colin Powell spent much of his tenure with the Bush Administration trying to fix a fuckup in progress, the completely incoherent and ultimately more than useless detainment program that led the US to national disgrace with the scandals at Gitmo, Abu Ghrab and elsewhere. This article establishes that Dick Cheney was one of, if not the major force behind the completely indiscriminate roundup of apparently randomly-selected victims, a process he apparently still defends as vital to national security.

Fox news - as everyone is well aware, due to the mindless cheerleading of techniques of torture by such leading Republican intellectual leaders as Sean Hannity, apparently concurs that torturing the wrong people is as likely to produce good, actionable intelligence as torturing the right people. That is, of course, a common-sense conclusion - if you understand that torture does not produce high quality intelligence. So, we must presume that the "good results" would be something more along the line of terrifying the crap out of certain target elements - the Iraqi people and, of course, "libruls."

Colin Powell's former chief of staff, Lawrence B. Wilkerson has a blistering assessment of the entire program that Powell's team ultimately failed to put an end to, and is unheasitatingly assigning direct responsiblity for that failure to Dick Cheney. (Though no doubt he would consider it as a "credit.")

After a relentless establishment of the reasons for making his statements - foundations that everyone concerned about national security from any perspective, political or practical should read - he bluntly concludes:

Cheney went on to say in his McLean interview that "Protecting the country's security is a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business. These are evil people and we are not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek." I have to agree but the other way around. Cheney and his like are the evil people and we certainly are not going to prevail in the struggle with radical religion if we listen to people such as he.

Fox news would presumably have the ability - as a news gathering organization - to contact people with appropriate, relevant and useful insights into matters of this import. Certainly, you would think that if a man of the stature of Colin Powell had qualms about Cheney's torture program, they would have sources that could have let them know about it.

We can then presume that they are either devoid of contacts that could have told them as matters developed - but that would then establish that they have no useful sources. Of course, by now, a simple Google search could have given them multiple sources to inform their analysis. At this point, we must therefor presume they have the intent of deliberately misinforming their audience, that, or presume they are absolute idiots. One could easily presume that both are true; it takes quite a bit more charity to say that neither is.

But Hannity proves by example that he's not firmly enough convinced that waterboarding is not torture to put his personal pink butt on the line to underline the network's editorial position.

Perhaps we should put the challenge to Rupert Murdoch himself?

I suspect for men of stature such as Colin Powell, being called a traitor to such a cause served and advanced by such people is an honor to be cherished.

As for those who continue to excuse and defend and demand the GOP move even further towards absolute sociopathic authoritarian mindlessness; "Fox Populi, Fox Idiotum."

I suppose Sun Tsu would council me to silence on this matter, but I'm willing to risk it. At this point, those who continue to have faith in this mindlessly evil sociopolitical philosophy are probably incapable of understanding the point I'm making here.

So in plain English, here it is. People this viciously stupid and this prone to violence will have to be dealt with. Nor am I saying that as a rallying cry - I'm stating it as a reality they will absolutely bring about by their own efforts.

You - whoever you are - should be considering how you, your family and the people and institutions you are responsible for might be affected should some fanatically idiotic person act in the manner that Fox news and agitators and propagandists are clearly urging them toward.

The only prudant assumption is that there are people - who are no doubt directly or indirectly connected to whatever circle of hell picks up the phone when Cheney calls - in position to use such a situation as a pretext to take some action you might well consider objectionable.

It's time to abandon the fond assumption that "such things could never happen here." They surely can - just as surely as there were those saying "such things could never happen here" when Caeser marched on Rome.

Nor do I expect that things will unfold much differently in the United States then they did after Caeser crossed the Rubicon.

But there is one lesson of history - repeated far too often, in my opinion - and it is this. It is profoundly unwise to question the loyalty of those who have defended the honor and security of a nation in such a way as to establish that those holding sway over it have no honor and are undeserving of personal security.

Your silence is deafening, Mr. Hannity...

I'd Rather Be Waterboarding... T-Shirt by webcarve

Hannity demonstrates a usage of the term "troll" I had previously been unaware of. (Credit to asgardshill on this digg thread)



Think Progress » Eight days of silence since Hannity volunteered to be waterboarded: Is he chickening out? (rorr.im|mi.rror)

Over a week ago — on Thurs., April 22 — Fox News’ torture enthusiast Sean Hannity agreed to be waterboarded for charity to prove that it is not torture. Though he dismissed waterboarding as simply taking someone’s head and “dunk[ing] it in water,” he has remained notably silent on his promise ever since, perhaps regretting that he volunteered to subject himself to the intensely terrifying suffocation experience. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann offered last week to donate $1,000 to military families for every second Hannity is waterboarded. In the face of Hannity’s silence, Olbermann repeated the offer this week:

OLBERMANN: Sean, my offer still stands, 1,000 dollars a second. This is not a stunt nor game. Prove to those families you are a man of your word. In fact, prove you are a man.

Hannity, we await your reply.

As they say at Gitmo - "Don't hold your breath, Keith." While I myself encouraged Mr. Hannity to live up to his own bluster, I can't say I ever expected it, and I doubt Kieth Olbermann did, either. Frankly, getting Hannity to wimp out, to fail to live up to his own "Machismo by Proxy" was the entire point of the exercise.

Hannity has acted exactly as bullies and cowards always do - run like hell when met with a serious, dedicated, determined opposing force. He also proves that his convictions only apply when they are applied to other people - which of course puts him squarely within the fold of modern US social conservatism.

You might find a visit to www.waterboardhannityforcharity.com amusing - though probably charities would find direct contributions less potentially ephemeral.

Of course one absolutely should consider the source and the outcome as definitive of the character, motivation and intents of the speaker. As an individual, Hannity is odious but insignificant. The real problem is the fact that he's permitted a public platform, is paid well, and is clearly influential among a section of the American people that are quite unashamed of demonstrating a very strong, attachment with the idea of torture - often going so far as to suggest that "squeamishness" about torturing one's enemies is "unmanly." My. What a very convenient cultural meme to foster - if you are Dick Cheney - good friend and political ally of Rupert Murdoch.

On digg, ami6htywind shares this nugget of wisdom.

"Why Do American Christians Approve Of Torture?"
Maybe it is because us Christians do not feel the need to offer our throats to these outworld savages, unlike moronic liberals.

I'd comment further - but really, if you can't get from the point established so viscerally above to where you need to be in order to be a functional, rational individual that deserves the maximum of liberty within the context of a functional, rational culture, I'm not sure there is a point.

But just let me state for the record that if you say things like that to a psycologist or psychiatrist, and they had the slightest suspicion that you had the occasion, inclination and desire to act on such beliefs, you might experience a 72 hour interruption in your ordinary life. It's an insane perspective - and when a blatantly insane perspective becomes shared by a very large number of people, little good can arise from pretending that it's merely a difference of opinion or disagreements between persons of concience. Not when conscientious and principled objections are rejected as unmanly, gutless and "liberal."


There are many illustrations available for what happens when the crazy people are permitted to run the asylum. Large swaths of the Middle East - and not omitting the state of Israel - are examples of various examples of toxic mindsets coming into conflict. Or you could have a look at North Korea. Gee, what a lovely place it is, to live under the loving protection of The Dear Leader.

Let us not forget the piles of skulls that are the memorial to the Killing Fields of Cambodia. Let us not forget where a tolerance of such views can lead us. There is a line, it's been crossed, and the uncrossing of it will entail some degree of painful social rearrangement.

I see nothing inappropriate in stating that the greatest pain should be borne by those who most cheerfully chose to incur such great moral debt on your behalf. Sadly, things rarely seem to work out that way in practice, but my observation is that the greater the physical and social distance between you and those deserving of consequence, the less collateral consequence will fall your way.

The first step is simple. Change the channel, or just turn off the TV entirely. You can safely assume that anyone trying to gain a benefit of the doubt in favor of torture or an "aggressive foreign policy" has no intentions that benefit your interests - or the long-term interests of your family and children.

If you have the common sense required to enjoy a situation comedy - well, the phrase "Nothing good can come of this" should resonate with you. And you see, there's no ability to watch with detached amusement. Audience participation is integral to this particular comedy of errors and may yet influence the ultimate outcome of the play.

Glenn Beck accuses Daily Kos of infiltrating tea parties

J.S. Mill on Conservatism by webcarve

"Just here to get some pictures for the blog. Could you hold that sign about "faggits" a little higher? Yeah, you, the guy with the noose."

"Glenn Beck accuses Daily Kos and Huffington Post of publicly conspiring with ACORN to infiltrate his tea bag parties."read more | digg story

For what, a voter registration drive? That's not just stupid, it's Glenn Beck Stupid!

We Are Not Amused

Greg Gutfield, is host of Fox's "Red-Eye," an allegedly funny show. He's managed to get a lot of attention for his show by pissing off Canada. As a nation. On an official level. That takes some world-class offensiveness, folks. From CTV news:

In an interview with CTV Newsnet earlier on Monday, [Defense Minister Peter] MacKay expressed his anger over the comments and demanded an apology.

"It's crass, it's insensitive, it's in fact disgusting given the timing where Canada is just receiving back four fallen heroes here at CFB Trenton," MacKay said.

On Friday, Master Cpl. Scott Vernelli, 28, Cpl. Tyler Crooks, 24, Trooper Jack Bouthillier, 20, and Trooper Corey Joseph Hayes, 22, were killed in two separate IED blasts that injured another five soldiers.

The deaths bring the total number of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan to 116.

MacKay said the Canadian government will be demanding an apology from the panel and from Fox.

The matter started with a segment that was perhaps born out of ennui regarding "Octomom" jokes or possibly a visible lack of persons with developmentally disabilities. It seized upon the fact that Canadian forces have been materially over-extended in their Afghanistan mission.

"Once their Afghan mission winds down sometime in 2011, certain members of the Canadian military are looking to take a much-deserved break. And by certain members I mean all of them," Gutfeld said.

"Meaning, the Canadian military wants to take a breather to do some yoga, paint landscapes, run on the beach in gorgeous white Capri pants."

It must be said that an apology was made. But there are apologies and there are "apologies." Greg's was of the latter sort.

Gutfeld issued an apology Monday afternoon saying, "I realize that my words may have been misunderstood. It was not my intent to disrespect the brave men, women and families of the Canadian military, and for that I apologize."

I have two questions. The first, is "How exactly could anyone possibly misunderstand your intent?"

The second is more fundamental. "How could you have ever thought that was funny?" I fail to see what's humorous about mocking soldiers for having fought hard and needing a rest, much less anyone on the single most bellicose American network suggesting that invading Canada - that "ridiculous nation" - would be a good idea.

In the four-minute segment, Gutfeld asked the other three members of his panel: "Isn't this the perfect time to invade this ridiculous country? They have no army!"

Panelist Doug Benson, a comedian, replied: "I didn't even know they were in the war. I thought that's where you go when you don't want to fight. Go chill in Canada."

Doug, I suggest you cancel any Canadian engagements for the foreseeable future. Unless you really want to try and be funny with a front row filled with uniformed veterans of Afganistan, Cyprus, Korea and WWII. I'd enjoy watching that. Your genitailia might vary.

But while the insults of a fool say more about the fool than those they are trying to offend, those words say a great deal more about those who would put such a fool on the air. Greg Gutfield could be suffering from some sort of untreated personality disorder - a sort of moral Tourette's syndrome. Perhaps he does not really know that there is a line that is labeled "funny ends here." Fox COULD be seen as exploiting a man with an unfortunate disablity for whatever ratings it brings.

When the comedy fails and feelings are hurt to the point that you make yourself and your employer object of intense diplomatic disgust, it is at best clueless to respond with a legalistic variant of "what, can't you take a joke?"

"I realize that my words may have been misunderstood. It was not my intent to disrespect the brave men, women and families of the Canadian military, and for that I apologize."

Greg, I'm sorry that you are incapable of understanding how you fucked up and embarrassed your network and your nation. You should pray someone cares enough about you to explain to you, personally and in small words, exactly where you crossed the line.

But frankly, I doubt that Fox gives a scintilla of a damn. Not when there are "male enhancement supplements" and 900 number chatline subscriptions to sell and you serve that sad, pathetic demographic so very well.

Oh, Republicans, Why do you hate Science?

Fox news decided to do a little "scientific polling" designed to prove something they knew to be true. Well, something got proved...

TPMDC | Talking Points Memo | Obama Preferred Over Reagan -- In Fox News Poll

Check out this question from the new Fox News poll: "What do you think the nation's economy needs more of right now -- the economic policies of Ronald Reagan or the economic policies of Barack Obama?"

The answer: Obama 49%, Reagan 40%.

If science reliably gave you the answer you wanted to hear - it would be Scientology.

The "proof" of what was actually intended is the fox news analysis, provided by a commenter.

FOX News Poll: Obama Believes in Bigger Government
Thursday, March 05, 2009
By Dana Blanton

Majorities of Americans think President Barack Obama is meeting, if not exceeding, expectations, and keeping his campaign promises. In addition, despite Obama's claim that he doesn't believe in bigger government, a new poll shows there is widespread belief among Americans that he does.

I love it. While 52 percent believe he is meeting expectations, only 14 percent think he is exceeding expectations. And even though people really like Obama and his policies and trust him and think his economic proposals are better than Reagans, a majority think that he believes in a bigger government that provides more services. He's a massive failure. May as well start impeachment proceedings immediately.

If I had Dana's job, I'd be rather proud of myself for that spin. But that's one very significant component of why I don't have Dana's job. As much as I like good booze - I don't want to have to need enough of it to drown my conscience.

Say that again, Bob? Fox TV has a Standards and Practices department?

I've been a GoDaddy.com customer since I first registered GraphicTruth.com.

That's quite some time, now that I think on it, and I have never had one single complaint. Indeed, they have managed to consistently exceed my expectations.

By that, I mean I almost never have to go to godaddy.com. My renewals are automated, my hosting is automated and nothing ever seems to break. I have paid a hell of a lot more for far, far less.

They are the perfect service in this regard; completely invisible unless you have some reason to need them. They don't overpromise and everything they offer works, right out of the box. Honestly, I can't imagine why they even need advertising, I mean, if youda ast me, I'da tolja.

And no, I'm not getting dime one for this.

Anyway, until today I was only vaguely aware that Bob Parsons (Owner of GoDaddy.com) had a blog. Like I said, I hardly ever go there. But I had some domain twiddling to do and a host account to establish for a project of mine and there it was:

BobParsons.com
The 2008 Super Bowl is a go!
2 hilarious ads get rejected.
You'll never guess why.

Now, even I am not ignorant of the first, massively successful GoDaddy Superbowl Commercial. So when there was a tease indicating that they were having difficulty getting a GoDaddy Superbowl commercial approved, because this year it's FOX broadcasting it, I had to click.

Let's face it; Fox put the broad in broadcasting.

That chica in the spandex band-aid could well be a FOX News Spokes-bimbette. All that's required is the ability to read and a sufficient insufficiency of either intelligence, curiosity or integrity so that one does not actually laugh at what one is asked to read.

Bob, speaking of the gratuitous insertion of very large breasts into contexts where search engines might find them - I bow in your direction and acknowledge your genius.

You have made being surrounded by lap-dancers, midgets and the dudes from Sturgis tax deductible - and also ensured that on every "see what you other CEO's could have if you weren't so uptight" page, there's a link to Go-Daddy.

Meanwhile, the Other Guys are paying two hundred bucks a plate to hear Ashcroft sing "Let the Eagle Soar."

The fact that you got a 9 percent hit on market share from that first ad must feel like being tipped by a lap-dancer.

I cannot think of how much this all pisses off those suits at Network Solutions (not even half the service at more than twice the price). I found GoDaddy looking for a registrar that was NOT Network Solutions. Until today, I'd never realized just how damn appropriate it is for GraphicTruth to be associated with GoDaddy.

But since I was "sold" on the service long before you stopped pretending to be respectable, I never paid much attention to your wacky publicity.

But not having thought of it much does not mean "Deaf or Blind," so I assure you that I did see the first Go-Daddy commercial and thought it a work of absolute genius with malice aforethought, guarenteed to point out that ordinary joes could and should be thinking about domain registration.

1.99 dot com domains are a powerful marketing tool - speaking as someone for whom price point beats boobage every single time. Still, with apologies to Willie Sutton, "Boobs and $1.99 domain names will get you a lot more than just $1.99 domain names."

Anyway, in a howl of irony,it turns out that Bob is having some problems with "Standards And Practices" over at Fox, getting them to approve his 2008 Superbowl ad.

One rejected concept featured two of our celebrity Go Daddy Girls, in seemingly adjacent stalls in the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport restroom. Both are wearing tennis shoes with pink socks. There's a bit of toe tapping and other signals. Eventually both girls rise up over the top to acknowledge each other, only to find that in the stall between them is a rather surprised and delighted Booth Coleman, who just happens to be wearing the same tennis shoes with pink socks. I'll let you imagine the dialog from there. Booth is the older gentleman who appeared in our 2005 (the actor with oxygen mask), 2006 (the network censor) and 2007 (just a fun loving guy) commercials. To see the 2007 commercial, please click here.

The other rejected creative was a parody of a famous scene involving Marilyn Monroe in "The Seven Year Itch." The Go Daddy Girl dressed in a white sleeveless skirt has her dress blow up in the air when she stands over what appears to be a street air grate. A closer inspection by the camera reveals a snickering Booth Coleman hidden under the grate, holding a huge fan.

FOX? In charge of good taste?
In rejecting both our "restroom" and "fan" creatives, FOX S&P gave us a reason we've not heard before. They said both concepts were in "poor taste." After reading the FOX rejection, I thought "hmmmm, in poor taste?" "Of course. What are they expecting? We're talking about a GoDaddy.com ad intended for the Super Bowl."

Bob, Bob, Bob. You do the domain registrations, let the professionals do the punch lines.

FAUX hosts Bill (hide my loofa) O'Rielly, Sean Hannedy and the largest stable of boufed and betoothed, gloriously artificial spokesmuffins on the planet. To work there, Greta Van Susteren required cosmetic surgery, despite being one of the most articulate legal analysts out there. Let's not go into what surveys show Faux News viewers believe to be the truth about "the war on terror."

Oh, and then there's "24" - a show clearly crafted to be an vehicle intended to contrive excuses for torture, plumbs depths of Authoritarian propagandistic absurdity never even approached by Hawaii 5-0.

So the funny, Bob, ain't that they rejected a godaddy.com ad being "in poor taste."

I agree, that's like rejecting a glass of water for being "rather wet for my taste." I will tell you, your 2007 Superbowl commercial crossed my line, then turned around and urinated on it. But it didn't bore me or insult my intelligence. Hell, it didn't even try to appeal to it! Kinda refreshing in a way.

But let's face it, you were reaching out to the core Fox News Demographic, grabbing them by the balls as literally as possible with a tv commercial and suggesting to them that they should be out their on the web, where all the hot chicks are.

Which is rather like the FOX News implication that "Real men watch FOX because that's where Real Women give great cleavage, while breathing hard in simulated outrage."

So, the funny for MY money is that they have the gall to actually call whatever it is they do "Standards and Practices."

Or for that matter, have managed to find anyone to work in "Standards and Practices" for them capable of saying "I work For Fox TV in the Standards and Practices devision" with a straight face. Or without shooting themselves.

If they had any standards they practiced, falafel boy would be working as an overnight weather guy in a place like Reno, Tulsa or Walla Walla, Faux news would be accurate and newsworthy (after a hostile takeover by Turner Broadcasting and the BBC), Greta would still look like a comfortable and trustworthy basset hound and there would be no shows on television where the whole plot revolved around contriving yet another reason to torture a human being.

I take it back, Bob. My punch-line wasn't anywhere near as funny as yours.

But I do have an idea for you: why not just buy five 15 second black cards that say "Too Hot for Fox Standards and Practices." and the url.

Then make every one of your ideas - and see how many people you can suck away from not just the other commercials, but the actual television for not just 30 seconds, but for half an hour or 45 minutes. Counterprogram the hell out of it on the web with Go-Daddy girls playing with footballs, fast cars, fast bikes and submachineguns, while being hosed down with champagne by previous SuperBowl ringbearers, interspurted with your own commercials.

Heck, if this works, next year you could be SELLING ads.

When arrogance compounds absurdity to this degree, an hilarious bitch-slapping is in order. And you have some powerfully competent and professional competitors on the payroll...

Now, blog the results, with server stats, in real time. You know, for that nice lady over at Adweek who didn't do her research.