Andy's Angle

One of my favorite spots of the otherwise dismal Superbowl last evening was the Audi "Green Police" ad. I loved it because I immediately thought it was a parody, a satire, of the nonsensical environmental craze gripping so much of the Western Hemisphere today. Likewise, many of my social media companions enjoyed it for the same reason.

And then my friend Dale from Wisconsin pointed out to me that this ad wasn't a clever mini-movie poking fun at the wackdoodles from the far Left, but a window in the soul of Audi's own corporate do-gooders.

I was, I admit, skeptical. The ad was too accurate a reflection of my own contempt for the "green police" to be anything other than satire.

And then I read this post from Michelle Malkin:

About that “Green Police” Super Bowl ad
By Michelle Malkin • February 8, 2010 01:00 PM

Some of you think Audi’s “Green Police” ad that ran during the Super Bowl last night was brilliant satire. Others were creeped out. Count me in the creeped-out camp.

Now, here is the context you need to judge which side Audi is on — from the company’s “Audi Green Police” website:

Who are the Green Police?

"As part of the lead up to their third consecutive Super Bowl ad, Audi has created a fictional Green Police unit that are caricatures of today’s “green movement”. The Green Police are a humorous group of individuals that have joined forces in an effort to collectively help guide consumers to make the right decision when it comes to the environment. They’re not here to judge, merely to guide these decisions.

Coincidentally, there are numerous real Green Police units globally that are furthering green practices and environmental issues. For example, Israel’s main arm of the Ministry of Environmental Protection in the area of enforcement and deterrence is called; you guess it, the Green Police. New York has officers within the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation that are fondly called the “Green Police”. The Green Police is also the popular name for Vietnam’s Environmental Police Department and the UK has a group who dresses in green as part of the Environment Agency’s squad to monitor excessive CO2 emissions.

Audi’s corporate greenies are aggressively peddling “sustainable development” programs through a multi-million-dollar non-profit foundation:

Audi AG has endowed the new Audi Environmental Foundation, an organization designed by the company to focus exclusively on environmentally minded pursuits for the common good, with a $5 million kitty.

Read the entire Malkin post for more details, and for the video of the spot itself. Likewise, read this take on the broader implications of the real-life "Green Police" from this reaction piece at HotAir.com:

The ad works for me far better as a warning of an overreaching government dictating choices — like incandescent lightbulbs, paper vs plastic in the grocery store, and choice of cars. Audi may convince some people to look into its clean-diesel offerings, but the ad itself is likely to elicit more concern over the direction of regulatory efforts, especially at the EPA, which declared carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant last year and has started the effort to regulate manufacturing as a way to get around the legislative hurdles to cap-and-trade bills in Congress.

If the government really does intend on creating regulation over these kinds of choices, a “green police” will not be far behind, although not in the humorous style presented here. It will instead insert itself in home purchases, car choices, energy rationing, and in the use of private property. Government will pick the winners and losers rather than a free people making their own choices, and they will use the power of government to ensure that those winners prevail for the purposes of a governing elite.

...in fact, Scott, if you would, please forward a copy of your book to the company's customer service department and send me the bill. Include a note about your blog, and let them know that they can read it and learn for free...

I'll tell you my story first, and then introduce you to my friend Scott so you can understand the reference.

This week is the National Farm Machinery Show in Louisville, Kentucky. One of my favorite shows of the year, Lindsay and I always spend at least two, if not three days covering the event. Our plans this year included heading down Wednesday and staying until the weekend, but owing to the impending return of "Snowpocalypse" on the Central Ohio region, we decided The Boss should head down Tuesday ahead of the storm.

So, as a loyal Hilton customer, enrolled in their HHonors rewards/loyalty program, I dial the 800 number to customer service (or as Clark Howard calls it, "customer NO-service") to ADD an additional night to the reservation.

Here's where the wheels fell off the wagon.

I called the hotel front desk first, assuming that I would get better service directly from the hotel than from the customer service call center. Because, however, I'd enjoyed a lower rate through a pre-paid reservation, the desk clerk informed me that she couldn't alter my reservation, but only add a separate reservation for the additional night. Of course that night would be charged at a much higher rate than my original reservation.

So, hoping someone at Hilton would want to reward my loyalty by honoring the lower rate, I called the 800 number for the HHonors reservation desk. I was promptly put on hold by the automated attendant, told the call center was experience heavier than normal call volume, and put in queue. The auto attendant came on the line ever thirty seconds to remind me how important my call was, a message I have committed to memory as I heard it repeated every thirty seconds for over thirty minutes.

Let that settle for a moment. I waited on hold, upon making my second phone call to resolve this issue, for over THIRTY MINUTES.

When my call was finally answered, a belligerent customer service representative informed me that because I had prepaid for my reservation, there was no way he could add the additional night to my stay, and while he would be glad to create a second reservation for me for the additional night, he would not honor the previous rate, resulting in an additional 25% hike over the original rate.

So, let me summarize: I visited 10 different Hilton hotels last year. I enjoyed over 15 different stays. I spent over 5 weeks in a Hilton last year. I've spent over seven nights in a Hilton already this year. I spent over $6,500 for the privilege of doing business with Conrad Hilton's heirs over the past 12 months. And yet, not one Hilton employee today thanked me for my business, or attempted in any way to stray from their script to fulfill my simple request to give them another hundred dollars of my hard earned money.

Now, here's why the Hilton customer service people need to start reading Scott McKain. McKain's blog is a study in customer service and client retention that no business should ignore. Don't take my word for it: read this post, as well as this one, and then tell me that my friends at the Hilton couldn't learn a thing or two from a Southern Indiana farm boy.

No regular reader here is unaware that the "Humane Society" of the United States, HSUS, purports itself to be an animal care organization akin to your local animal shelter, but in reality is a "sophisticated political organization." HSUS' CEO Wayne Pacelle today also shares his belief that HSUS is a highly successful lobbying organization, as well. Read my comments at my "Amplog" at Amplify.com.

I also found this piece via my friend Troy Hadrick: HSUS is getting in the pet food business.

So, in addition to buying stock in companies ranging from Sonic to Steak & Shake, the company is now marketing it's own brand of pet food. Tell my, please, why more people aren't asking critical questions about the "for profit" status of HSUS...

Furthermore, the Department of Justice and Department of Agriculture are hosting a series of "workshops" on competition in the agriculture industry... Perhaps DOJ and our friends at the IRS might spend some time looking into the dealings of this anti-agriculture lobbying/investment organization...

On Monday, President Obama delivered his budget proposal to Congress. That document, a $3.8 trillion dollar proposal, is purported by the administration as a plan to create jobs and cut deficits. Agricultural interests, however, are none too impressed with the plan's treatment of our nation's most essential industry. Groups ranging from the National Farmers Union to the American Soybean Association have criticized the president's fiscal 2011 budget for its cuts to programs authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill.

According to the budget document released to Congress, "the budget proposes to limit farm subsidy payments to wealthy farmers by reducing the cap on direct payments by 25 percent and reducing the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) payment eligibility limits for farm and non-farm income by $250,000 over three years." A cap on farm payments is not a new concept, and has been advocated by fiscal conservatives like Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley for many years. The typical problem with these proposals is that while Midwestern row crop interests, livestock farmers, and specialty crop growers have little argument against them, Southern farmers dealing with capital-intensive crops like cotton and rice find the notion of payment limits to be detestable.

More importantly, beyond the basic notion of limiting payments, most agricultural groups are concerned with basic cuts to Farm Bill programs. Agriculture's current champion in the Senate, Agriculture Committee Chair Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, had nothing kind to say about the president's budget proposal.

"Put simply the president's proposal picks winners and losers," Lincoln said. "By targeting policies that rural America relies upon, this proposal places a disproportionate burden on the backs of farmers and rural communities. While I too believe we must reduce the federal deficit, we must all share in this responsibility."

Lincoln went on to explain, "In 2008, I worked hard to pass a five-year farm bill that was fiscally responsible. This bill contained over $4 billion worth of cuts to farm programs, was completely paid for and did not contribute to the deficit. The Farm Bill is a contract with our farmers that they depend on to make business decisions. Changing the rules in the middle of the game would be detrimental to their operations and would cost us even more jobs in rural America."

Echoing the feelings of many in Congress regarding executive branch budget proposals, Lincoln concluded, "I thank the president for his recommendations, but Congress writes the budget. I intend to support measures to reduce the deficit but fight many of the president's proposed cuts that will harm farmers, ranchers and rural communities."

Senator Lincoln is not the only agricultural advocate to express frustration to the cuts in Farm Bill programming.

"ASA opposed similar proposals by the administration last year that would have reopened the 2008 Farm Bill and undercut long-term economic decisions by soybean producers," said ASA President Rob Joslin, a soybean producer from Sidney, Ohio. "They were bad ideas then, and they are bad ideas now. Agriculture spending, not including nutrition programs, is projected to account for just over one-half of one percent of next year's $3.8 trillion budget. Cutting the farm safety net to achieve minimal savings would jeopardize an industry that continues to be a key driver for U.S. economic recovery and export growth."

Perhaps even more disconcerting, the administration is also proposing changes in the federal crop insurance program that would reduce its cost by $8 billion over 10 years. "Congress already considered these proposals during debate on the 2008 Farm Bill, and rejected them again last year," Joslin said. "While there may be need for reform in crop insurance administrative payments to companies, any savings should be reinvested to make the program more widely accepted in parts of the country where farmers don't participate."

Similarly, National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson added, "NFU understands the nation is faced with a difficult financial situation and we commend the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for increases in important programs in its proposed budget. However, the cut in crop insurance at $8 billion over 10 years comes as a disappointment, as crop insurance is part of the vital safety net for farmers and ranchers providing a safe and secure food supply."

As Senator Lincoln pointed out, the Congress writes the budget, not the president. Farmers and agribusiness leaders will spend the next several weeks and months sharing their story with members of Congress, to insure that USDA and Farm Bill Programs continue to support our nation's most essential industry.

It was only a matter of time, and the time was today. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), a self-declared "sophisticated political organization," submitted a petition to Ohio’s Attorney General in support of placing an anti-cruelty measure on the statewide November ballot. The proposed measure would allow voters to require the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board to adopt standards that will effectively end livestock production in Ohio by making it economically unfeasible to feed chickens, hogs, or cattle in the state.

Utilizing a large corps of paid petition circulators, the group will seek to collect more than 600,000 signatures of registered Ohio voters upon approval of the petition forms by the Secretary of State. In doing so, they will attempt to circumvent the will of the Ohio voters in passing the measure to create the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board last November.

HSUS, it is widely known, is a radical activist organization dedicated to reducing and replacing animal-derived proteins and products from the human lifestyle. Equating animals with humans, they passionately believe that domesticated pets and livestock should have the same rights as every American citizen, and firmly hold that no animal should be consumed for food. Led by charismatic lobbyist Wayne Pacelle, the organization has organized in Ohio under the banner "Ohioans for Humane Farms," though applying the label "Ohioans" to the campaign organization is extremely duplicitous. HSUS is a Washington, DC based fundraising and lobbying organization, and the campaign committee is supported, not by Ohio citizens, but by other Animal Rights extremists like Farm Sanctuary and the so-called Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Earlier this month, in response to the earthquake in Haiti, HSUS began a massive fundrasing effort ostensibly to "save the animals" in that impoverished nation. Unfortunately, those funds will most likely be spent in Ohio to deprive farmers of their right to farm profitably, and to deprive consumers of their right to buy safe, affordable, locally produced food. The organization successfully raised over $34 million in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and in reality spent less than 18% of the money to aid in relief and recovery efforts in Louisiana, launching a nearly two year investigation by that state's Attorney General.

HSUS continues to use lies, falsehoods, and half-truths to promote its vegan agenda. In the press release announcing their latest move, for example, the group claimed the measure would prevent so-called "downer" animals, or those too weak or injured to stand or walk, from entering the food chain. That declaration, of course, failed to note that downer animals are currently precluded from entering the food chain at any federally-inspected meat processing facility in the country.

Likewise, the organization cited an infamous HBO "documentary" about an alleged case of animal abuse in Ohio earlier this decade. Claiming "Ohio’s agribusiness community hailed the acquittal [of the accused abuser] as a 'huge victory,' because Ohio has no law specifically requiring humane farm animal euthanasia methods," HSUS did a double-play of duplicity. First and foremost, no one in agriculture "hailed the acquittal as a huge victory." By the time the case was concluded, farmers and farm organizations had soundly and completely denounced the situation and stated clearly and decisively that farmers in no way, shape, or form supported any actions remotely resembling those depicted in the HBO film.

Even beyond that obvious and glaring lie, the bigger issue is that HSUS clearly and completely ignores the fact that Congress passed a law known as the "Humane Methods of Slaughter Act" way back in 1958, and strengthened it again in 1978 and 2002. That act provides for very clear rules and regulations about how animals are to be humanely dispatched at the end of their productive life cycle.

In their own press release on the activist effort, Farm Sanctuary shared this: “Ohioans oppose cruelty and believe that all animals, including farm animals, deserve to be protected,” said Gene Baur, president of Farm Sanctuary. “In November, Ohioans will have the opportunity to make their voices heard and phase out some of the worst factory farm abuses.”

Actually, Mr. Baur, Ohioans already made their voices heard LAST November. You and Wayne were too busy raising money for your own selfish agendas to notice. The overwhelming majority of Ohioans, you see, decided the best course of action was to assemble a group of Ohio citizens, experts and stakeholders all, to enact and enforce minimum standards to ensure that all animals are "protected" from any and all forms of abuse. Why not wait until the Board is fully vested and organized before giving them your marching orders?

Good question, and here's the answer: if the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board is allowed to do its job and enact minimum standards, HSUS is no longer the controlling body in the conversation. To this point, HSUS has bullied legislators, regulators, voters, and farmers in states like California and Michigan, forcing them to adopt standards completely beyond the realm of science of reason. The Board will adopt standards in everyone's best interest, including the best interests of farmers and consumers, two groups for which HSUS has no concern. Secondly, if the Board is left to do its work, HSUS can't further fatten its already gluttonous war chest. By declaring war on Ohio farmers and consumers, Wayne, Gene, and their staff of thousands can con unsuspecting citizens into donating to their efforts to "save the animals."

In reality, of course, they'll be taking food off their own table, and helping Wayne and company put food on theirs instead.