Let's elect some sane people. If they happen to be gay, I can live with that.

Republicans "come out of the closet" as hate-mongers when they think nobody is listening.



Clearly, she should have patted down everyone to see if they were wired. Well, while there may not have been a "gay agenda" before so called representatives started their hate and fear campaigns, there is one now - and it involves un-electing intolerant bigots.

I'll rase a soy latte to that idea. I"ve found folks that spend a lot of time hating one identifiable group probably hate me in their spare time. I think it's just a good idea to be rid of them before I climb any higher on their priority list.

In the matter of O'Reilly v. Godwin

Media Matters - O'Reilly: No escaping "the similarities between what Hitler ... did back then and the hate-filled blogs, what they're doing": "O'Reilly: No escaping 'the similarities between what Hitler ... did back then and the hate-filled blogs, what they're doing'

Summary: On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly responded to a viewer's letter -- criticizing O'Reilly for a 'lapse of judgment' regarding his statement that he did not 'see any difference between [Huffington Post founder Arianna] Huffington and the Nazis' -- by defending the statement. O'Reilly said: 'If you look back at what happened in Germany, you cannot escape the similarities between what Hitler and his cutthroats did back then and the hate-filled blogs, what they're doing now.'"

Yep. they both explore concepts and advocate positions that Bill cannot comprehend, due to his complete, willful ignorance.

In ordinary discourse, of course, it is considered to be a norm that a gratuitous comparison of a critic to Nazis amounts to a concession of the total argument.

Goddess, it becomes so damn embarrassing to even admit the slightest tendancy toward Conservatism in any way, on any matter, for fear of being confused with the mouth-breathing lickspittles that watch his show. But then I remember what the rest of the world calls much of what we think of as NeoConservatism.
NeoLiberalism.

Then I feel better.

John, John, why persecuteth thou me?

Mike Savage needs a hug. He's clearly gotten all tense and irrational, though I should resist suggesting that he could benefit from some Hot Savage Love. I wouldn't wish to presume upon Dan Savage's sense of decency and propriety. (Dan Savage is the Liberal answer to Michael Savage and is therefore completely unsafe for work outside of Portland, Seattle and San Fransisco.)

Media Matters - Savage: "You're telling me there's no possibility of a conspiracy by the Democrats" to cause Roberts' seizure?: "Savage asked, 'Am I to believe there's no connection between Charles Schumer on Friday saying he would never appoint, or never, excuse me, approve another Bush appointment to the court, to any court? And then the chief justice suffers a so-called seizure two days later? You're telling me there's no possibility of a conspiracy by the Democrats to have caused this seizure in some manner?' He added: 'Tell me it's not possible, and I'll tell you you're a liar.'"

I should point out that it's pretty clever rhetoric, too. Can I definitely state it's impossible? Nope. I'm a pretty good rhetorician myself, but even I can't prove a negative.

I cannot prove that 9/11 was not a conspiracy. Actually, it had to be a conspiracy, the open question is "by whom and to what end?" But likewise, absent much relevant evidence to rule it out, I cannot prove it was not a conspiracy that included Bush and Cheney.

See how this works?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's just absence of evidence - and the only thing we can say for sure is "we don't know." And therefore, if we deny his claim as absurd, he actually can characterize it as dishonest. We can only honestly take bets on the likelihood of some possible causative factor. So I cannot HONESTLY rule out the possibility that John Roberts was fed something to trigger a seizure, any more, than, say, I can rule out that the seizure was caused by the stress of a troubled conscience or sheer, overwhelming cognitive dissonance.

I would have to say that stress of some type - either physical or mental - is more probable than, say, a liberal getting their hands on a drug or device that would trigger a seizure at a particular place and in a particularly convenient point in the news cycle.

I'd have to render it as being as likely an occurrence - I mean, in terms of predictability and certainty of causation - as Paul being struck down on the Road to Damascus.

Come to think of it, Paul, prior to his seizure, enjoyed a social role not entirely unlike that Roberts has played over the years. I suppose the only way to come to even a tentative speculation is to see what Roberts' rulings look like in the coming years.

But as for "Dr." Savage - Well, let's just say I smell the funk that comes from seeing the end of the gravy train in the near distance. Savage, like the rest of the remaining Right Wing noise machine, are a remaining fringe speaking to a an ever-diminishing fringe, with the general ratings of right-wing talk and tabloid formats plunging like stunned ducks.

If they manage to convince themselves of what they say enough to be convincing to their remaining audience, I presume it's either due to medication, or the lack of it. And in Savage's case, I think that, unlike Rush or O'Rielly, it's due to a clear absence of essential medication!

Yes, folks, marijuana (and to a lesser, but significant extent, Cuban seed and Dominican tobaccos) are appropriate herbal treatments for bilious humors, while alcohol is contraindicated.

So, as a caring gesture, why don't you send him a nice, big black cigar...

...and tell him to suck on it.

tag: Michael Savage, Dr. Savage, Savage Nation, Freudian References, Homophobia, Paranoid Fantasies, Right Wing Talk, Hate Speech, Hate Radio, Dan Savage, Penis Substitutes, Nielson Ratings, blogmockery, Ridicule

O'Rielly promotes idea that "liberals are more dangeous than terrorists."

I blogged earliler about this,working just from a bare description. I still haven't found a transcript, but the reaction and outrage continues to spread.

The article linked below points out that Bill'O is very fond of Hate Speech, Nazi-style eliminationist rhetoric and conspiracy theories himself.

AlterNet: Blogs: PEEK: Bill O'Reilly Compares Progressive Bloggers to Nazis and KKK: "O'Reilly Promotes Violence and Conspiracy, But Condemns Deliberative Debate

In this quote from the end of the book, D'Souza sent his 9/11 conspiracy theory a careening over the cliff of violent language and logic, making an argument plain and simple enough for even Bill O'Reilly to understand (emphasis mine):

In reality, the left already has a foreign policy and a strategy, and it is called working in tandem with bin Laden to defeat Bush. As we have seen, the left and the Islamic radicals operate like the two sides of a scissors, each prong working separately, but toward the same end. Conservatives need to identify the enemy at home and show its tacit relationship with the foreign enemy. Not only is there a close parallel between the rhetoric of the two groups, but they have the same goal of defeating Bush in Iraq, and they need each other to accomplish this goal. In short the left is the domestic insurgency that provides a counterpart to the Iraq insurgency. It is at least as dangerous as any of bin Laden's American sleeper cells.

(Dinesh D'Souza, The Enemy at Home, p. 269)

Now, at this point--most Americans would read this passage and think: Oh, my, god. This book accuses the "cultural left" of being "at least as dangerous" as terrorists plotting to kill Americans with poison gas and nuclear bombs. Yep. That is exactly what D'Souza argued in the book. Not satisfied with floating a crackpot theory about liberals causing 9/11, D'Souza drives right into crazy town--redefining liberals as terrorists. The result, for those who actually take D'Souza seriously, is the idea that America should be hunting down liberals in the same way that they are hunting down terrorists--to be a liberal is to be a violent enemy of America, the only rightful end for which is death. Although wrapped up in the niceties of academic language, D'Souza's book is essentially a 300-page call for the death penalty against anyone identified with the left in America.

I have already blogged about this sort of hate speech - and what needs to be done about it.

Graphictruth: "Why Do You Hate America, Mr. King?": "We don't 'hate America,' Willhelm. There are certain people who claim to be patriotic Americans, while disparaging the values expressed by our Constitution and the Inalienable Rights recognized by it, that we could frankly do without.

Yourself, for example. [There's more...] You are not representative of core American values, as expressed in the Federalist Papers, the letters of Franklin, the writings of Adams, or worthy of citizenship when you can speak about 'knowing our place.'

Sir, 'our place' is in the Militia, defending the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic. You - and your self-deluded, authoritarian ilk - are precisely such a threat.

THIS - right here - IS such a 'well regulated militia,' using the power of the press under the aegis of the First Amendment. But if need be, we citizens are charged to do the same under the Second, should it come to pass that our government is suborned and becomes indistinguishable from any other Tyranny.

A Militia is any group of citizens coming together with their skills , talents and ability in common cause and without need to be told by some self-styled 'Commander in Chief' what to do or how to do it.

However, I do not actually hate you. Strong emotion can spoil your aim."

Speaking of Funnymentalism

clipped from www.bloglines.com

There's more...

None dare call it "hate speech," and perhaps it is not, per se, but there's rather a long history of papal utterances being translated that way for the common folk.

Anyway, former Cardinal Ratzenberger, or "Ratzi" to his many detractors, is now officially on record as being on equal moral ground than, say, Jerry Falwell and Sun Myung Moon.

I am not, and never have been Catholic, but I was educated by Catholics and I have a great deal of respect for Catholicism and it's general support for human rights, at least in recent decades. Well, no more of that, if Ratzi has his way.

I support the fine American viewpoint towards the authority and Primacy of the Pope. "Only to the extent that it does not contradict scripture and common sense."

It would be uncommonly sensible for Catholics to ignore the hell out of the Bishop of Rome.

Bill O'Rielly to John McCain:

Bill O'Reilly: But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you're a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you've got to cap with a number.

Transcript courtesy Democrats.org

McCain failed completely to dissociate himself from this statement. I'm not much impressed by his attempt to duck O'Rielly's smug, cheesy racism.

John McCain: In America today we've got a very strong economy and low unemployment, so we need addition farm workers, including by the way agriculture, but there may come a time where we have an economic downturn, and we don't need so many.

[crosstalk]

O'Reilly: But in this bill, you guys have got to cap it. Because estimation is 12 million, there may be 20 [million]. You don't know, I don't know. We've got to cap it.

McCain: We do, we do. I agree with you.

Democrats.org highlights the "I agree with you," no doubt hoping ot imply that McCain agrees that it is iimportant to maintain the white Christian male power structure.

Me, I'm not sure that's a fair statement, but on the other hand, McCain failed to punch O'Rielly in the face for sleazing him by implication. So either he does agree, or he figures he can't afford to offend people who like Bill.

Now, I think he's tragically wrong on that. I don't think taking Bill to the woodshed, verbally or otherwise, could hurt ANYONE's election chances. And if he cut McCain's mike - now that would be pure electoral gold.

Bill O'Rielly, John McCain, Racism, 2008

Holier than Thou Finals, Southern Division, goes into Sudden Death Overtime!

I haven't said anything about the passing of Cousin Jerry, as "Good Riddance" seemed rude and dismissive, while anything more seemed a waste of precious photons. But as others have said more, it's not too much effort to quote them.

the adventures of a boy and his computer - Home of the Tyranny of the Minority: "Now I don't hate the old bucket o' lard, and I don't care about christianity or any other religion, though for myself, Marx' view on religion is an apt one. It is the opiate of the people. Like any opiate, it requires a pusher, a distribution system; and unfortunately, like any addictive substance, it tends to suck the user dry while benefitting the pusher. and make no mistake, Jerky benefitted quite nicely. He lived a comfortable life.

Like any pusher, Jerky cut his religion with a variety of agents that would ensure maximum potency and continued addiction. To keep the faithful coming back for more(or to continue exploiting them, if you will, and I don't care if you won't). Jerky blended in a generous amount of hatred and fear. The 'god' he made in his own image thought it was fine for the Botha government to brutally oppress the blacks and coloureds in South Africa, he encouraged his congregation to buy Krugerrands to finance this activity. We all know of his happy tendency to blame the gays and abortionistes and feministes for the WTC/Pentagon incidents, and the drowning of the poor after Katrina, God approved of that line, too. Curiously, god was mute on the possibility of Jerky sharing his wealth to assist the victims of said disasters. Ryland wondered if Fred Phelps would show up to protest."

And that's where this otherwise unremarkable passing of a smug con-artist becomes potentially amusing. From http://www.godhatesamerica.com /, confirmation that Westbourogh Baptist Church will be there.

"WBC will Preach at Jerry Falwell's Funeral!!


WBC will preach at the memorial service of the corpulent false prophet Jerry Falwell, who spent his entire life prophesying lies and false doctrines like "God loves everyone".

There is little doubt that Falwell split Hell wide open the instant he died. The evidence is compelling, overwhelming, and irrefragable. To wit:

1. Falwell was a true Calvinistic Baptist when he was a young preacher in Springfield, Missouri, and sold his soul to Free-Willism (Arminianism) for lucre.

2. Falwell bitterly and viciously attacked WBC because of WBC's faithful Bible preaching -- thereby committing the unpardonable sin -- otherwise known as the sin against the Holy Ghost.

3. Falwell warmly praised Christ-rejecting Jews, pedophile-condoning Catholics, money-grubbing compromisers, practicing fags like Mel White, and backsliders like Billy Graham and Robert Schuler, etc. All for lucre -- making him guilty of their sins.


Falwell is in Hell, Praise God!!



America, Cursed of God

Yep, Falwell is going to Hell for his cursed Liberalism! Me, I don't much care where he is, so long as he ain't here.

My money is on the good ol' boys and gals from Thomas Road Baptist. I hope they respond with all the Christian charity and forbearance we have come to expect of Jerry and his followers.

But as a good Libertarian with an entrepreneurial streak, I want to show up with a push-cart filled with commemorative axe handles.

tag: Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, Hate Speech, patriarchy, Religious Fundimentalism, sociopaths, Dominionism, Gresham's Law

Illustration credit:Dick Cheney Sez: Jerry Falwell went to Hell by webcarve Get this custom shirt at Zazzle

We "Liberals" Feel Your Pain, Neil

Cue the tiny violins...

Media Matters - Boortz accuses Media Matters of trying to manipulate "some whimpering old woman executive somewhere": "On the May 14 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Neal Boortz accused Media Matters for America -- which he referred to as 'Media Myrmidons' and 'Brocksters,' a reference to Media Matters President and CEO David Brock -- of 'waiting for one little statement that you can take out of its total context and just go on a rampage with, with your Web postings and see if you can pull that Don Imus thing off all over again, see if you can find some whimpering old woman executive somewhere that'll just [say], 'Oh! Oh, my God! We've got to do something now.' ' Boortz also said, 'And it's not just me, you're doing the same thing to [right-wing radio hosts] Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and the rest of them."

Yeah, that's about right. But then, is there really a context in which "nappy headed ho's" is appropriate? Or for that matter, you saying a congresswoman "Looks like a Ghetto Slut?"
Yep, after years and years and years of hearing wingnut talkers such as yourself take everything any opposing political or social figure says or out of context and "demagogue" it, I understand how you feel. But after all the Purple Heart band-aids, the "Al Gore invented the Internet" jokes and the moronic jeering about climate change and peak oil, you gotta understand, Neal - when we feel for you, the word for what we feel is "Schadenfreude."

You see, Neal - I can call you Neal, right - Neal, you and your ilk have gotten so good at thinking and speaking in sound-bites, and so amazingly, totally fucking indifferent to the sensibilities of decent people that context doesn't much matter. Most of your paragraphs are self-explanatory.

Kinda like this:

"If you are a grown adult in this country who is not suffering from some hideous physical or mental disability, and you are trying to raise children on the minimum wage, then you are a 100 percent pure unadulterated loser. ... I am so sick and damned tired of all those left-wing bedwetters and sympathy pimps out there ... just moaning over these people who have squandered their American birthright by becoming just the dregs of socie[ty]."

Come to think of it, in your case, context just makes it worse.

can't think! liberals will eat me!
by
webcarve

Get this custom shirt at Zazzle

Now you might just say that's your opinion, and you have a right to it. I'd agree. But it's a stupid, hateful and untrue opinion. It wouldn't even be terribly difficult to prove the untruth of it - but even if you were factually correct, it's still un-American, un-Neighborly and certainly Unchristian. Aside from that, I recall both David Duke and George Wallace being a little more sophisticated in their verbal attacks on the motives and moral failings of others.

Of course, you welcome such criticism as free publicity. And that's true enough - so long as your advertisers aren't embarrassed by being associated with such crap.

But increasingly, advertisers ARE embarrassed - because there are folks out there making sure they learn what their dollars are supporting. The thing about "free speech," Neil, is that the speech is free, but the studio costs money. When your speech starts costing Cox money, you can bet they'll find someone else to fill your slot.

Maybe even Al Frankin, if he doesn't become Senator Al.

Because, well, he is a lot more entertaining and he doesn't open his yap until he has facts to support his views. I believe you helped illustrate that point, and him handing you your ass on air sure didn't hurt his ratings.

In an appearance on CNN Daybreak to discuss the new liberal talk radio network, Air America Radio, Boortz claimed that the network's star, Al Franken, refused to host his show because he wouldn't get control of the phone lines.

After the network launched, Boortz appeared on Franken's show and Franken asked him about the comment. Boortz said "if you're reading from a transcript, that's wrong." When Franken pointed out "in context it doesn't make sense as anything else," Boortz responded "Hey, Al, don't get fixated on that, it's an error in the transcript or something. I've never asked you to host the show."

Franken later dug up the actual clip from the show, so he invited Boortz back and played that, along with Boortz's previous comments. The clip showed the transcript was accurate, so Boortz responded "Why are you so fixated on this, Al?" Al explained that he takes it seriously when someone lies, especially when they lie about him, and then lie again to cover it up. "Al, get over it," Boortz retorted.

Franken also played another clip from the CNN show. The host repeated a comment by Janeane Garofalo noting that "The American people have been conned into thinking liberal is a dirty word. Because of liberal reforms, we enjoy things like desegregation ..." Boortz responded "Let's see. Desegregation. You know, I thought the Civil Rights Act was passed over the objections of the Democrats in the Congress of the United States. You see? Janeane, pull that line on the air. Go ahead." Franken quoted Newt Gingrich saying "It was the liberal wing of the Democratic party that ended segregation," and pointed out that the Democrats who voted against it were all conservative Dixiecrats who became Republicans.

In response, Boortz sputtered "Be prepared to talk about some issues, not play a stupid, childish, moronic Al Franken game of 'Gotcha!' ... I am tired of playing the little nursery school thing with you, Al," and hung up. WMA audio clip of the above story

Later, even though he had specifically said, "I never asked you to host the show", Boortz responded on his website saying "You know what? Frankly, I can't really remember. After 35 years of talk radio how in the hell can you remember who you did and who you didn't ask to guest host." [6] He went on to attack Franken: "Al Franken approaches his show with a nasty demeanor and mean temperament. ... He's a comedian who has lost his sense of humor. He walks around with clenched fists, which makes it impossible to shake his hand."

Unhunh.

Now the thing is, Neil; left, right or center, there's a big difference between KNOWING what you are talking about and just talking out of your ass. It's easy to get away with the latter if you screen your calls and shout down guests who have something intelligent to say in response. But thing is, Neil; aside from being obviously hate speech, your show is stupid speech and stupidity annoys me. You don't do your homework, you don't know the facts, you have no freakin' clue what the other side has to say, or what holes exist in your opinions until someone like Al sneaks up on you and hands you your head. It's embarrassing and painful to endure shows such as yours and Hannedy's where mere xenophobic resentment of change is substituted for Conservatism. Regan started the rot, replacing substance with style. His Republican successors lacked style - but brought no substance; not principles, not ideals, not even substantive ideas.
Real Conservative thought, which is all about hard questions and solid answers, is the logical anodyne and counterpoint for the excesses of Liberalism.

When "Shit Happens" - as it always does - you want a Conservative respons, based on a conservative, tested plan with a conservative - and pessimistic - view of what's possible and what's needed to achieve it.

Had there BEEN any actual Conservatives in charge anywhere NEAR the Oval Office, the Iraq war would have been over before it begun - and if it had begun, it would have been slow to start and quick to end. I say this, knowing a little something of Sun Tsu, Patton and Von Clauswitz.

And of course, there's that Katrina thing.

As a Libertarian, I'd like to see someone on talk radio that represented Middle America better than you, or any of the other successful right-wing talkers do. Granted, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American People. Granted, you have a winning formula for market success within the Angry White Male demographic. But, the empty-headed yapping, whining and finger-pointing serves nobody's interests and is degrading speech in the public square. And since the same niche could be served just as well by someone smarter and better informed... I'm starting to ask, where the hell are they? Gresham's Law fuckin' bites.

I'd like to be able to listen to someone farther right than Ed Schultz without feeling like I need to take a bath afterwards, but so long as fools like you are taking up space and market share, the hope for that - and the return of real Conservatism to the political stage is dim indeed.

tag: Hate Radio, Hate Speech, Broadcast Spectrum, FCC, COX Media, Neal Boortz, Al Frankin, Air America, CNN, gresham's law

O'Rielly "less nuanced" than Father Charles Couglin

Bill O'Rielly makes me snicker uncontrollably whenever he says he's "fair and balanced" or refers to his show as "The No-Spin Zone." Fact is, he's a hack and a mouthpiece, anyone who'd ever seen him on the trash-tv show, "Hard Copy" knows that his journalistic standards are short of that tolerated by the "National Enquirer."

But it's nice to have real data to expose the lazy, lying slug for what he is, using actual data based on his actual content.

When the data show you to be "less nuanced" than Father Charles Coughlin, you are not "fair and balanced," you are in fact fairly unbalanced. Perhaps even in a clinical sense!

Content analysis of O'Reilly's rhetoric finds spin to be a 'factor': "Using analysis techniques first developed in the 1930s by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, Conway, Grabe and Grieves found that O'Reilly employed six of the seven propaganda devices nearly 13 times each minute in his editorials. His editorials also are presented on his Web site and in his newspaper columns.

The seven propaganda devices include:

• Name calling -- giving something a bad label to make the audience reject it without examining the evidence;
• Glittering generalities -- the opposite of name calling;
• Card stacking -- the selective use of facts and half-truths;
• Bandwagon -- appeals to the desire, common to most of us, to follow the crowd;
• Plain folks -- an attempt to convince an audience that they, and their ideas, are 'of the people';
• Transfer -- carries over the authority, sanction and prestige of something we respect or dispute to something the speaker would want us to accept; and
• Testimonials -- involving a respected (or disrespected) person endorsing or rejecting an idea or person.

The same techniques were used during the late 1930s to study another prominent voice in a war-era, Father Charles Coughlin. His sermons evolved into a darker message of anti-Semitism and fascism, and he became a defender of Hitler and Mussolini. In this study, O'Reilly is a heavier and less-nuanced user of the propaganda devices than Coughlin."

tag: Hate Speech, Hate Radio, conservative radio, Authoritarianism, integrety. Bill O'Rielly, Fair and Balanced

Limbaugh Jumps the Shark

Alternet wonders why Limbaugh hasn't been fired yet - apparently not understanding what "syndicated" means. But I do wonder how long it will take for people to realize he's about as funny and relevant as "Who's the Boss" re-runs.

This is a head-shaker. Imus gets canned for calling some college women basketball players "nappy-headed hos" and yet Rush Limbaugh plays "Barack The Magic Negro" on his show and he is still on the air?

And the story links to a video that is one long "coon joke" which makes me wonder another thing entirely: How stupid do you have to be to consider this either funny or informative?

If the best ammunition you can come up with against the policies of flaming liberals like Barak Obama and Al Sharpton is that they are (gasp) black, you ain't much use. Because, well, I got eyes, son. And whether their skin color matters to me or not, it's damn insulting that you think I think that's the ONLY thing that matters.

When the sum total of Conservatism has been reduced, on air, to "be afraid of the scary brown people" and "Trust George Bush because he's a good Christian White Man," I start recalling the awkward fact that George Wallace was a DEMOCRAT.

To add to your discomfort, here's a few more examples of what Conservative talk has become:



To think that thirty years ago, there were Conservatives on air like Ira Blue - and now all there is to represent the Conservative worldview are intellectual failures like Limbaugh, Imus, Boortz, Morgan and Coulter.

Good thing I'm a Libertarian already, or I'd have to become one just to save myself from the shame.

tag: Rush Limbaugh, jumped the shark, conservative radio, conservative commentary, , libertarian, bigotry, xenophobia, ethics, free speech, Liberalism, Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, bullying, prejudice

Attention, Bill O'Rielly and Melanie Morgan

tag: Media matters, Hot Talk, hate speech, KSFO, Fox News, Melanie Morgan, Bill O'Rielly

Why Don Imus? Well, why the hell not?

I was listening to Randi Rhodes yesterday, talking about Don Imus's racist gaffe. She was taking a contrarian position - why him, instead of, say, Rush, who is just as offensive without being funny, or Mike Savage who's plainly talking to fellow bigots, or Hannedy, who's plainly talking to fellow stupid bigots. Why pick on the guy who's trying to be funny?

The wit and wisdom of Don Imus. - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine

On blacks:

"William Cohen, the Mandingo deal." (Former Defense Secretary Cohen's wife is African-American.)

"Wasn't in a woodpile, was he?" (Responding to news that former black militant H. Rap Brown, subsequently known as Abdullah Al-Amin, was found hiding in a shed in Alabama after exchanging gunfire with police. Imus is here alluding to the expression "nigger in the woodpile.")

"Knuckle-dragging moron." (Description of basketball player Patrick Ewing.)

"We all have 12-inch penises." (After being asked what he has in common with Nat Turner, Malcolm X, Minister Louis Farrakhan, Latrell Sprewell from the New York Knicks, and Al Sharpton.)

"Chest-thumping pimps." (Description of the New York Knicks.)

"A cleaning lady." (Reference to journalist Gwen Ifill, possibly out of pique that she wouldn't appear on his show. "I certainly don't know any black journalists who will," she wrote in the April 10 New York Times. The Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page used to appear, but after he made Imus pledge not to make offensive comments in the future, he was never asked back.)

On Jews:

"I remember when I first had [the Blind Boys of Alabama] on a few years ago, how the Jewish management at whatever, whoever we work for, CBS, or whatever it is, were bitching at me about it. […] I tried to put it in terms that these money-grubbing bastards could understand."

"Boner-nosed … beanie-wearing Jewboy." (Description of Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, a frequent guest.)

On women:

"That buck-tooth witch Satan, Hillary Clinton." […] "I never admitted it when I went down there and got in all that big jam, insulting Bill Clinton and his fat ugly wife, Satan. Did I? Did I ever say I was sorry for that?"

On Native Americans:

"The guy from F-Troop, Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell." (This is a reference to the zany Indian characters on the 1960s TV sitcom F-Troop. They had names like "Roaring Chicken," "Crazy Cat," and "Chief Wild Eagle.")

On Japanese:

"Old Kabuki's in a coma and the market's going up. […] How old is the boy? The battery's running down on that boy." (Reference to Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi, who died the following week.)

On gays:

"I didn't know that Allan Bloom was coming in from the back end." (The homosexuality of the author of The Closing of the American Mind became widely known when Saul Bellow published Ravelstein, a novel whose protagonist was based on Bloom, who by then was deceased.)

"The enormously attractive [NBC political correspondent] Chip Reid, I can say without being accused of being some limp-wristed 'mo."

On the handicapped:

"Janet Reno's having a press conference. Ms. Reno, of course, has Parkinson's disease, has a noticeable tremor. […] I don't know how she gets that lipstick on (laughter) looking like a rodeo clown."

I fail to see the funny here. I don't listen to Imus, for the same reason I don't listen to Stern; I don't like feeling as if I need to floss my brain. And I consider this sort of mean-spirited "humor" to be inherently toxic, whatever the perspective, regardless of what "cause" is "served."

So, why Imus? Well, because the Rutger's Girls stepped in his form of "humor" and took it upon themselves to carve new shoes out of his reluctant hide.

I find that image funny.

Oh, and Randi, he's not the first. Spocko was the first (THIS year) to ram recordings of racist and hate-speech sideways up the noses of wingnut talk-jocks - and more importantly, their sponsors.

Don Imus, Randi Rhodes,

From the people who want to bring you Armageddon:

There are always those who think it better or easier to make a living by destruction and looting than by honest means. This was the main impetus behind the Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials, if you doubt me, look into who got the property of deceased witches, Templars and other targets of "religious" persecution.

Domestically - if there is a Muslim family being targeted, it's a not unreasonable thing to ask yourself, what do they have or control that someone connected to the loud idiots might covet?

Media Matters - Falwell: Media ignored "radical Islamic terrorists ... because they are trying to keep Islam in a good light"

On the March 8 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, Rev. Jerry Falwell baselessly suggested that 18-year-old Sulejman Talovic, who shot nine people at a Salt Lake City mall in February, was a "radical Islamic terrorist," before adding, "[b]ut the press never mentions that -- most of the press -- because they are trying to keep Islam in a good light here in this country." In fact, media outlets have reported that Talovic is a Muslim while also reporting that authorities say there is no evidence that his faith played a part in his actions.

Talovic, a Bosnian immigrant, killed five people at Salt Lake City's Trolley Square shopping center before he was shot and killed by police. As Media Matters for America noted when right-wing radio host Michael Savage made a claim similar to Falwell's, a February 14 Associated Press article did, in fact, address the possibility that Talovic's actions were motivated by religion, terrorism, or both. The article reported that "authorities tried to figure out why a teenage Bosnian immigrant committed the rampage and how he got his hands on a gun. FBI agent Patrick Kiernan in Salt Lake City said the bureau had no reason to believe Sulejman Talovic, who was killed by police, was motivated by religious extremism or an act of terrorism." The article also quoted Ajka Omerovic, Talovic's aunt, as saying, "We are Muslims, but we are not terrorists."

Now the rest of the article gives more than enough reasons to suggest that the boy might not have been wrapped too tightly. I doubt being a Bosnian Muslim in a Salt Lake school added to his stability. But Falwell and the other empty-headed idiologes of the Right are eager to confuse correlation with causation. The non-empty-headed may be spinning opportunity from tragedy.

Indeed, all this effort to fan the terror, to exploit the terror makes me wonder aloud who the real terrorists are. There seems less and less potential benefit for Islam - or even the terrorists of Islam. And while the terrorists of Islam are, indeed not wrapped too tightly themselves, Falwell and his ilk have abandoned all restraint - and are connected so tightly to the wealthy and white classes you can't slip a sheet of bible paper between them.

Aside from the opportunities that pogroms creat for scavengers; it's always been good business to tell the ignorant and bigoted that Gawd Is On Their Side. It's obscenely profitable for Falwell, Savage, Dobson and Coulter; not only that, there's hardly any heavy lifting required; not even to the degree required of ordinary ideologues.

All you have to do is point out the witch and say she caused the plague.

tag: Islam, Christianists, Falwell, Witch Hunts, Inquisition, Bigotry, Pogrom, Sulejman Talovic, religious persecution, terrorism,

Oddly, KSFO flap continued without my attention

Spocko's Brain: Melanie Morgan of ABC Disney Radio Uses Parent's Grief to Sell Mattresses

Yesterday Melanie Morgan and ABC Disney Radio station cynically used the anger and grief of a dead soldier's parent to sell more Sleep Train mattresses, mortgages, carpet from Home Depot, cars from Mercedes Benz, pick-ups from Dodge, and fast food from Burger King and McDonald's (all current KSFO advertisers).

Picking it up just to add to their embarrassment, keyword-wise. Y'all read the original.

tag: KSFO, spocko, Melanie Morgan, Cindy Sheehan Stalking Posse

Speaking of Potty-Mouths.

Here's a rhetorical question for you: Which is worse, using the "seven words you can't use on Television" - as defined by George Carlin, or committing the "seven deadly social sins", as defined by Gandhi?"

Coulter: I Would Talk About Edwards But “You Have To Go Into Rehab If You Use The Word ‘Faggot’”

Speaking today at the Conservative Political Action Conference, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said: “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.” Audience members said “ohhh” and then cheered. (Video on site)

Seeing this blonde turd in the soup of our great political discourse, I find it increasingly difficult to take the posturing of certain pearl-clutching hypocrites at all seriously. However, I'm willing to observe a potential compromise - they don't have to take as credible anything that contains one of the seven deadly words, and we don't have to take anyone who links to Coulter, laughs at Colter or buys Coulter's books serously. You are what you eat, folks - and in this case, politically speaking, I believe this boils down to "eat shit and die."

Not as a curse - as a matter-of-fact observation of fact; if you persist in eating shit, you will die. In this case, it's a viscerally disgusting metaphor for an even less appetizing reality.

tag: ann coulter, homophobia, seven deadly words, hate speech, potty mouths

It's better tor be obscene than absurd.

Gateway Pundit: "Seven words you can never say on television"... but which are said on the Internet. A lot.

Talk about potty-mouths.

The Net's not always a kid-friendly place; there is plenty of foul language out there. And of course, the blogosphere is no different.

But how different are the Rightosphere and Leftosphere when it comes to "dirty" language? Which side produces the most profanity-laced diatribes? Via Instapundit, I happened upon this interesting challenge from InstaPunk:

I propose an exercise to be performed by those who have the software and expertise to carry it out. The exercise is this: Search six months' worth of content, posts and comments, of the 20 most popular blogs on the right and the left. The search criteria are George Carlin's infamous '7 Dirty Words.' [Click this link for the list of expletives.]

And this is what I found, using what I deemed -- through a mix of TTLB and 2006's Weblog Award lists -- to be the 18 biggest Lefty blogs, and 22 biggest Righty blogs. (Not counting this one. :)) I couldn't account for the 6-month time period, and I even gave the Lefty blogs a 4 blog advantage. But it didn't make much of a difference.

So how much more does the Left use Carlin's "seven words" versus the Right? According to my calculations, try somewhere in the range of 18-to-1.

Yowsers.

Ok, let me get this straight: while THIS was happening, rather than chasing the story down and doing something to really support the troops, you were constructing methodology to count naughty words?

Words fail me. And aside from that, what's your point, fuckwit?

All this very precious pearl-clutching is utterly pointless in a quest for "civil discourse" if you do not also consider the impact on civil discourse of statements such as these: (via Instaputz)

Ohhh-kay. Let's do a trial run.

Putz: What we really should be doing is killing Iranian civilians. Heh.
Malkin: Exactly. And the NY Times publishers should be locked up for treason.
Denny K: Yeah! Let's hunt them down and find out where their kids go to school.
Coulter: My only regret is that Tim McVeigh didn't blow up the NY Times.
Misha: Forget the Times, I want the Supremes. Five robes, five ropes, five trees.
Lefty Blogger: You're all fucking crazy.

InstaPunk: See? The lefty bloggers are more hateful.

…[W]hy not run a few chapters of Mein Kampf or The Turner Diaries through your little Shrill Detector, and then compare those results with a Richard Pryor set from the '70s.

Idiots.

Now, I'm not a leftie - I'm just an uppity libertarian with not much respect for foolishness and a decent regard for semantics.

Therefore, I have something in common with Shakespeare's Sister The Rude Pundit and indeed The Ace of Spades.

A man-portable un-powered entrenching tool is a fucking spade.



More Vicious Left-Wing Mockery

tag: potty mouths, Hate Speech, pearlclutching, unintentional irony, , culture, morality, ethics

How stupid do you have to be...

...to be a paid conservative columnist at Townhall.com?

THIS stupid.

Tim Hardaway (and most of his former NBA teammates) wouldn’t welcome openly gay players into the locker room any more than they’d welcome profoundly unattractive, morbidly obese women. I specify unattractive females because if a young lady is attractive (or, even better, downright “hot”) most guys, very much including the notorious love machines of the National Basketball Association, would probably welcome her joining their showers. The ill-favored, grossly overweight female is the right counterpart to a gay male because, like the homosexual, she causes discomfort due to the fact that attraction can only operate in one direction. She might well feel drawn to the straight guys with whom she’s grouped, while they feel downright repulsed at the very idea of sex with her.

There are, of course, NO "ill-favored, grossly overweight" Republican women. At least, not after the DMV opens again on Monday.

All your fat chicks belong to US, Medved!

What sort of amazing, delusional universe do you have to belong to in which this explaination of homophobia would make everyone shrug and say, "oh, well, that's ok then."

Lest I be accused of using "fair use" to distort his overall point - such as it is - I challenge you to read the whole thing without squicking on some level.

The following material is satire. It's sad that it has to be said, but we are occasionally read by those who honestly believe they ARE right because they are Right.

Medved reveals that a certain sort of "social conservatism" is more pathology than policy by, essentially, opening up his personal skull to show us the maggots infesting the necrotic tissue that used to be his brain.

He's proud of their manly tumescence, you see. And he just can't imagine what sort of irrational Scoleciphobic could object to him crooning to the few strays lounging on his pillow in the morning.

Shudder! Liberals allege that some people are born with maggots for brains, but this sort of disgusting behavior is a choice! To choose to celebrate such an unfortunate pathology as a lifestyle, to pick one's nose and hand wiggly examples proudly to horrified friends and colleagues - that is a violation of All Normal Family Behaviors. For the Sake of the Children, this cannot be permitted.

I say we worm him. Worm him NOW! And I'm not afraid to be accused of being "politically incorrect," or even "indulging in hate speech" for saying it, because I know people like Medved hate all those who tell the truth about their deviant maggoty nose-picking fetish.


Hat tip to Spocko via Echidne.

tag: Clash of Cultures, homophobia, Michael Medved, Tim Hardaway

Beam us up, Spocko!

Revisiting the Law of Unintended Consequences

It's refreshing to know that this issue isn't being ignored simply because I haven't blogged about it for a few days. I admit that sounds arrogant as hell, but really, it's just thanksgiving that my unaccountable ability to shut down a discussion threads - something akin to a nun at an orgy - does not apply to the internet as a whole. At any rate, the far-right hate media, such as the far-too-common examples on KSFO are finding out what happens when their free speech is piped out of their comfy little call-screened ghetto.

A graphic summation of Hate Talk Radio 560 from YouTube - one of several possible examples to be found there.



Meanwhile, they continue their attempts to "blog." Melanie Morgan actually writes for World Net Daily, proving for sure that here ideas are not the result of some strange manifestation of Tourette's Syndrome. In Death by Liberal Activism, she takes on the Godless Liberal Hordes of the Weather Channel, dastardly advocates of that Liberal Chimera, Global Warning. I'm not quite sure what the title has to do with the topic, other than the usual - equating "death" with "Liberalism."

Project much, Mel?

And considering that even George Bush has accepted - kinda - the latest reports on global warming, it's a little silly for her to be continue beating a overheated horse. Silly, but apparently profitable.

She is proudly headlined as a World Net Daily Exclusive Columnist. I think we can let that observation stand, with all the dreadfully obvious conclusions left unstated.

Lets return to KSFO and the Not Ready For WorldNetDaily Players.