You would think with major showdowns over health care and Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor looming, there would be a lot more conservatives flapping their ignorant gums. However, with the death of Michael Jackson and the Mark Sanford saga the top two stories being followed by the media right now, new conservative jackassery is actually pretty hard to find. And since Norm Coleman did the sensible thing today by conceding after eight months of grandstanding, I can't really rant about how much of an irrational kook he is.
As a result, I have decided to tackle an issue which has fascinated me for quite some time: The conservative quest for media censorship. Last night, after watching an episode of Family Guy on Hulu, I looked up the episode I was watching on Wikipedia. There, I discovered that the Parents Television Council (PTC)-- a conservative fringe organization that advocates for censoring television broadcasts to "appeal to a family audience"-- had requested its minions to write sternly-worded letters to FOX expressing their outrage over the episode's content, namely a scene where one of the characters talks about having an "eleven way."
I found the attack against the show quite amusing, and went to the PTC's website to research the organization some more. This truly is one of the most fascinating and disturbing conservative causes I have ever come across. The PTC claims it is a "non-partisan" organization which aims to "promote and restore responsibility and decency to the entertainment industry in answer to America's demand for positive, family-oriented television programming." Even better, it supplies a color-coded guide-- a "television traffic light" where red means bad for children/ families, yellow means caution should be exercised, and green means ay-okay for children and overly-sensitive adults-- which the PTC uses to rank every show and make recommendations for "family-friendly" entertainment.
For an organization which claims to be non-partisan, the PTC certainly doesn't have a problem promoting its rampant conservatism in its reviews of shows and in what it feels should be "standards" set by network television. For instance, the PTC cites House, MD's emphasis on science and religious skepticism as a reason why the series might be insulting to family audiences. In other instances, "references to homosexuality" qualify as "sexually perverse" subject matter, while medical shows which feature blood are considered "extremely violent" and "kissing" is conseridered "gratuitous sexual content." What is so striking about this "non-partisan" organization is that-- while it may claim to be "non-partisan"-- it certainly caters to social conservatism, namely Christian conservatism and not all family-based audiences.
When I was younger, my parents allowed me to watch R-rated movies as early as age ten and TV-MA series when I was in middle school. From an early age, I was smart enough to know that what I saw on film or television was fiction. Violence was the result of special effects, profanity was simply words people didn't like to hear, the sex wasn't real, and drug use was rarely seen as an amazing thing everyone had to go out and do once the show was over. The PTC assumes that all children are unable to handle "mature" subject matter and arbitrarily recommend that shows like House, Bones, Fringe, Arrested Development, CSI, NCIS, Lost and Chuck aren't viewed by children under the age of 18. This promotes "wholesome family values"-- not allowing your children to explore fictional worlds and ponder about characters who may be stuck in situations your children will never be involved in, simply because some idiot kid killed his sister after watching The Wrestler or a friend's child smoked pot after watching Up in Smoke.
The PTC is also so arrogant to believe that the hours of 8pm-10pm should be "family hour," where "adult-oriented" shows are not allowed to air on network television. I don't really understand why there needs to be a "family hour" on network television when there are dozens of cable stations which provide family programming. The reason why network TV has become more "adult oriented" is because they have been more successful with adult audiences over the years. In fact, some of the highest rated scripted television shows on network television are House, CSI, NCIS, Lost and Grey's Anatomy-- all of which receive a "red" rating from the PTC. This ultimately refutes the PTC's erronious claim in their mission statement that "[Americans] demand... positive, family-oriented television programming." Clearly, Americans don't demand such programming, as evident by the large number of viewers some of the PTC's most chastized shows draw every week.
Finally, one of the most laughable causes the PTC has been pursuing over the years is the idea of "cable choice," where cable customers should get to omit certain channels from their cable packages. Not surprisingly, the channels the PTC recommends parents should omit are MTV, VH1, Comedy Central, E!, and BET(because black people are savage voodoo practitioners who disgrace the name of Christ?), among others. Of course, the PTC doesn't seem to understand how cable companies work, since networks buy into the cable company, sign contracts, and offer their services for a very low price on the part of the consumer; as a result, if the PTC were to achieve their goal, conservatives would end up paying more for "cable choice" than they would basic cable. As it stands now, basic cable in my home area costs anywhere from $10-25, depending on the service; "cable choice" would easily add an extra $15-20 on top of that because certain networks which allow for such low prices would be cut out of the deal.But the best part about all of this is, the PTC's quest for "cable choice" is utterly useless. Every cable company I have heard of allows cable owners to block certain stations from their overall package. For those who don't own cable, most television sets come installed with v-chip technology which allow you to block certain programs or networks based on the television ration displayed during the broadcast.
The PTC really is one of the saddest, most unnecessary organizations I have ever come across in my research on the modern conservative movement. If parents want to monitor what their children watch, then they have every right to do so. However, they shouldn't try to punish everyone else by trying to get rid of well-written series like House simply because these series contain a few naughty cuss words and some violent moments.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Conservatidiots of the Day: The Cheating Hypocrites
It has been fifteen days since my last entry. I had planned to write something last week about Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), the 2012 presidential hopeful who admitted to cheating on his wife. However, as far as sex scandals go, his was boring and really uninteresting, especially when compared to other conservative sex scandals involving the likes of former Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) and current Sen. David Vitter (R-LA). And because the only semi-interesting thing to come out of the conservative camp this past week was Ensign's affair, I have held back from completing another entry.
Of course, I have decided to hit on the Ensign affair today, now that another 2012 presidential hopeful has admitted his infidelity as well. Yes, Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) told reporters today that he has cheated on his wife with a mistress from Argentina. After disappearing for five days-- his family and his office unaware of his whereabouts-- Sanford returned to South Carolina, where he tearfully told reporters about his marital infidelity. This makes him the second high-profile Republican in a week to admit to an extramarital affair, and the fifth in three years to prove the hypocrisy of the social conservative cause.
Sanford and Ensign were both considered beacons of social conservatism, and had been touted as possible presidential contenders who could appeal to the base (due to their wacky, nonsensical opposition to President Obama's stimulus package, which would have poured billions of dollars into their failing states) and so-called "values voters" (due to their wacky, nonsensical opposition to minority rights). Now, their future political ambitions have been crushed. In the past week, Ensign saw his approval rating drop from 53% to 39%, while many in South Carolina are calling on Sanford to resign.
Scandals like these make me laugh with glee. Not because I necessarily want to see their marriages fail, but because it highlights the rampant hypocrisy oozing out of the social conservative movement. Republicans constantly brush off these scandals as "simple mistakes," but they often forget that this isn't so much about the politicians making mistakes as it is evidence of the deteriorating legitimacy of ass-backwards social conservatism. It should make you queasy knowing that while Sanford was trashing gay marriage during the 2008 election, he was also sneaking off to Argentina to screw his foreign mistress, leaving his wife and four children home to wonder what Daddy is doing abroad. And yet, the two men who decide to spend the rest of their lives together, and may very well do so, are the people responsible for society's moral decline. Meanwhile, let's not forget that ten years ago, Sanford-- then a member of the House of Representatives-- voted to impeach President Bill Clinton for receiving oral sex from an intern.
Of course, Ensign, Craig and Vitter all attacked Bill Clinton's infidelity and tried to impeach him. Funny how the tables turn when they're in the spotlight. Craig never resigned, and went to finish out his term. Vitter hasn't resigned, either, and has kept his chairmanships. As far as we can tell, Ensign isn't planning on resigning, but it may be too soon to come to such a conclusion.
If you asked me, I'd say that all of these guys should have resigned. Not because of their infidelity, but because they betrayed the voters who were duped into electing such "morally superior" politicians in the first place. I could give a shit less if these guys screwed around on the side. What I care about is the blatant hypocrisy of their actions and how they have spent their careers chastising others for their "un-Christian" behavior while they exhibited the same behavior when the cameras weren't on.
Also, Mark Sanford should resign because he spent taxpayer money to drive to Atlanta to board a plane to Buenos Aires, and probably spent taxpayer money on the plane ticket. Why does this matter? Because if Sanford can bitch about how evil it is to spend taxpayer money on public health care and research projects, then he can surely put his money where his mouth is when he abused taxpayer money to continue to cheat on his wife.
For the record, here is a list of Republican politicians who have cheated on their wives in the past decade, and have been exposed to the public:
And, just to be "bipartisan," here are the Democrats involved in high profile sex-scandals over the past decade:
Of course, I have decided to hit on the Ensign affair today, now that another 2012 presidential hopeful has admitted his infidelity as well. Yes, Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) told reporters today that he has cheated on his wife with a mistress from Argentina. After disappearing for five days-- his family and his office unaware of his whereabouts-- Sanford returned to South Carolina, where he tearfully told reporters about his marital infidelity. This makes him the second high-profile Republican in a week to admit to an extramarital affair, and the fifth in three years to prove the hypocrisy of the social conservative cause.
Sanford and Ensign were both considered beacons of social conservatism, and had been touted as possible presidential contenders who could appeal to the base (due to their wacky, nonsensical opposition to President Obama's stimulus package, which would have poured billions of dollars into their failing states) and so-called "values voters" (due to their wacky, nonsensical opposition to minority rights). Now, their future political ambitions have been crushed. In the past week, Ensign saw his approval rating drop from 53% to 39%, while many in South Carolina are calling on Sanford to resign.
Scandals like these make me laugh with glee. Not because I necessarily want to see their marriages fail, but because it highlights the rampant hypocrisy oozing out of the social conservative movement. Republicans constantly brush off these scandals as "simple mistakes," but they often forget that this isn't so much about the politicians making mistakes as it is evidence of the deteriorating legitimacy of ass-backwards social conservatism. It should make you queasy knowing that while Sanford was trashing gay marriage during the 2008 election, he was also sneaking off to Argentina to screw his foreign mistress, leaving his wife and four children home to wonder what Daddy is doing abroad. And yet, the two men who decide to spend the rest of their lives together, and may very well do so, are the people responsible for society's moral decline. Meanwhile, let's not forget that ten years ago, Sanford-- then a member of the House of Representatives-- voted to impeach President Bill Clinton for receiving oral sex from an intern.
Of course, Ensign, Craig and Vitter all attacked Bill Clinton's infidelity and tried to impeach him. Funny how the tables turn when they're in the spotlight. Craig never resigned, and went to finish out his term. Vitter hasn't resigned, either, and has kept his chairmanships. As far as we can tell, Ensign isn't planning on resigning, but it may be too soon to come to such a conclusion.
If you asked me, I'd say that all of these guys should have resigned. Not because of their infidelity, but because they betrayed the voters who were duped into electing such "morally superior" politicians in the first place. I could give a shit less if these guys screwed around on the side. What I care about is the blatant hypocrisy of their actions and how they have spent their careers chastising others for their "un-Christian" behavior while they exhibited the same behavior when the cameras weren't on.
Also, Mark Sanford should resign because he spent taxpayer money to drive to Atlanta to board a plane to Buenos Aires, and probably spent taxpayer money on the plane ticket. Why does this matter? Because if Sanford can bitch about how evil it is to spend taxpayer money on public health care and research projects, then he can surely put his money where his mouth is when he abused taxpayer money to continue to cheat on his wife.
For the record, here is a list of Republican politicians who have cheated on their wives in the past decade, and have been exposed to the public:
- Gov. Mark Sanford from South Carolina-- Cheated on his wife with a woman from Argentina for roughly a year (2009)
- Sen. John Ensign-- Cheated on his wife with a former staffer's wife; came forward when staffer threatened to blackmail him (2009)
- Sen. Larry Craig-- Attempted to cheat on his wife with an undercover police officer who was using an ajacent stall in the Minneapolis International Airport restroom; reportedly cheated on his wife with other men (2007)
- Sen. David Vitter-- Cheated on his wife with a prostitute; was a client of the infamous DC Madame; reportedly wore diapers and asked to be spanked during his sexual trysts (2007)
- former Mayor Rudy Giuliani-- Cheated on his second wife, Donna Hanover, with Judith Nathan; Publicly announced he was divorcing Hanover at a press conference without having discussed the matter with her beforehand (2001)
- former House Speaker Newt Gingrich--Cheated on his second wife while he was attempting to impeach Bill Clinton for infidelity; also, just for kickers, he divorced his first wife as she was hospitalized for uterine cancer (1998)
- bonus points go to Mark Foley, who wasn't actually married, but had disturbing conversations with some of his male pages (2006).
And, just to be "bipartisan," here are the Democrats involved in high profile sex-scandals over the past decade:
- former Sen. John Edwards-- Cheated on his wife with a nasty-looking thing; discovered by The National Enquirer (2008)
- former Gov. Eliot Spitzer-- Cheated on his wife with a prostitute; discovered via FBI investigation (2008)
- former Gov. James McGreevey-- Cheated on his wife with a gay man, whom he made head of New Jersey's department of Homeland Security (2004)
- former President Bill Clinton-- Received oral sex from an intern. (1998)
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Conservatidiot of the Day: James von Brunn
The latest surge in murders committed by right-wing extremists continued today as die-hard white supremacist James von Brunn, an 88-year-old neo-Nazi from Maryland who frequented the racist online forum stormfront.org, went on a shooting spree at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC. The story can be found here.
Von Brunn, by the way, is the administrator of Holy Western Empire, a website he refers to as a "hard-hitting expose of the JEW CONSPIRACY to destroy the white gene pool." Von Brunn also spent six years in prison after he kidnapped several members of the National Reserve Board of Governors and held them at gunpoint in what he referred to as a "nonviolent citizen's arrest" (the reasons for this arrest are unclear). On his website, Von Brunn attacks the "Jew judge" that sentenced him, and refers to the jury which convicted him as a "Negro jury." And, as if the crazy train hadn't gone off the rails already, he is an author, having written the wonderfully titled manifesto Kill the Best Gentiles!, a manuscript complete with racist, anti-semitic rantings which Von Brunn claims White families should read to protect their children. You can read the first six chapters on his website.
And yet, conservatives who decried the recent report by the Department of Homeland Security that claimed right-wing extremist groups are a threat to national security are probably still in denial that people such as James von Brunn are actually capable of inflicting harm. No, they have a right to do and say and think whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone. Except, of course, they are hurting people; in fact, these right-wing extremists are even killing people in the name of their political beliefs.
Let's count down the number of murders committed at the hands of right-wing extremists since Barack Obama was elected President:
Makes you feel safer knowing these right-wing nutjobs are allowed to do and say and think whatever they want, doesn't it? Because they never, ever kill... no, they're just exercising their first amendment rights, like good little Americans, and the evil Janet Napolitano is to blame for inciting hatred and politically-motivated attacks on right-wingers.
Von Brunn, by the way, is the administrator of Holy Western Empire, a website he refers to as a "hard-hitting expose of the JEW CONSPIRACY to destroy the white gene pool." Von Brunn also spent six years in prison after he kidnapped several members of the National Reserve Board of Governors and held them at gunpoint in what he referred to as a "nonviolent citizen's arrest" (the reasons for this arrest are unclear). On his website, Von Brunn attacks the "Jew judge" that sentenced him, and refers to the jury which convicted him as a "Negro jury." And, as if the crazy train hadn't gone off the rails already, he is an author, having written the wonderfully titled manifesto Kill the Best Gentiles!, a manuscript complete with racist, anti-semitic rantings which Von Brunn claims White families should read to protect their children. You can read the first six chapters on his website.
And yet, conservatives who decried the recent report by the Department of Homeland Security that claimed right-wing extremist groups are a threat to national security are probably still in denial that people such as James von Brunn are actually capable of inflicting harm. No, they have a right to do and say and think whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone. Except, of course, they are hurting people; in fact, these right-wing extremists are even killing people in the name of their political beliefs.
Let's count down the number of murders committed at the hands of right-wing extremists since Barack Obama was elected President:
- Security Guard at Holocaust Museum; murdered by James von Brunn, a white supremacist
- Dr. George Tiller, an abortion doctor in Witchita, KS; murdered by Scott Roeder, a right-wing anti-choice extremist who had previously attempted to bomb abortion clinics
- Four members of the Wood family in Frederick, MD; murdered by Christopher Wood, who was $450k in debt and blamed his struggles on President Obama
- Three Pittsburgh, PA police officers; murdered by a Richard Poplawski, who feared the Obama administration was going to take his guns away
Makes you feel safer knowing these right-wing nutjobs are allowed to do and say and think whatever they want, doesn't it? Because they never, ever kill... no, they're just exercising their first amendment rights, like good little Americans, and the evil Janet Napolitano is to blame for inciting hatred and politically-motivated attacks on right-wingers.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Conservatidiot of the Day: Sarah Palin
When Sarah Palin was selected as John McCain's running mate last year, the reason for her selection was quite clear from the very beginning. Palin had twenty-one months worth of political experience under her belt as governor of Alaska-- one of the least-relevant states in the union, a state only known for the relatively small amount of oil it produces annually, a state better known for its infinite corruption scandals, and a state with a population less than that of the Bronx. Prior to becoming Alaska's first female governor, Palin was mayor of Wasilla, a small town with a population just over 1,000. Compared to Palin, McCain had more political experience in his eyebrows than Palin had in her entire body. And yet, she was selected to be the Vice Presidential nominee, having only participated in one statewide campaign in her entire life in the reliably-Republican Alaska. It was clear from the beginning that Palin was selected by McCain solely because of her anatomy: Yes, Palin was a woman-- a young, attractive piece of eye candy which trumped far more qualified women such as Sens. Kay Baily Hutchison and Olympia Snowe-- and as such, she was a "fresh new face" the Republicans desperately needed to counter the freshness of that black guy with the a-rab sounding name who overshadowed the decrepit, mishapen figure of the 72-year-old political dinosaur at the top of the GOP ticket.
I could go on and on about how much of a failure Sarah Palin is, as a person who slaughters animals for pleasure, as a mother who can't teach safe sex to her children, as a governor who actively engages in corrupt behavior while fighting it, as a self-proclaimed national figure who knows very little about issues affecting the nation outside of Alaska, as an intellectual who went to a handful of colleges before finally getting a basic degree, and as an upstanding citizen who refuses to decry violent attacks against abortion doctors as terrorism. But for the purpose of today's entry, I'm going to avoid going into a Tolstoy-length rant over the thousands of reasons why Sarah Palin is an raging moron, and focus on one tiny aspect of her personality: Her own hypocrisy, particularly regarding remarks she has made about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, as well as an interesting comment she made about media scrutiny against her.
Recently, Palin was interviewed by radio host John Ziegler, who asked Palin if she would have picked Sonia Sotomayor to sit on the Supreme Court. Palin, baffled as always, said that she didn't know, and then followed up those remarks with the following:
“I think gender, race, should not be any kind of test you have to pass... I’m sure that there are many, many qualified candidates that should have been considered.”
Really, Sarah Palin? You, of all people, have the audacity to claim that Sotomayor was selected because of her race/ gender? Pardon me while I take the next few minutes to bang my head against the edge of my desk.
Sotomayor, for those of you who don't pay attention (like Mrs. Palin), has presided over the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals for over a decade. She is one of the most respected legal experts in the United States, and had been touted as a possible Supreme Court pick for John Kerry had he been elected President. Her experience is tantamount; her race and gender just happen to be a part of who Sotomayor is.
Meanwhile, take a good look at that quote above. Now, pretend that I'm a liberal politician, say, Joe Biden. I'm Joe Biden, and I was just asked a question about John McCain picking Sarah Palin to be my running mate. Here's my response:
“I think gender, race, should not be any kind of test you have to pass... I’m sure that there are many, many qualified candidates that should have been considered.”
Do you see what's so interesting about that statement? It applies MORE to Sarah Palin than it does Sonia Sotomayor. If John McCain wanted to select a female Republican as his nominee, there were many, many qualified candidates that should have been considered: Hutchison, Snowe, Sens. Elizabeth Dole, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, Govs. Linda Lingle and Jodi Rell, Reps. Heather Wilson, Mary Fallin, and Mary Bono-Mack-- just to name a few.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, especially giant fucking boulders which crumple the support beams and bring the entire house down in one good toss. In the history of United States Presidential elections, the Vice Presidential selection has rarely cost a candidate the Presidency... that is, until 2008, when Sarah Palin's selection turned off people with half a brain who were appalled by the folksy "I'm just an imbecile who wears fake glasses to look smart while speaking in a midwestern twang to sound like good-ol' simple folk" song and dance routine she paraded around on the campaign trail. The Republicans had a perfect opportunity to slam Obama into election day over his lack of experience, and yet they managed to put someone with FAR LESS experience on their ticket, someone who couldn't make up her extremely short resume with outstanding charisma and charm. Sarah Palin was a raging moron who couldn't impress some of the dumbest idiots in the country with her two-item list of political credentials and ability to offend anyone with ears. And yet, because she has breasts and a vagina-- the latter of which she made damn sure we knew was used every time she paraded her baby, knocked-up teenage-daughter, and Iraq-soldier son in front of the media-- Palin was just a voting booth lever away from being second in command of this country.
But when it comes to Sarah Palin's "I just like to tell 'em what I think" tours she does every now and again, there is always a follow-up logical catastrophe waiting to happen. Zeigler asked Palin if there are times in her career when she questions her decision to be politically active. Naturally, she gave us another wise answer:
“To be brutally honest, yeah, there are some days where I have to ask myself if some of this is worth it... [I] will not sit down and shut up.”
I have an idea: DO SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP. If you don't like the criticism you get, then don't parade yourself around in front of the cameras spouting ill-conceived bullshit and folk sayings of the week! YOU make yourself a target the moment you open your mouth without thinking, which is what happens every time you speak, because you never say anything rational which leaves everyone to suspect that you are incapable of thinking before talking.
By the way, Sarah, you have a state you should think about governing. I know it's hard, being a political rock star and all, but you should at least have a little pride and go back to Alaska where you can be the governor the people there elected you to be. You've been governor for less than three years now, and what have you done aside from concocting cock-and-bull stories about selling planes on eBay?
Please, Sarah, for the love of all that is holy-- Stay in Alaska. It won't hurt us whiny liberals if you don't come down here and compare us to communists. It won't hurt you if you stay up there where the big, bad, evil media won't attack you. It's a win-win situation which would make everyone happy.
I could go on and on about how much of a failure Sarah Palin is, as a person who slaughters animals for pleasure, as a mother who can't teach safe sex to her children, as a governor who actively engages in corrupt behavior while fighting it, as a self-proclaimed national figure who knows very little about issues affecting the nation outside of Alaska, as an intellectual who went to a handful of colleges before finally getting a basic degree, and as an upstanding citizen who refuses to decry violent attacks against abortion doctors as terrorism. But for the purpose of today's entry, I'm going to avoid going into a Tolstoy-length rant over the thousands of reasons why Sarah Palin is an raging moron, and focus on one tiny aspect of her personality: Her own hypocrisy, particularly regarding remarks she has made about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, as well as an interesting comment she made about media scrutiny against her.
Recently, Palin was interviewed by radio host John Ziegler, who asked Palin if she would have picked Sonia Sotomayor to sit on the Supreme Court. Palin, baffled as always, said that she didn't know, and then followed up those remarks with the following:
“I think gender, race, should not be any kind of test you have to pass... I’m sure that there are many, many qualified candidates that should have been considered.”
Really, Sarah Palin? You, of all people, have the audacity to claim that Sotomayor was selected because of her race/ gender? Pardon me while I take the next few minutes to bang my head against the edge of my desk.
Sotomayor, for those of you who don't pay attention (like Mrs. Palin), has presided over the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals for over a decade. She is one of the most respected legal experts in the United States, and had been touted as a possible Supreme Court pick for John Kerry had he been elected President. Her experience is tantamount; her race and gender just happen to be a part of who Sotomayor is.
Meanwhile, take a good look at that quote above. Now, pretend that I'm a liberal politician, say, Joe Biden. I'm Joe Biden, and I was just asked a question about John McCain picking Sarah Palin to be my running mate. Here's my response:
“I think gender, race, should not be any kind of test you have to pass... I’m sure that there are many, many qualified candidates that should have been considered.”
Do you see what's so interesting about that statement? It applies MORE to Sarah Palin than it does Sonia Sotomayor. If John McCain wanted to select a female Republican as his nominee, there were many, many qualified candidates that should have been considered: Hutchison, Snowe, Sens. Elizabeth Dole, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, Govs. Linda Lingle and Jodi Rell, Reps. Heather Wilson, Mary Fallin, and Mary Bono-Mack-- just to name a few.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, especially giant fucking boulders which crumple the support beams and bring the entire house down in one good toss. In the history of United States Presidential elections, the Vice Presidential selection has rarely cost a candidate the Presidency... that is, until 2008, when Sarah Palin's selection turned off people with half a brain who were appalled by the folksy "I'm just an imbecile who wears fake glasses to look smart while speaking in a midwestern twang to sound like good-ol' simple folk" song and dance routine she paraded around on the campaign trail. The Republicans had a perfect opportunity to slam Obama into election day over his lack of experience, and yet they managed to put someone with FAR LESS experience on their ticket, someone who couldn't make up her extremely short resume with outstanding charisma and charm. Sarah Palin was a raging moron who couldn't impress some of the dumbest idiots in the country with her two-item list of political credentials and ability to offend anyone with ears. And yet, because she has breasts and a vagina-- the latter of which she made damn sure we knew was used every time she paraded her baby, knocked-up teenage-daughter, and Iraq-soldier son in front of the media-- Palin was just a voting booth lever away from being second in command of this country.
But when it comes to Sarah Palin's "I just like to tell 'em what I think" tours she does every now and again, there is always a follow-up logical catastrophe waiting to happen. Zeigler asked Palin if there are times in her career when she questions her decision to be politically active. Naturally, she gave us another wise answer:
“To be brutally honest, yeah, there are some days where I have to ask myself if some of this is worth it... [I] will not sit down and shut up.”
I have an idea: DO SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP. If you don't like the criticism you get, then don't parade yourself around in front of the cameras spouting ill-conceived bullshit and folk sayings of the week! YOU make yourself a target the moment you open your mouth without thinking, which is what happens every time you speak, because you never say anything rational which leaves everyone to suspect that you are incapable of thinking before talking.
By the way, Sarah, you have a state you should think about governing. I know it's hard, being a political rock star and all, but you should at least have a little pride and go back to Alaska where you can be the governor the people there elected you to be. You've been governor for less than three years now, and what have you done aside from concocting cock-and-bull stories about selling planes on eBay?
Please, Sarah, for the love of all that is holy-- Stay in Alaska. It won't hurt us whiny liberals if you don't come down here and compare us to communists. It won't hurt you if you stay up there where the big, bad, evil media won't attack you. It's a win-win situation which would make everyone happy.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Conservatidiots of the Day: Hiram Monserrate and Pedro Espada, Jr.
Republicans, aware that voters have rejected them at the federal level and in state legislatures across the country, have now decided that the best way to regain political power is to bypass democracy altogether. In New York State today, the Republican minority courted two Democratic senators-- Hiram Monserrate of Queens and Pedro Espada, Jr. of the Bronx-- to shift control of the state senate to the Republican Party. In exchange for their defection, the Republicans made Espada the new Senate Pro Tempore, creating a "bipartisan" leadership structure, effectively overturning the Democratic majority which was duely elected by New Yorkers eight months ago.
This was a coup. You know, that thing that happens in volatile political states in Europe and Asia when one political party overthrows a democratically-elected government to advance their own political agenda. Rather than work towards bipartisanship, the Republicans in New York felt it was a better idea to screw the process altogether and engage in a thrilling bit of political theater. As a result, the coup only proves that the Republican Party cares more about having power than it does the will of the people. This is the sort of thing we should have expected in post-WWII Europe, or Thailand, or a number of other countries where political stability is practically unheard of. Not one of the United States. Not New York State.
Conservatives across the country are happy about this. Some of them are even pointing to this coup as a "victory" for the Republican Party. Yes-- Victory is taking democracy and flushing it down the toilet. Victory is spitting in the faces of the tens of millions of New York voters who cast ballots for Democrats last November. Victory is emulating the political tactics of the fascist regimes which dominated countries like Greece at the beginning of the Cold War. Victory, for the Republicans, is doing anything and everything outside of the boundaries of democracy to advance an outdated, bigoted, radical agenda which will keep one of the most economically stagnant states in the country in the financial gutter.
We can thank Senators Monserrate and Espada for this garbage. Then again, neither of them pass the political purity test: Both Senators will likely be convicted felons by the end of the year, and face removal from office once convicted: Monserrate reportedly slashed his girlfriend's face open with a broken wine glass, while Espada has apparently been accepting political favors and bribes. With their power and reputations waning, it only makes sense that they joined the Republicans to perform the greatest criminal act ever perpetrated against the voters of New York state. And Espada got his cumuffins, didn't he? He is now the Senate Pro Tempore, a position handed to him as payback for this little show.
Yes, New York State Republicans took Democracy, brought it outside in front of its family and friends (the voters), then proceeded to beat the shit out of it and stab it repeatedly. New York State does not need this right now. It already has an ineffective governor in David Paterson. It doesn't need an ineffective state senate as well.
Thankfully, this coup may not last very long. If Monserrate and Espada are convicted, they will face expulsion from the Senate. And since they are in reliably liberal Senate districts, it is extremely likely real Democrats who pay credence to American Democracy will be elected in their place, bringing the power back to those who earned it last November. Until then, us voters will all be forced to watch in horror as New York state succumbs to American fascism, unable to do anything about the injustices occurring before us all.
This was a coup. You know, that thing that happens in volatile political states in Europe and Asia when one political party overthrows a democratically-elected government to advance their own political agenda. Rather than work towards bipartisanship, the Republicans in New York felt it was a better idea to screw the process altogether and engage in a thrilling bit of political theater. As a result, the coup only proves that the Republican Party cares more about having power than it does the will of the people. This is the sort of thing we should have expected in post-WWII Europe, or Thailand, or a number of other countries where political stability is practically unheard of. Not one of the United States. Not New York State.
Conservatives across the country are happy about this. Some of them are even pointing to this coup as a "victory" for the Republican Party. Yes-- Victory is taking democracy and flushing it down the toilet. Victory is spitting in the faces of the tens of millions of New York voters who cast ballots for Democrats last November. Victory is emulating the political tactics of the fascist regimes which dominated countries like Greece at the beginning of the Cold War. Victory, for the Republicans, is doing anything and everything outside of the boundaries of democracy to advance an outdated, bigoted, radical agenda which will keep one of the most economically stagnant states in the country in the financial gutter.
We can thank Senators Monserrate and Espada for this garbage. Then again, neither of them pass the political purity test: Both Senators will likely be convicted felons by the end of the year, and face removal from office once convicted: Monserrate reportedly slashed his girlfriend's face open with a broken wine glass, while Espada has apparently been accepting political favors and bribes. With their power and reputations waning, it only makes sense that they joined the Republicans to perform the greatest criminal act ever perpetrated against the voters of New York state. And Espada got his cumuffins, didn't he? He is now the Senate Pro Tempore, a position handed to him as payback for this little show.
Yes, New York State Republicans took Democracy, brought it outside in front of its family and friends (the voters), then proceeded to beat the shit out of it and stab it repeatedly. New York State does not need this right now. It already has an ineffective governor in David Paterson. It doesn't need an ineffective state senate as well.
Thankfully, this coup may not last very long. If Monserrate and Espada are convicted, they will face expulsion from the Senate. And since they are in reliably liberal Senate districts, it is extremely likely real Democrats who pay credence to American Democracy will be elected in their place, bringing the power back to those who earned it last November. Until then, us voters will all be forced to watch in horror as New York state succumbs to American fascism, unable to do anything about the injustices occurring before us all.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Conservatidiots of the Day: The National Review
The next issue of the ever-so-clever National Review will feature several scathing, batshit-crazy, fact-devoid critiques of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. And while the editors and writers at that fantastic magazine are bound to refer to Sotomayor as a "racist" on several occasions, something tells me they will never mention the blatant racism in the cover of next week's issue.
The right has completely bastardized the "wise Latina" comments to a point where it is no longer comical. For the first week, it was hilarious to watch privileged white hicks like Newt Gingrich and Tom Tancredo bounce off the walls trying to paint her as the equivalent of a Klan member. It was the perfect straw man argument coming from the mouths of men who can't atone for their own racism, and was surely worthy of laughter from those who know better than them. But now, these baseless attacks have gotten older than Dick Cheney insinuating that Obama supports terrorism.
Now, the folks over at the National Review have the audacity to call Sotomayor a racist while portraying her as a caricature of an Asian Buddhist. Brilliant! Nothing says "equality" more than portraying all races as one flimsy caricature. Either that, or the National Review is like most conservatives these days: unable to grasp the concept of minorities being proud of their heritage, and unable to decipher one race from another. As far as they're concerned, all brown people are the same and are united by the fact that they aren't white.
I wonder what next week will hold. Maybe Sotomayor will be wearing a turban? Oh wait-- I must have confused that statement with this billboard in Missouri. Yep, Obama's brown, he must be a Muslim terrorist; Sotomayor's brown, she must be a hippie Buddhist.
And so it goes.
The right has completely bastardized the "wise Latina" comments to a point where it is no longer comical. For the first week, it was hilarious to watch privileged white hicks like Newt Gingrich and Tom Tancredo bounce off the walls trying to paint her as the equivalent of a Klan member. It was the perfect straw man argument coming from the mouths of men who can't atone for their own racism, and was surely worthy of laughter from those who know better than them. But now, these baseless attacks have gotten older than Dick Cheney insinuating that Obama supports terrorism.
Now, the folks over at the National Review have the audacity to call Sotomayor a racist while portraying her as a caricature of an Asian Buddhist. Brilliant! Nothing says "equality" more than portraying all races as one flimsy caricature. Either that, or the National Review is like most conservatives these days: unable to grasp the concept of minorities being proud of their heritage, and unable to decipher one race from another. As far as they're concerned, all brown people are the same and are united by the fact that they aren't white.
I wonder what next week will hold. Maybe Sotomayor will be wearing a turban? Oh wait-- I must have confused that statement with this billboard in Missouri. Yep, Obama's brown, he must be a Muslim terrorist; Sotomayor's brown, she must be a hippie Buddhist.
And so it goes.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Lack of Updates?
I just want to inform this blog's three or four loyal readers that updates may be a bit sporadic this month, since it is a busy time for me. The long and short of it: don't expect daily updates throughout June.
Monday, June 1, 2009
The Top 10 Bestest, Most Conservativist Movies Ever
Yesterday, I stumbled across the National Review's list of the "25 Most Conservative Movies." As expected, the list was ridiculous, featuring such apolitical films as Groundhog Day and Ghostbusters, while also including a number of films which, in the opinion of the list's authors, either vindicated the horrific actions of the Bush administration (The Dark Knight) or contained a few small conservative motifs which the authors felt translated into a sweeping conservative manifesto (Forrest Gump, A Simple Plan).
The list contains very few films with a straightforward conservative message. The Lord of the Rings and Braveheart, for example, are undeniably conservative, considering the talent behind the source material (J.R.R. Tolkein was unabashadly conservative, and Mel Gibson is... well, Mel Gibson). But to claim that Groundhog Day, which was directed by a liberal Jew and starred one of Hollywood's most liberal comedians, is a conservative comedic opus is a perfect example of how many conservatives fail to actually catch the true messages behind the movies they are watching. They see a bomb blast in the dystopian Brazil and automatically equate that act of terrorism with liberalism, then equate the entire dystopian future presented in Terry Gilliam's fantasy epic as what a socialist state would undoubtedly be like. Never mind, of course, that some of what we see in this film-- governments policing its people and preventing free speech and expression-- were equivocal to many of the steps the Bush administration took after September 11, and that this film takes place in the distant future, without reference to any one political movement. Meanwhile, Trey Parker and Matt Stone insinuate that Sean Penn and Tim Robbins are "fags" while mocking Kim Jong-Il with racism in Team America, which automatically makes that movie a conservative masterpiece-- even though Parker and Stone have said repeatedly that the film mocks both liberals and conservatives and how they react to national security.
So, today, instead of seeking out a particular person or group worthy of reprimand, I thought it would be fun to do something different. I have compiled a list of the "Ten Bestest, Most Conservativist Movies Ever" that the National Review just plain forgot about when compiling their list last year. I encourage you to read the original list which is linked above before reading mine. I also encourage you to realize that THIS IS SATIRE. I am not a conservative, nor is any of what I write below representative of my own personal views. It is meant to mock much of what was in that original article, parodying the essence of multiple arguments presented in the original National Review article.
So, without further ado, here is the list:
THE BIG LEBOWSKI (1998)
The list contains very few films with a straightforward conservative message. The Lord of the Rings and Braveheart, for example, are undeniably conservative, considering the talent behind the source material (J.R.R. Tolkein was unabashadly conservative, and Mel Gibson is... well, Mel Gibson). But to claim that Groundhog Day, which was directed by a liberal Jew and starred one of Hollywood's most liberal comedians, is a conservative comedic opus is a perfect example of how many conservatives fail to actually catch the true messages behind the movies they are watching. They see a bomb blast in the dystopian Brazil and automatically equate that act of terrorism with liberalism, then equate the entire dystopian future presented in Terry Gilliam's fantasy epic as what a socialist state would undoubtedly be like. Never mind, of course, that some of what we see in this film-- governments policing its people and preventing free speech and expression-- were equivocal to many of the steps the Bush administration took after September 11, and that this film takes place in the distant future, without reference to any one political movement. Meanwhile, Trey Parker and Matt Stone insinuate that Sean Penn and Tim Robbins are "fags" while mocking Kim Jong-Il with racism in Team America, which automatically makes that movie a conservative masterpiece-- even though Parker and Stone have said repeatedly that the film mocks both liberals and conservatives and how they react to national security.
So, today, instead of seeking out a particular person or group worthy of reprimand, I thought it would be fun to do something different. I have compiled a list of the "Ten Bestest, Most Conservativist Movies Ever" that the National Review just plain forgot about when compiling their list last year. I encourage you to read the original list which is linked above before reading mine. I also encourage you to realize that THIS IS SATIRE. I am not a conservative, nor is any of what I write below representative of my own personal views. It is meant to mock much of what was in that original article, parodying the essence of multiple arguments presented in the original National Review article.
So, without further ado, here is the list:
THE BIG LEBOWSKI (1998)
On the onset, this Coen Brothers movie—which features an artistic character proud of her femininity and a main character who smokes marijuana all the time—does not appear to be an ideal conservative film. However, the film contains multiple plotlines, and as long as you disregard the yucky liberal characters (in fact, I’d even call them caricatures of liberals, which means they’re ay-okay since they mock what it’s like to be a drug user and a woman), you can find some deeply conservative messages therein. John Goodman’s Walter Sobchak is a true conservative character, someone who is proud to be a Vietnam War veteran (you don’t see that in any Oliver Stone movies, do you?) and is willing to resort to drastic measures resulting in the threat of gun violence and property damage just to make sure people are willing to stick to the rules. Meanwhile, the Big Lebowski himself is a wealthy man who loves stealing from impoverished children and passing the blame onto others—like those radical foreign nihilists—showing us all that it is perfectly acceptable to lie and cheat so long as it doesn’t hurt the wealthy businessmen at the top..
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (2005)
Yeah, this is a film about two gay men. But it is also a film about the modern conservative movement. Have I lost you? Well, think about this: Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) and Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) play two married men who go off and have romantic trysts with one another in the American West. That sounds an awful lot like Larry Craig and Jim Kolbe, don’t it? And Ennis Del Mar is downright abusive to Jack Twist, repulsed by the idea of maintaining a homosexual relationship throughout the course of the movie. You know what they say: It’s okay to be gay, just as long as you have sex with a woman on occasion. Or at least marry one in an effort to retain a heterosexual appearance. The differences between what it’s like to be a gay conservative and a gay liberal are quite apparent in the two main characters: Ennis Del Mar is the perfect embodiment of what a real conservative homosexual should be like—a closeted he-man who is afraid to admit his love for other men— while Jack Twist gets beaten to death in the end because he is too outgoing with his sexuality. Serves the proud little bastard right…
THE CRUCIBLE (1996)
If you don’t accept the Lord Jesus Christ and the messages within his Bible, then you deserve to hang for your sins. This movie showcases how it should be in America: Men who cheat on their wives and question their faith deserve to hang, while those who claim someone is un-Christian deserve the benefit of the doubt no matter how seemingly outlandish their claims are. After all, good Christians never lie, and this country would be so much better if everyone followed one set of beliefs and principles, no matter how impossible it may seem.
THE GOLDEN COMPASS (2007)
Hot on the heels of The Chronicles of Narnia, The Golden Compass is a rip-roaring fantasy adventure about a young girl who finds herself stuck in a world where intellectualism dominates her life. She is able to break free from the intellectual community, which throws her into an amazing fantasy adventure to dismantle an evil government entity which experiments on children. This is a movie that shows you don’t need to go to boring college to experience grand adventure, and a film that is adamantly against a nanny state, intellectual, research-based government which horrifically experiments on its people. Oh, and Nicole Kidman plays a character named “Mrs. Coulter,” adding to the deep conservative undertones of this whimsical fantasy adventure.
GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK (2005)
Edward R. Murrow is a trite little bastard, and this movie exposes him for what he really was: a liberal hack who was willing to bend the facts to attack Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who was a true American hero willing to get rid of the communist threat at any cost—even at the risk of his own reputation. Yes, George Clooney did a fabulous job portraying Joseph McCarthy as the wise patriotic sage he was. In fact, Clooney did a great service to McCarthy by using stock footage of him throughout the film, because no actor could capture the sheer American spirit which McCarthy embodied. Good Night is a true examination of the lengths the liberal media is willing to go to ruin the reputations of brilliant, heroic men like McCarthy.
HOSTEL (2005)
Torture is awesome. Who can call a movie which glamorizes torture and murder anything but “good?” I know I sure can’t. Yes, if this Hostel was in America, and the Americans had a different skin tone, why, this would be a great American movie which would vindicate waterboarding and other “extraordinary rendition” techniques conducted during the Bush administration. Sometimes, I like to put the volume on “mute” and make up my own dialogue, pretending that the Dutch businessman is an American soldier and that guy who gets his pectorals drilled out is a Muslim terrorist. Now that’s conservative entertainment!
MILK (2008)
Say what you will about that liberal jerk Sean Penn, but he certainly embodies an ideal conservative in this 2008 biopic of some queer city councilman from San Francisco. Ignoring the queerness of it, Milk is about a man who hates the oppressive government regime he lives under and is willing to take to the streets and start a revolution to overthrow some of the horrible laws which discriminate against gay people. “We can have a revolution here,” Milk quips during one of his campaigns to stop some law or something. And all the gay people rise up and fight against tyranny, in the name of the Constitution. Who knew queers could be so conservative? I didn’t. And if you’re turned off by all the queer-o-sexuality in the film, just wait until the end. You get to see Sean Penn and the homosexual icon he plays get gunned down by the conservative, gun-slinging Josh Brolin. What a show!
ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST (1975)
If you ever want to know what it is like to live in a “Nanny State,” then watch this movie. Nurse Ratchet is a perfect example of an evil socialist who treats all of her mental patients the same, giving them meds to subdue their emotions when they should, in fact, be allowed to do and say whatever they want to. Randall P. McMurphy is an example of the modern conservative, a man who is trapped in a liberal dystopia and tried to bring about a revolution overthrowing the tyrannical Ratchet and her cohorts. Like most conservatives, McMurphy is forced to endure grueling pain and suffering as he watches his friends voluntarily submit themselves to Ratchet’s horrors. And, like most liberals, Nurse Ratchet constantly seeks to silence McMurphy any way possible, going as far to lobotomize him in the end. This is what us conservatives face in the not-so-distant future, when Nurse Noobama forces us to take socialized medicine and involuntarily admits us to mental health facilities all across the country. They knew this was coming in the 1970s. We were warned. Now, we it’s just a matter of time until we must face the consequences of what happened this past November.
SONG OF THE SOUTH (1946)
Finally, a movie that shows us how blacks really felt during slavery. Contrary to today’s liberal revisionist history, blacks enjoyed being enslaved and even had enlightening friendships with their masters. Uncle Remus is a perfect example of a black man living as a slave in the South. He never moped, he never complained about being a slave, and could always be found whistlin’ tunes and tellin’ stories to all the bright young whippersnappers who came his way. He is neither apologetic nor upset about his situation; no, Uncle Remus just is who he is and doesn’t try to fix a thing. That’s how it should be in America—all races should know their place in society. All this talk of “civil rights” is just liberalized hogwash. Thank you, Walt Disney, for giving us a truly inspirational film about race which should be on the video shelf of every American household.
WAITRESS (2007)
Women should always stand by their men no matter how abusive or stupid they are as husbands. Period. This humble little film follows a Southern waitress as she prepares to give birth to her pending baby and contemplates leaving her abusive husband. Throughout the film, she knows her place in the relationship, as the submissive housewife who must always listen to what all men tell her to do. Andy Griffin has a small role in this film as a wise old man who, like senior GOP figures such as Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney, pops up sporadically to offer feigned advice and petty criticisms about how our waitress heroine should live her life. And the best part? She eventually has the baby against her own personal wishes. The ending sucks a little, since she leaves her abusive husband; but hey, you don’t watch a movie for a happy ending, and sometimes, you have to take the bad with the good. The good, in this case, is a funny, heartwarming conservative indie that shows us women can be happy even if they aren't allowed to make many of their own choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)