Critics love David Letterman. They love him because he’s mean and liberal and does everything they demand: further the leftist agenda through the brutal use of humiliation to target any public figure (or their child) who might derail Leftist causes.

And contrary to conventional wisdom, Letterman’s not edgy. In fact, he’s just the opposite. Doing exactly what those who can criticize you want you to do is not edgy. Kissing the big Manhattan/Los Angeles bi-coastal ass of the elite is not edgy. He’s their jester; their puppet; their bitch. Worse, he’s about as funny as watching your old, half-deaf Uncle intimidate, humiliate and demean your Aunt and then smile at the rest of the family as though he’s just reaffirmed his manhood. Letterman reminds me of the Jason Robards character in “Parenthood” in more ways than you can imagine. In other words, he’s a jerk, but in a sad end-of-his-life kind of way.

Oh, and how the elite critics resented nice ole’ Jay Leno for cleaning Letterman’s ratings’ clock all those years. And now that Jay’s back eating up primetime, they couldn’t wait to jump all over him with sniffing disapproval fed through a filter of wrist-flicking dismissal.

After exactly one show the knives came out:

L.A. Times: “Sixteen minutes into the new ‘The Jay Leno Show’ it was difficult not to panic. This is the future of television? This wasn’t even a good rendition of television past.”

New York Times: “So much ink has been devoted to describing how Mr. Leno’s new show would depart from his old one that it was startling to see how little difference there was.”

NPR: [N]o one expected Leno to reinvent the wheel. It’s just that after so many years on the job, you’d expect he’d make a better one.

(For those of you unfamiliar with these organizations, the first two once had a reputation for doggedly pursuing news stories and holding the powerful accountable. As far as what they do now, other than perfecting the art of thinning their publications to the edge of not disappearing, no one really knows … as far as NPR, they’ve always sucked.)

Good heavens, the L.A. Times was ready to panic after only sixteen minutes. Panic! And did anyone’s irony-alert go off when NPR criticized someone else for not reinventing the wheel? I’m surprised their review wasn’t interrupted by a twenty-minute pledge drive promising a butt-ugly tote bag and a CD of “Neil Sedaka Goes Cajun” for Premium Members.  

Jay Leno scored 18 million viewers yesterday. Letterman draws around 4 million on a good night. If you like your television personalities too cool for school that’s got to be troubling – if you prefer those with a hold on the popular culture five nights a week not parade around with a United States flag (unless it’s on fire), today you’ve got to be a little frustrated. First ACORN, now this... What’s happening to my Amerika?!?!

Even worse, those five hours Jay’s eating up could’ve otherwise been used to trash Christians and Republicans on “Law & Order: God We Love Obama.”

You have to wonder if it will ever happen… If the coastal critics and their ilk will ever figure out that today they are the establishment … they are The Man … and that the only real accomplishment of the cruel little needy Letterman who bounces at the end of their string is tarnishing a long history of sell outs.

You want to be edgy in the entertainment business today? Be polite and keep the politics as across the board as possible. Walk on stage with the “edgy” goal of wanting to entertain and take away from their daily frustrations as many people as possible.

Jay Leno’s the new edgy, the new ballsy…

And that lapel flag makes him a downright iconoclast.

I didn’t see his show, but I’m pulling for him because all the right people are not.

Some listeners to my Barely Legal Radio Program are asking me if Taylor Swift has a defamation case against Kanye West for his recent actions against her at the VMA awards, and if Barack Obama has a defamation case against Joe Wilson. Although it would be unimaginable to see her pursue this, Swift actually has a couple decent causes of action against West.

In a suit for defamation you need damages. Provable damages in this case would center on the value of the airtime Swift was deprived of to speak about her recordings. Expert witnesses would testify as to the “bump” typically witnessed after an acceptance speech in such a valuable forum. Arguably, West deprived Swift of this sales bump.

West also defamed Swift when he announced to the world, in the most damaging forum possible, that Beyonce made “one of the best videos of all time,” so obviously Swift was on stage accepting an award that she didn’t deserve– more damages.

And what of Joe Wilson’s arguably barbaric shouting, also in the most damaging forum possible, that the President was lying as he spoke to Congress and the American people? If true, this was pure defamation and created quantifiable damages to a politician whose ability to govern and raise funds for re-election depend on his credibility.

Public figure exceptions (requiring “actual malice”) and governmental immunities aside, the interesting difference between these two cases is the ability to mount a viable defense. Truth is the best defense in any defamation case. If the defaming speech is true, it is protected by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing free speech.

Wilson, and many pundits, have probably already gone far enough to establish that a reasonable person could infer that the President was not telling the truth when he asserted that illegal aliens would not be covered under the government’s proposed health care plan. The fact that Wilson and his supporters tried to add language to the bills specifically prohibiting coverage for illegal aliens and it was removed by their opponents, and the fact that non-citizens have to be covered in some ways by the plan, at least in emergency rooms, is enough to establish a reasonable basis for Wilson’s belief that the President was indeed lying. So the apparent truth to Wilson’s beliefs is a good faith defense to being punished for stating them in public.

On the other hand, Kanye’s attempt to prove truth as a defense to his defamation troubles would be impossible. He would have to spend all his energy trying to argue for minimal damages.

What will actually happen? Wilson’s outburst has already put the spotlight on this issue for his supporters so it was an effective, albeit rude. Kanye will return to next year’s VMAs to a mindless standing ovation as a prodigal son, and security will be stepped up a bit on the side of the stage.

But let us consider the forum of a Presidential address to Congress. Every time the President says anything of significance, true or not, his supporters are allowed to go nuts and violate decorum. For Wilson and his colleagues to just sit there and not point out an opposing sentiment representing at least ½ the country, every time, may be too much to ask.

Is it too much to ask a hip-hop “musician” formed by the juvenile arrogance of a genre with almost zero positive contributions to popular culture to resist the easy prey of a humble and traditionally wholesome artist like Taylor Swift. Actually it is too much to ask, way too much.