Yup.

Told you so, v.1 n.1: The rest of the world is finally catching on to the analysis I've been screaming for eight years. My book deal is just around the corner, fo' sho'.

What to do when your CEO looks like a TOADY.

If I didn't know any better, I'd swear to God the brainiacs at CCFC are intentionally writing satire. Remember: It's a liberal-sin to be attractive, a liberal-sin to pretend-play war, and a mortal liberal-sin to enjoy sports, video games, or any other (unapproved) media. Christ Almighty.

In other news, Santa Clara County is officially awarded the Most Idiotic Place in America. Christ Almighty^2.

Have a Coke, Lie, and then Smile

More borderline-insane misinformation from our old friends at the CFCC:

That's why we were so disappointed to learn about the American Academy of Family Physicians' new partnership with Coca-Cola Company.

At CCFC, we believe that public health organizations should never partner with corporations that market to children.

Of course, it's ridiculous to believe in this age of the political screed that honesty might even occur to those most concerned with scoring points using naught but obnoxious rhetoric. I would be remiss, however, if I didn't mention that the AAFP is not a public health organization. It is a professional association of doctors. They are not funded with tax dollars and serve the primary purposes of advocating for their professional members and their field. To see a listing of actual public health organizations, visit the CDC web site.

Duh. And the remaining options are what, employers eat the costs?

Prospect of Health-Plan Tax Draws Union Opposition

Labor leaders and analysts warn that costs would be passed on to workers in the form of higher premiums—or curtailed benefits.

It's awe-inspiring that those who eagerly trumpet socialist enterprises are the first to bitch when it turns to bite them.

More at edweek.

Squared Asses and the End of the World™

The moment I saw the new Burger King commercial, I knew there'd be trouble from the kookier members of our nation's leisure class—a.k.a., soccer moms with too much time on their hands who haven't yet abandoned their lives to hard liquor and eyeing the pool boy each Wednesday afternoon. And guess what? The folks at CCFC didn't disappoint. The press release on their new protest campaign is loaded with absolute gems, including:

It's harmful enough when a beloved media icon advertises junk food to children, but it's utterly reprehensible when SpongeBob simultaneously promotes the objectification of women through sexualized imagery.

Allow me to, as per usual, inject a modicum of reason into this frothing insanity for just a moment. First off, define "harmful," please. Oh, and provide hard data (including replicated studies) that support your assertions. No? Didn't think so.

Even more importantly, growing up in my household, the term "junk food" was used in reference to things like Cheetos and HoHos; Burger King was more properly called "Sunday dinner." But I suppose when one's politicized vision of appropriate diet includes only steamed and raw vegetables grown in her very own organic garden, the "junk" label can be used in an expansive fashion, yes? Good Lord.

As might be expected, the outrage is spreading at a snail's pace:

“No parent watching a major sporting event with their children should have to worry about being assaulted by sexualized imagery,” said Joe Kelly of TheDadMan.com

Huh? Dude, have you ever seen a televised sporting event in your life? I guess you never noticed the curvaceous, bikini-clad coeds in every beer commercial ever broadcast during NFL games. And the solution to your "problem" is really quite simple: Don't allow your kid to watch major sporting events. Duh.

As to female objectification, I don't even know where to begin anymore, so I suppose I'll leave it at this: Ladies, if you're waiting for the day men stop admiring your beauty—and this includes "leering" at your body—then you have a long wait ahead of you indeed. Good Luck.

Luckily, the entire world hasn't gone totally insane. Not yet, anyway. A snippet of some welcomed uncommon sense:

Honestly, the major appeal this video will have for kids is that it gives them permission to say “butt” a lot and to dance around shaking their rumps with a magazine down the back of their Tuffskins. Which, face it, some of them would be doing anyway, without the King’s incitement.

Oh, and to the blog commenter who posted this (and everyone else who might have a similar urge):

Things like this make me want to just live in a cave and hide from society.

Yes, please. Do that. For all our sakes.

Is that a cigarette in your pocket?

Some bloggers with too much time on their hands are all worked up over R.J. Reynolds' test marketing of Camel-branded nicotine gum and breath mints. They claim the company is intentionally targeting children. Facts that elude all the Save Our Kids fear-mongers:

• This is not a new and untested product concept. Companies have been marketing nicotine gum for what, 30 years now? And it's come in "candy-like flavors" for nearly as long.
• Businesses respond to consumer demand; if people weren't asking for this product, R.J. Reynolds would have no interest in selling it.
• News flash: nicotine breath mints aren't cigarettes, and they in no way resemble cigarettes. The implication is that this product hopes to grab more smokers for the tobacco companies, but you're arguing a monster slippery slope by even tacitly suggesting that sucking a breath mint will increase the chances of taking up smoking.

What's the real complaint here? Isn't the danger of smoking related to the inhalation of toxic chemicals? So is this an outcry against addictions of all kinds—in which case, considering nicotine, caffeine, sugar, carbs, alcohol, porn, religion, illicit and prescription drugs, television, sex, exercise, and all the other vices to which people become addicted, you have quite the row to hoe—or just another opportunity to take pot shots at companies like R.J. Reynolds? Yeah, that sounds more like your modus operandi.

The same people who demand city-wide smoke-free restaurants, lobby for huge per-pack "sin tax" increases, and encourage wrongful death lawsuits (related to illnesses that the manufacturers clearly warned smokers about with labels on every package of their own product) jump all over the tobacco companies for any product they release. What would you prefer they sell, daisies? Or perhaps you'd rather they just be permanently shut down via government raids and their assets turned over for use in economic stimulus initiatives? After all, Big Tobacco is evil, right?

What really gets my hackles up is a little fact being touted by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids that was referenced in one of the posts on these nicotine mints: "566,879 kids have become regular smokers in 2008. 188,960 will die prematurely from their addiction."

Come again? Your big complaint is that close to 189,000 teens who started smoking last year will eventually (maybe even fifty or more years from now, because who knows?) die from illnesses related to smoking? 189,000? That's less than 0.063% of the U.S. population. Please explain for me again why we are so concerned about a product that leads to the death of such a tiny group of people, especially when one considers that everyone eventually dies of something.

Exposure to commercial influences is a simple and static fact of life. As with everything, it's up to parents to educate their children. If you want to keep your child away from nicotine addiction, then do so. And leave the rest of the world alone.