First Isaiah Washington gets labeled a hate-monger for calling some dude a "fag" and then lying about it, so to appease his public, Washington checks himself into a rehab center to treat his "anti-gayness" gene.

Then last week, Paris Hilton offends everyone (and surprises/disappoints approximately no one) when it turns out that she hates black people and "little jappy jews" almost as much as we all hate her.

And now, Snickers is in trouble for that hate-mongering commercial that aired during the Super Bowl.

You know, that one where two mechanics share a Snickers bar ("Lady and the Tramp" style), and are so horrified by the ensuing almost-kiss that they start pulling out fistfuls of chest hair in a deluded attempt to prove their manliness?

Yeah, that one.

Anyways, suddenly, GLADD is chastising Snickers, Mars and the NFL for endorsing prejudice, the Colts and Bears spokesmen (who were contacted why, exactly?) are mumbling incoherent outdated phrases like "we are aware of the brouhaha" and "no comment," and the NFL is implausibly claiming they were "too focused on the Big Game" to pre-screen any of the offensive ad campaigns.

Meanwhile the Super Bowl ad controversy doesn't end there, as viewers (apparently unfamiliar with television and the whole "suspended reality" concept) are still reeling from a GM spot in which a depressed robot (i.e. you, the viewer!) momentarily daydreams about jumping off a bridge.

Could it be that the New York Times was right all along when they argued that the cartoonish violence of the Super Bowl commercials was likely a reflection of the toll of the United States' war in Iraq?

We think not. So we've decided to weigh in and say, once and for all, what we think is—and isn't—offensive.

CONTINUED »