Glenn, You Are My Hero!

Instapundit

VERY FUNNY, BUT HE’D NEVER DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT TO MUSLIMS: Stephen Colbert Tackles Posthumous Mormon Baptisms By Converting All The Dead Mormons To Judaism.

Because, you know, like most of our political “comedians,” he’s a cowardly partisan hack. I think, however, that all of this anti-Mormon bigotry from the “forces of tolerance” will backfire.

And if I’m wrong, Stephen, maybe you’ll do the “Zombie Mohammed” thing.

UPDATE: Reader Dustin F writes: “If Colbert did a Zombie Mohammed sketch, Comedy Central wouldn’t even air it anyway, given their censorship of South Park. These folks have zero credibility on the subject of tolerating offense, since Comedy Central’s compliance with threats is a major example of allowing terrorism to work.”

My advice to Mormons and others: If you want respect, behead a few people. It won’t take much violence, as long as the threat is credible. Though it helps if they see you as an enemy of Western civilization. Then they’ll enjoy being intimidated.

Maher strikes (out) again with polygamy punch line

Fools to the left and to the right…Mostly to the Left.

Most people don’t think that a battered woman is fodder for punch-line material. But most people aren’t Bill Maher.

But most people aren’t Bill Maher.

The comedian — and we use that term loosely — stooped to a new low on “AC360″ recently when he expressed his opinion that Mitt Romney would get the Republican presidential nomination, “and then I think (President Barack) Obama is going to beat him like a runaway sister wife.”

Bah-dum-bum.

One assumes Maher’s thought process flowed something like this: Romney = Mormon = polygamy = dirty old man and young sister wives = sister wife running away and being abused for it = funny.

Or something like that.

Never mind that the abuse of women and children in contemporary polygamy is a real and serious problem. Forget that Romney’s faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, abandoned the practice of polygamy 120 years ago. Never let the truth get in the way of a good joke.

Or a bad joke, as the case may be.

Program host Anderson Cooper was obviously flustered by Maher’s reference. But rather than challenge the comment, he smiled weakly and noted that he hadn’t heard “a FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) punch line in quite a while.”

Well, at least Cooper got the FLDS part right.

“Maher is know for being a provocateur, which he seems to think gives him an unlimited supply of mulligans,” wrote Tommy Christopher on the Mediaite blog site. “But this is just the latest in a string of over-the-line remarks, many of them having to do with women. This one is particularly scummy, and like so many of his misfires, devoid of even dark humor.”

The New York Times and Congress may get a clue from this….

Protest on Web Uses Shutdown to Take On Two Piracy Bills

The web sites on Wednesday of, clockwise from top left, Google, Mozilla, Wired and Wikipedia.

Water-carrier for the MSM and mouthpiece for the Liberal Elite, New York Times finally got a wake up call as well as something of importance to write about today as the many sites on the internet went dark in protest of the two bills pending a vote in congress within the coming days…

With a Web-wide protest on Wednesday that includes a 24-hour shutdown of the English-language Wikipedia, the legislative battle over two Internet piracy bills has reached an extraordinary moment — a political coming of age for a relatively young and disorganized industry that has largely steered clear of lobbying and other political games in Washington.

The bills, the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House and the Protect IP Act in the Senate, are backed by major media companies and are mostly intended to curtail the illegal downloading and streaming of TV shows and movies online. But the tech industry fears that, among other things, they will give media companies too much power to shut down sites that they say are abusing copyrights.

The legislation has jolted technology leaders, venture capitalists and entrepreneurs, who are not accustomed to having their free-wheeling online world come under attack.

One response is Wednesday’s protest, which directs anyone visiting Google and many other Web sites to pages detailing the tech industry’s opposition to the bills. Wikipedia, run by a nonprofit organization, is going further than most sites by actually taking material offline — no doubt causing panic among countless students who have a paper due.

It said the move was meant to spark greater public opposition to the bills, which could restrict its freedom to publish.

“For the first time, it’s very clear that legislation could have a direct impact on the industry’s ability to do business,” said Jessica Lawrence, the managing director of New York Tech Meetup, a trade organization with 20,000 members that has organized a protest rally in Manhattan on Wednesday. “This has been a wake-up call.”

Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School, said that the technology industry, which has birthed large businesses like Google, Facebook and eBay, is much more powerful than it used to be.

“This is the first real test of the political strength of the Web, and regardless of how things go, they are no longer a pushover,” said Professor Wu, who is the author of “The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires.” He added, “The Web taking a stand against one of the most powerful lobbyers and seeming to get somewhere is definitely a first.”

Under the proposed legislation, if a copyright holder like Warner Brothers discovers that a foreign site is focused on offering illegal copies of songs or movies, it could seek a court order that would require search engines like Google to remove links to the site and require advertising companies to cut off payments to it.

Internet companies fear that because the definitions of terms like “search engine” are so broad in the legislation, Web sites big and small could be responsible for monitoring all material on their pages for potential violations — an expensive and complex challenge.

They say they support current law, which requires Web sites with copyright-infringing content to take it down if copyright holders ask them to, leaving the rest of the site intact. Google, which owns YouTube and other sites, received five million requests to remove content or links last year, and it says it acts in less than six hours if it determines that the request is legitimate.

The major players supporting the legislation, including the United States Chamber of Commerce and the Motion Picture Association of America, say those measures are not enough to protect intellectual property. They emphasize that their primary targets are foreign Web sites that sell counterfeit goods and let people stream and download music and video at no charge — sites that are now largely out of reach of United States law enforcement. And they are fighting against what they characterize as gimmicks and distortions by Internet companies opposed to the bills.

With talk of censorship and loss of Internet freedom, “the current debate has nothing to do with the substance of the bills,” David Hirschmann, who leads the Chamber of Commerce’s initiative on intellectual property, said in an interview. “We will certainly use every tool in our toolbox to make sure members of Congress know what’s in these bills.”

With financial resources that few other groups can match, the chamber is one of Washington’s most powerful lobbying forces and has shown the ability to alter Congressional debate on its own.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and author the Protect IP Act, accused opponents Tuesday of trying to “stoke fear” through tactics like the Wikipedia blackout. “Protecting foreign criminals from liability rather than protecting American copyright holders and intellectual property developers is irresponsible, will cost American jobs, and is just wrong,” he said in a statement.

Opponents of the legislation have clearly seized the momentum in the debate. Their protests have gained traction in that key provisions were stripped out of one bill and the Obama administration has raised concerns. Legislators have already agreed to delay or drop one ire-inducing component of the bills, Domain Name System blocking, which would prevent access to sites that were found to have illegal content.

A total of 115 companies and organizations have lobbyists working on the antipiracy bills, spending millions of dollars to sway the outcome, according to federal disclosure records. They include corporate and technology giants on both sides of the legislation, with entertainment groups like News Corporation and the Recording Industry Association of America backing it and Internet firms like Google and Facebook raising concerns about it.

The largest advocates for the bills disagree with the tech industry’s main rallying cry, which is the notion that they will hurt the average Internet user or interfere with their online activities.

“The bill will not harm Wikipedia, domestic blogs or social network sites,” said Representative Lamar Smith, Republican of Texas and a primary sponsor of the House bill.

Most people in the tech world agree that the problem of piracy needs to be addressed. But they say their main concern is that the tech industry had little influence on the language of the legislation, which is still in flux and so broadly worded that it is not entirely clear how Internet businesses will be affected. Big Internet companies say the bills could prevent entire Web sites from appearing in search results — even if the sites operate legally and most content creators want their videos or music to appear there.

“It shouldn’t apply to U.S. Web sites, but any company with a server overseas or a domain name overseas could be at risk,” said Andrew McLaughlin, vice president at Tumblr, a popular blogging service.

Mr. McLaughlin said the fear is that on large and diverse Web communities like Tumblr, any user who uploads an unauthorized clip from a movie or an unreleased track from an album is putting the whole company in the line of fire.

In November, Tumblr rigged a tool that “censored” the page its users see when they log into the site, explained the legislation and routed them to contact information for their representatives in Congress. The stunt resulted in 80,000 calls to legislators in a three-day period. Mr. McLaughlin said the company was planning a similar approach for Wednesday.

Some who oppose the bill, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an online rights group, see a bright spot in a potential compromise called the OPEN Act, which would provide for the International Trade Commission to judge cases of copyright or trademark infringement. If the commission found that a foreign site was largely devoted to piracy, it could compel payment processors and online advertising companies to stop doing business with it.

Silicon Valley has championed companies that provide alternatives to piracy, like Spotify and Netflix. And the industry says that the problem could be solved by letting it do what it does best — innovating.

“It’s something that could be solved using technology through collaboration with these start-ups,” said Ms. Lawrence of New York Tech Meetup.

Again, the ones who know little-to-nothing of how the Internet works are attempting to regulate it at the behest of media lobbyist with axes to grind. They’re losing money, they alleged, but its not from downloads they need to be concerned about. It’s the writing and product they’re delivering to the consumer that is rendering them unimportant. They are becoming as antiquated as dead tree papers.

Supreme Court mulls profanity, nudity on network TV

WashingtonTimes

F-bombs and bare breasts could be coming to network TV.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing arguments in a case that could rewrite the rule book for Fox, ABC and other broadcast stations now prohibited from pushing nudity and profanity on the public airwaves.

In an unlikely alliance, the Obama administration has partnered with the Family Research Council, Morality in Media and other socially conservative groups in arguing that network television should remain a “safe harbor” for children and families, where one need not fear “wardrobe malfunctions” during the Super Bowl or dirty words during the Billboard Music Awards.

But the entertainment industry’s heavy hitters, led by Fox, have mounted a First Amendment case and reject the notion that, in the age of unregulated cable channels and countless raunchy websites just a click away, the Federal Communications Commission has to play the role of moral gatekeeper for American families.

A ruling is expected this summer. If the justices declare current FCC regulations unconstitutional, the R-rated effects eventually will be seen from the living room couch.

“I don’t think things would change overnight, but I do think it would change. Slowly, more and more profanity and nudity would start to creep into much of the programming,” said Susan Low Bloch, a law professor at Georgetown University.

Networks’ decision-making, Ms. Bloch said, “will be a dollar calculation, not a moral calculation,” and television executives could bet that more sex, violence and four-letter words will equal bigger profits.

Obama administration attorneys and others argue that the media world of the 21st century is polluted with enough filth, and giving broadcasters carte blanche to do as they please will mean the death knell for family-friendly programming.

“This is about letting children be children,” said Ken Klukowski, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council. “The First Amendment is not a license for an adult to say or do anything they want, anytime they want, in the presence of children. If you have 800 channels out there that you can put your content on, what’s the big deal about having four or five” stations free of objectionable material?

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. seems to agree. At Tuesday’s hearing, Chief Justice Roberts, the only member of the court with young children, said there are hundreds of cable channels not bound by any FCC restrictions, and that should be enough for people who want racier fare.

“All we are asking for, what the government is asking for, is a few channels where … they are not going to hear the S-word, the F-word, they are not going to see nudity,” the chief justice said.

The broad question of how far networks’ free-speech rights extend may not be resolved with this case, and the court could choose to limit its ruling to the FCC’s current indecency enforcement policy, which was declared unconstitutional by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals two years ago.

Fox violated that policy several times in the past decade, including a 2002 incident in which the entertainer Cher uttered the F-word during the 2002 Billboard Music Awards. Reality star Nicole Richie followed suit in 2003, using the same expletive during a live appearance on the program.

Other networks also have been targeted. ABC stations were hit with fines after an episode of “NYPD Blue” featured a lengthy shot of a woman’s naked buttocks. The nudity was shown before 10 p.m. Eastern, the traditional cut-off point for indecent material.

ABC spokeswoman Julie Hoover said Tuesday that the network maintains the nudity on “NYPD Blue” was “not indecent,” and the fines were “unwarranted and unconstitutional.”

“We believe that the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals was correct and should be affirmed by the Supreme Court,” she said.

ABC and other networks have long questioned the consistency of the FCC rule, since it seems to be randomly enforced.

Such strong adult fare as Steven Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan” and “Schindler’s List” have been shown on prime-time network television unedited. Six months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, CBS aired the documentary “9/11,” which followed a firefighting crew coincidentally being videotaped that day and accordingly contained multiple spontaneous F-words and other profanities. No fines were issued.

The apparent hypocrisy wasn’t lost on Justice Elena Kagan, who joked Tuesday that the FCC policy is “Nobody can use dirty words or nudity, except Steven Spielberg.”

But it won’t be individual incidents that ultimately sway the justices. Indeed, Justice Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. said Tuesday that technological advances may make current FCC rules obsolete, since nearly 90 percent of households now have cable or satellite television, enabling them to easily surf between regulated network stations and unregulated cable channels.

“I’m sure your clients will continue to make billions of dollars on their programs which are transmitted by cable and by satellite and by Internet,” he told the lawyers representing the TV networks. “But to the extent they are making money from people who are using rabbit ears, that is disappearing.”

Nathan Siegel, a First Amendment lawyer and law professor at the University of Maryland, said the initial rationale for FCC regulation was that the airwaves are public property and needed to be regulated as a public utility.

“These are not new questions. The reason the courts have [in the past] decided it’s OK to continue government regulations was because there were really no other alternatives for people to watch at the time. Those realities … don’t exist anymore,” he said.

Mr. Siegel also said that, such legal rationales aside, regulating such a small segment of TV offerings, as Chief Justice Roberts and social conservatives note when they argue that the restrictions are not onerous, is simply irrational.

“There are multiple ways that people can get content. Does it make any sense to give the FCC the exclusive power to regulate only broadcast programming when nothing else is regulated?” he asked.

Contraceptives, Stephanopoulos, and What To Do About the Debates

RogerLSimon

Although no genius, ABC commentator and former Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos is not stupid. Nevertheless, he seemed like an outright doofus (or yahoo!) as host of the ABC/Yahoo New Hampshire debate on Saturday when he kept pressing Mitt Romney on the constitutionality, of all things, contraceptives.

No, that wasn’t an episode of Saturday Night Live or Fawlty Towers. It was a typical mainstream media operative, unable to control his bias, desperately seeking to expose the Republican frontrunner in some manner or to create some kind of gaffe that would damage him for the general election.

Romney, to his credit, treated the gotcha question with the proper amount of amused disdain, allowing Stephanopoulos to dig a yet bigger hole for himself and turning the audience in the candidate’s favor.

In this essentially meaningless exchange, Stephanopoulos became the poster boy for the whole debate process in which a long line of Republican candidates have paraded themselves for inspection in front of panel after panel of largely liberal media interlocutors.

Fortunately for the Republicans, those interlocutors haven’t been very good at what they do. Part of the reason is that liberal (Keynesian) economics is for all intents and purposes defunct and everybody knows that — so those liberal journalists don’t really have anywhere to go on the key issue of the campaign. Another reason may be that they are not as skilled as we, or they, think they are. A third may be that the Republicans were inflicting sufficient wounds all by themselves.

Still, the entire summa of now fifteen debates has yielded little of substance or depth. We learned that Rick Perry isn’t very good at debating (but has gotten somewhat better), that Newt Gingrich is very good at debating (but allows his thin skin to make him worse), that Ron Paul has adamant supporters and doesn’t worry about the mullahs (no surprise), that Rick Santorum is socially conservative and does worry about the mullahs (again no surprise) and that Romney makes a relatively unflappable frontrunner (probably a good trait for a president).

I suppose these somewhat minor observations were worth three, possibly four, debates. In essence, the system is in need of serious rethinking.

This is especially true for the general election. I have a recommendation — shamelessly stolen from Newt Gingrich.

Let’s put an end to the interlocutors. We don’t need media filters — left, right or center. I am not interested in Jane Pauley. I am not interested in Chris Wallace. I get to see plenty of them. I am not interested either in supposedly random questions chosen (by whom?) from Facebook or Twitter.

I am interested in the candidates and what they have to say to each other — mano-a-mano — in the style of Lincoln and Douglas.

They should be given a topic for the debate (entitlements, Iran, whatever) and be set free to examine it. Those issues can be discussed at length and in more depth without the interference of media personalities who, besides being biased one way or the other, are often more interested in the promotion of themselves or their companies.

The debaters further would not be able to hide behind their media allies, overt or covert. If the president or his Republican adversary attempts to monopolize the conversation, blows up emotionally, resorts to nasty ad hominems or simply engages in absurd argumentation, it would be exposed for all to see. Ideas and the ability to express them would be on display.

Some say the debating skills of a president are not important. While I agree they may be overemphasized, they are still significant. You have to communicate well to achieve your goals. Whatever you may think of their polices, it’s no accident two of the most successful presidents of the Twentieth Century were exceptional communicators — Ronald Reagan and FDR.

In the Lincoln-Douglas approach, their debating and thinking skills would be tested, not to mention their ideologies. And it would be great theater — far more interesting than the pabulum we have been recently served.

I doubt Barack Obama will have the guts to do it. He is an utterly conventional man who has done nothing remotely imaginative while in office that I can think of. Also, his chief strategy seems to be to demonize the Republicans, a more daunting task if you deal with one face to face

But if it does happen, I am relatively certain of one thing. There is one topic that if either party brings it up, he will be deemed a fool: contraceptives.

ADDENDUM: Another amusing view here.

BYU coeds hold onto LDS standards on ‘The Sing-Off’

DeseretNews

It helped Laina Walker and Amy Whitcomb of Delilah immensely to have BYU’s Vocal Point guys just down the hall in the hotel during the taping for NBC’s reality show, “The Sing-Off.”

They could go with them to church and rely on them for the strength of the priesthood held by faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

When Whitcomb got very sick just before the taping of week six of “The Sing-Off,” five of the LDS male singers came together to give her a blessing.

When the two Mormon women began to feel overwhelmed by the immensity and the pressure of working 24/7 to produce vocal numbers that would impress both the national television audience and the celebrity judges, they spent a few minutes with the guys they knew shared their dreams and values, and it helped them feel better.

“Basically we were just kind of thrown into the real world, out of our BYU bubble, and I realize more what a bubble that is,” said Whitcomb. “There was a lot of swearing, a lot of vulgarity.”

“When I came back to Provo, it was like a culture shock,” Walker said. “Sometimes in L.A., I was the only person sober. It was one of those lifelong lessons come true. You don’t make other people’s choices but you can make your own,” she said. She is majoring in music, dance and theater at Brigham Young University in her junior year.

It was really nice to share the same standards as Vocal Point, Walker said. “It was amazing. They had it in their contract that they could go to church and not rehearse on Sundays, so we would go to church, take the sacrament and have family prayer.”

And it didn’t take long for the other contestant groups to notice they didn’t join in the swearing or the drinking and the partying.

The other members of Delilah became their fast friends and supporters of their ideals.

The costumers soon learned to back off when Whitcomb and Walker asked for tights or a longer skirt or a jacket.

“Most of the time they were aware of our standards,” Whitcomb said. “They knew I liked to keep my shoulders covered.”

Whitcomb said the added benefit of being dressed modestly meant she was comfortable on stage. “That shows,” she said.

Walker said she would have preferred not to be costumed in sequins or in pink and red since she’s a redhead and those are not her best colors, but she quickly learned to pick her battles.

“I’m more like a T-shirt and jeans kind of girl,” she said. “I only ever caused a fuss over the modesty. They were nice about it, but they forget and they’re busy. I felt a little bad for being a problem, but after hearing from people after the show, I made the right decision.”

Both young women are serious not just about having a vocal career but about living their religion as well.

Whitcomb has a rock band (The Whits) releasing their second album this month, and she wants a solo pop rock career.

Both were part of the Noteworthy a cappella group of BYU students in the first season of “The Sing-Off.” When Whitcomb and Hannah Juliano called her to be part of the group returning to the third season of “The Sing-Off,” Walker didn’t hesitate.

“I had a job. I had a new major. I had to be in L.A. in a week and a half. There was no question. I had to do it,” she said, even though it’s been a grueling, intense run that’s presented its own share of missionary opportunities along with career exposure.

“I’m not really in charge of my own schedule. I kind of have to be on call,” Walker said.

Walker wants to ride the wave from Delilah’s success as long as it lasts and then she wants a husband and a family.

Whitcomb said it was a surprise to find out just how taxing being on the television stage can be even though she’s wanted a performing career since she was little. “It was very emotionally and physically exhausting. Now I know why people on reality shows cry so much!” she said. “There’s so much pressure.”

And the demands haven’t stopped since the group was cut from “The Sing-Off.” They’ve been to Rochester, N.Y., for a holiday show and will be guest performers at the International Championship of Collegiate A Cappella. Then they head to Hong Kong.

“We have five trips scheduled so far and more coming all the time,” Walker said.

The girls have a challenge with the rehearsals since Walker is in Utah right now. “They send me music. I learn it and we rehearse when we get together,” she said. “It’s very different.”

Meanwhile, she’s trying to keep up with her classes. (She took her final exams in the four days between the Christmas “Sing-Off” finale taping and leaving for New York.)

Whitcomb has graduated, so she doesn’t have that additional stress this time around.

“I did that during the first season of ‘The Sing-Off’ with Noteworthy, and it was so hard,” she said.

Walker said her friends and professors “carried” her through her classes, offering her their notes and making concessions that made it possible to pass her classes with high Bs.

“I’m livin’ the dream,” Walker said. “I’ve enjoyed every step and bump, every success and every trial. I wouldn’t trade the experience that I had for the world. I met the most amazing, genuine and talented people and am so grateful that I was presented with the opportunity.

“I just love performing — if I don’t perform, I’ll die,” she said.

I am Sure she did…

Michelle Obama Jokes: “I Kind Of Like” Being Called “Your Excellency”

Though I think she’d be more cozy being addressed as “Your Highness…”

Olberfreude Death Watch Or How The Mighty Have Fallen

JonahGoldberg

Keith Olbermann’s tenure at his — I believe — fourth TV network continues to degenerate. Just so long as he doesn’t end up as a guest judge on Top Chef, this tale can only get better.

Meanwhile, I watched the election coverage Olbermann was frozen out of last night (Kathryn had commented about it on Twitter and after a few minutes of research I discovered I get Current as well). It was hilarious. The production values were only slightly better than local public access and on par with the sort of thing you find in the tall grass of your cable system: Pakistani talk shows, 700 Club knock-offs, rural public TV, and Ukrainian round-tables on next year’s wheat harvest. While I really liked that they kept the live broadcast from CNN on the monitor in the background, the best part was Al Gore in a slot that you’d expect they’d reserve for a junior editor of Mother Jones. I watched for about 20 minutes and the supposed elder statesman of the Democratic party didn’t say a word until the show was almost over. And when he did speak it was entirely platitudinous grasping drivel about how Obama was the big winner tonight or some such.

I realize I’m not their ideal viewer, but I may have to tune in more often.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! part 2 of the day

Bye-bye birdie? If Romney is President, PBS will die, says the network’s chief

Actually, the childrens’ programming could be absorbed by Nickelodeon easily, Masterpiece Theater could be put on any number of stations and we would no longer be forced to listen to the crying and harking for funds as the stations take government money…May it be a swift and painful death.

Univision Wages Political War On Latino Conservatives

Investor’sBusinessDaily

Bias: A giant TV network has effectively admitted to blackmailing Florida’s GOP Sen. Marco Rubio over his immigration stance. It’s Exhibit A of the kind of sludge being hurled at Latino leaders who won’t toe the open-borders line.

Bigfoot Spanish-language television network Univision unwittingly revealed it’s got a mafia-style hit-equivalent out there waiting for any conservative leader of Hispanic descent who won’t tout their open-borders line on immigration.

So much for reporting the news. Univision’s top honchos behind this are all about politics — and are running their news organization like a cult mafia leader wielding power based on groupthink and fear.

Last October, the Miami Herald broke news that Univision executive Isaac Lee threatened to make public a story about the arrest of Rubio’s brother-in-law 24 years ago — that is, unless, in an offer he couldn’t refuse, Rubio agreed to go on Univision’s Jorge Ramos show, presumably to be savaged by the TV host, known as a loud advocate of open borders.

Univision denied the Herald story, though the paper had multiple witnesses — but then spilled the beans to the New Yorker, admitting to writer Ken Auletta that it had indeed offered the popular Florida senator “three Univision options” to soften or spike their nasty “investigation” if Rubio did the Ramos show.

Univision figured it could demolish Rubio politically with the offer, which is why it pulled out all stops and violated all standards of journalistic ethics.

But things didn’t go as planned: Rubio refused to be blackmailed and told them no.

Univision then ran the scurrilous piece attempting to link Rubio to drugs, which was so baseless even the mainstream media wouldn’t pick it up.

The Miami Herald’s Marc Caputo reported a whole string of disgraceful pressure tactics Univision pulled to put the heat on Rubio. Those ranged from adding the words #rubio and #drugs to advertise their show on their Twitter feed and create a false link, to sending a huge TV truck to the doorstep of Rubio’s sister, to attract embarrassing attention.

Caputo reported that the Univision shakedown also included trying to get Florida Gov. Rick Scott to call for Rubio’s resignation. Caputo said the ploy appalled Univision’s reputable journalists, who called him up to describe the egregious violation of ethics.

What does this say about Univision and its line?

That there’s a creepy network determined to stamp out any dissent in the Hispanic community and force all leaders to toe a party line — or else face media ruin.