Super Bowl Revisited

Scott and Paul have already written about last night’s classic, and Steve has added a picture gallery. I just want to comment on a couple of aspects of the evening.

First, the ads. I didn’t pay attention to most of them. Half the time, I can’t figure out what is being advertised, at least not until the end. And there are quite a few ads that I can tell feature a celebrity, only I almost never have any idea who the celebrity is. So I am not, apparently, part of the intended audience for most Super Bowl advertising.

But then, who is? There is no such thing, apparently, as a conservative ad. Ads are either totally non-political, or else liberal. Like the Audi “wage gap” ad that Steve and I (maybe Scott and Paul, too) complained to Audi about. Fake news in advertising form. But the ad that stirred the most controversy was on behalf of 84 Lumber Company. I had never heard of this outfit, but it appears to be what it sounds like–a building materials supply company. Which means that a large majority of its customers are Trump voters.

84 Lumber’s pro-illegal immigration TV ad was short, but on its web site you can see a longer, 3:15 video that features a Trumpian wall and is billed as a continuation of the 30-second ad that was aired yesterday. 84 Lumber’s web site claims that this sequel includes “content deemed too controversial for TV,” but that is silly. 3:15 is just too long for TV. Here it is:

This is what I don’t get: do these people seriously not understand that most Americans are not all warm and fuzzy about illegal immigration? Let alone most buyers of building products. Some kind of weird disconnect is at work here. Maybe it has something to do with the ideological leanings of ad agencies, I don’t know.

Second point: normally I disapprove of booing people, but I enjoyed seeing Roger Goodell drowned out by the boos of Patriots fans as he presented the Lombardi trophy to Robert Kraft. Why? Because “Deflategate” was a bizarre vendetta by Goodell against the NFL’s premier franchise. I have no idea why Goodell has it in for the Patriots, but that “investigation” was a farce.

There was never any credible evidence that anyone deflated any footballs (nor is it obvious why anyone would want to, but that is another subject). As to Tom Brady, there was zero evidence, period. If you doubt those statements, go here, here, and especially here. In 41 years in the litigation business, I have rarely seen such a complete demolition of a dishonest theory as the one the Patriots mounted against Goodell’s minions. In my opinion, Tom Brady has shown extraordinary restraint in his public comments about what I think was a grotesque injustice.

Responses

Books to read from Power Line