...hence the little vacation I've been forced to take from providing the kind of clever, insightful political commentary this site is known for. I only have a few seconds free right now – not a lot of time, really – so I thought I'd just pop in to write this about Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize win: suck it, Republicans.
Thank you.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Friday, October 5, 2007
Conservatives and the Duke Rape Case
I can’t wait to hear the applause from those on the right for the federal lawsuit filed today by the Duke lacrosse players falsely accused of rape. Conservatives don’t normally concern themselves with issues of criminal justice – aside from advocating for an increase in prisons and lengthier jail terms – but this is precisely the sort of case that draws a conservative crowd. This kind of injustice is mainly ignored, tolerated or even embraced by the right – at least, of course, until it affects young, affluent white men.
In fact, conservative outrage over the Duke case wasn’t based solely on the fact that the Duke Three were unjustly implicated – but that they nearly went to jail for crimes committed against a black woman. It’s why conservatives were lining up to defend them long before the case was due to go to trial, and before there was any hint that the rape allegations might be false. Although I’m sure the year the students spent as suspects, aware of their own innocence, was an incredibly difficult and painful period for all three defendants and their families, the outcry from right wingers on their behalf is a painful reminder of just who’s rights are most valued in this country.
Consider this: According to the Innocence Project, an organization dedicated to freeing wrongfully convicted prisoners based on DNA evidence, more than 200 people in 31 states have been exonerated since 1989 (145 since 2000). Fifteen of those inmates served time on death row, meaning they nearlydied were killed for crimes they didn’t commit. Overwhelmingly, these prisoners are African American (125), poor and uneducated. Unlike the Duke lacrosse players, they did not have access to competent, lengthy defense. On average, the length of time already served by exonerees when they are freed is 12 years. One year of intense scrutiny spent at home with the support of family and friends – although difficult – is preferable to 12 years in prison, by any estimate.
I don’t mean to demean or downplay what these three young men have experienced. Our criminal justice system is horribly flawed, and too often, suspects are guilty until proven innocent. But I’m struck by the apathy the right has for these issues when they involve the most marginalized members of our society. The utter lack of interest conservatives give to those cases is proof that they are willing to stand by idly, without complaint, as the lives of poor people of color are quite literally thrown away by the prison system.
If their general silence on these issues speaks volumes, their vociferous defense of the three accused in this case says even more.
The message? That they will not allow young white men to be treated like people of color.
In fact, conservative outrage over the Duke case wasn’t based solely on the fact that the Duke Three were unjustly implicated – but that they nearly went to jail for crimes committed against a black woman. It’s why conservatives were lining up to defend them long before the case was due to go to trial, and before there was any hint that the rape allegations might be false. Although I’m sure the year the students spent as suspects, aware of their own innocence, was an incredibly difficult and painful period for all three defendants and their families, the outcry from right wingers on their behalf is a painful reminder of just who’s rights are most valued in this country.
Consider this: According to the Innocence Project, an organization dedicated to freeing wrongfully convicted prisoners based on DNA evidence, more than 200 people in 31 states have been exonerated since 1989 (145 since 2000). Fifteen of those inmates served time on death row, meaning they nearly
I don’t mean to demean or downplay what these three young men have experienced. Our criminal justice system is horribly flawed, and too often, suspects are guilty until proven innocent. But I’m struck by the apathy the right has for these issues when they involve the most marginalized members of our society. The utter lack of interest conservatives give to those cases is proof that they are willing to stand by idly, without complaint, as the lives of poor people of color are quite literally thrown away by the prison system.
If their general silence on these issues speaks volumes, their vociferous defense of the three accused in this case says even more.
The message? That they will not allow young white men to be treated like people of color.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Anita Hill is an American Hero
I’ve been thinking about Anita Hill an awful lot lately, what with Clarence Thomas releasing his memoirs and the Isiah Thomas-Anucha Browne Sanders case making the papers every day. This morning, there was yet another reason: The New York Times ran an op-ed Hill penned refuting the baseless attacks Thomas (re)launched against her in his book. I'm sure it's a tiresome case of déjà vu for Hill, having to (re)defend herself, 17 years later. And all for telling the truth.
It probably doesn't come as a surprise that I believe Anita Hill. I always have, even as a teenager in 1991. But I have trouble these days believing the media’s take on the controversy. Then and now, most coverage of the hearings has focused solely on race (Thomas’s) and sex (Hill’s), but the subtext of those grueling televised interviews was far more complex. I can't help but think that Thomas’s use of white racism – the “high tech lynching” he decried – although savvy (not to mention convenient and ironic, considering his admonishments to the black community for using race as a “crutch”), was only partly responsible for his victorious ascension to the high court. Were the “simple” issues of race and sex not further buttressed (and complicated) by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s (and America’s) (mis)conceptions about black female pathology and libidinous sexuality, the outcome might have been very different. Put plainly, if Anita Hill, who passed a lie detector test, were a white woman, the presumptively neutral coverage would have been more critical of Thomas, the public outcry likely deafening. As Hill herself once pointed out, were she "blonde haired and blue eyed," it's unlikely that segregationist (and, interestingly, miscegenationist) Senator Strom Thurmond would've so willingly accepted Thomas's version of events. While it's true that women of every race who choose to speak up about sexual harassment often suffer slanderous name calling from the usual suspects, I wonder if, were Hill white, so many people would've found (now reformed right winger and Media Matters founder) David Brock's quip that Hill was "a bit nutty and a bit slutty" so unquestioningly believable. Hill's haughty prudery – as perceived by many on the right – contrasted with who she should have been, particularly as a young African American woman. In a culture that allows Don Imus to label 18-year-old black college students "hos," John DePetro to state that white people only visit Harlem for prostitutes and Neal Boortz to say that congresswoman Cynthia McKinney's hairstyle makes her look like a "ghetto slut," it's unsurprising that Hill's time before the (all male, all white) Senate Judiciary Committee felt mainly as if she, not Thomas, were on trial – for naively expecting to be treated with respect.
I feel a tremendous amount of empathy, sympathy and admiration for Anita Hill. Seventeen years after watching the Hill-Thomas hearings on television, as an adult African American woman, I now fully understand what I only grasped then, but which Hill knew all too well – that race and sex matter in ways that can be, and often are, life defining. I've experienced sexism, racism and sexual harassment in their most overt and subtle forms, but I don't know that I'd have the bravery to suffer attempts at character and credibility assassination to prove it to an entire nation.
It's ironic that as Anita Hill is again forced to protect her reputation against Thomas's mudslinging, Anucha Browne Sanders (it's worth noting that I believe her as well) has been able to convince a jury of Isiah Thomas's guilt. It's inarguable that Browne Sanders was, directly or indirectly, inspired and aided by Hill's pioneering (to use an overused term) conviction and courage. It's just disheartening to know that Hill has to again participate so visibly in a battle she and others have already fought so many times over.
It probably doesn't come as a surprise that I believe Anita Hill. I always have, even as a teenager in 1991. But I have trouble these days believing the media’s take on the controversy. Then and now, most coverage of the hearings has focused solely on race (Thomas’s) and sex (Hill’s), but the subtext of those grueling televised interviews was far more complex. I can't help but think that Thomas’s use of white racism – the “high tech lynching” he decried – although savvy (not to mention convenient and ironic, considering his admonishments to the black community for using race as a “crutch”), was only partly responsible for his victorious ascension to the high court. Were the “simple” issues of race and sex not further buttressed (and complicated) by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s (and America’s) (mis)conceptions about black female pathology and libidinous sexuality, the outcome might have been very different. Put plainly, if Anita Hill, who passed a lie detector test, were a white woman, the presumptively neutral coverage would have been more critical of Thomas, the public outcry likely deafening. As Hill herself once pointed out, were she "blonde haired and blue eyed," it's unlikely that segregationist (and, interestingly, miscegenationist) Senator Strom Thurmond would've so willingly accepted Thomas's version of events. While it's true that women of every race who choose to speak up about sexual harassment often suffer slanderous name calling from the usual suspects, I wonder if, were Hill white, so many people would've found (now reformed right winger and Media Matters founder) David Brock's quip that Hill was "a bit nutty and a bit slutty" so unquestioningly believable. Hill's haughty prudery – as perceived by many on the right – contrasted with who she should have been, particularly as a young African American woman. In a culture that allows Don Imus to label 18-year-old black college students "hos," John DePetro to state that white people only visit Harlem for prostitutes and Neal Boortz to say that congresswoman Cynthia McKinney's hairstyle makes her look like a "ghetto slut," it's unsurprising that Hill's time before the (all male, all white) Senate Judiciary Committee felt mainly as if she, not Thomas, were on trial – for naively expecting to be treated with respect.
I feel a tremendous amount of empathy, sympathy and admiration for Anita Hill. Seventeen years after watching the Hill-Thomas hearings on television, as an adult African American woman, I now fully understand what I only grasped then, but which Hill knew all too well – that race and sex matter in ways that can be, and often are, life defining. I've experienced sexism, racism and sexual harassment in their most overt and subtle forms, but I don't know that I'd have the bravery to suffer attempts at character and credibility assassination to prove it to an entire nation.
It's ironic that as Anita Hill is again forced to protect her reputation against Thomas's mudslinging, Anucha Browne Sanders (it's worth noting that I believe her as well) has been able to convince a jury of Isiah Thomas's guilt. It's inarguable that Browne Sanders was, directly or indirectly, inspired and aided by Hill's pioneering (to use an overused term) conviction and courage. It's just disheartening to know that Hill has to again participate so visibly in a battle she and others have already fought so many times over.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Dodge Drafter Limbaugh Insults Actual Brave Soldiers
Since I don't have the political power to have drug addict Rush Limbaugh's fat ass shipped off to Iraq to fight following his "phony soldiers" remark in reference to troops who support withdrawal from Iraq, I've instead been emailing members of Congress who just days ago supported the bill to condemn MoveOn. My letter to Joe Lieberman is below. Feel free to use the template to email other politicians. Mine gets a little hostile toward the end, but you're welcome to take a…how do you say?...softer approach.
I'm certain that you will move swiftly to condemn Rush Limbaugh for recently labeling troops who support withdrawal from Iraq (the majority of soldiers in service) "phony soldiers." For a political pundit who has never served our country – and who may have actively evaded service – to insult our brave soldiers is, to use your own words in reference to the actions of MoveOn, "an outrageous and despicable act of slander that every member of Congress – Democrat or Republican – has a solemn responsibility to condemn."
Since you refuse to commit to any real action on the war or other issues of genuine relevance, and have instead dedicated yourself to the pursuit of petty matters meant to distract the public, here is your opportunity to at least show some consistency in your trivialness.
Please condemn Rush Limbaugh for these terrible remarks. Our troops deserve far better.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Bush: Stupid
As much as I’m tempted to do another editorial about Bill O’Reilly in which I discuss how his ignorance, provincialism and plain old curmudgeonliness have finally bitten him in his racist ass; and as much as I’d like to explain that, while O’Reilly may not have intended to make racist remarks – in fact, while he may have been attempting to denounce racism – his incredulity at the fact that black people are – wait for it – people belies his very own deep seated racism; and despite the fact that I’d love to talk about the way that FOX News (I just laughed when I wrote that. “News.” That’s rich!) has proved once again, in its defense of O’Reilly, that it is a refuge for right wing nutjobs, propaganda hucksters and liars (by, among other things, running ticker items stating “O’Reilly Taken Out of Context” and “CNN Gets Suckered by Website”), I’m going to leave commentary on that issue to the many other “left wing” (i.e., grounded in reality) websites currently covering the story.
Instead, let’s talk about President Bush, okay?
At an education-themed photo op in New York City yesterday, surrounded by grade school aged children who have already learned verb-subject agreement, Dubya proudly stated to the press, “Childrens do learn.”
(The extra “s,” presumably, is for the “shitter” the country is being flushed down by the President.)
This is a fitting answer to his 2000 query, “Is our children learning?”
I know it isn't news that the President is an idiot. Still, it’s odd to have so many examples to cite as proof – with fresh, new ones sprouting up like weeds all the time.
When your legacy is one of lying, corruption, useless wars, disinformation and civil rights violations, poor grammar becomes one of your good points.
Instead, let’s talk about President Bush, okay?
At an education-themed photo op in New York City yesterday, surrounded by grade school aged children who have already learned verb-subject agreement, Dubya proudly stated to the press, “Childrens do learn.”
(The extra “s,” presumably, is for the “shitter” the country is being flushed down by the President.)
This is a fitting answer to his 2000 query, “Is our children learning?”
I know it isn't news that the President is an idiot. Still, it’s odd to have so many examples to cite as proof – with fresh, new ones sprouting up like weeds all the time.
When your legacy is one of lying, corruption, useless wars, disinformation and civil rights violations, poor grammar becomes one of your good points.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Bill O'Reilly Racist, Liver Spotted Old Coot
I don’t know how he finds the time, with all those fannies to pinch around the office and obscene phone calls to make and so much panting to practice, but Bill O’Reilly set aside several minutes this week (as he does nearly every week) to toss off a few racist comments. You’ve probably already heard about these quotes – it’s old news by now – but just in case you haven’t, here’s what Creepy McCreep said on a recent episode of his radio show:
You know, I was up in Harlem a few weeks ago, and I actually had dinner with Al Sharpton, who is a very, very interesting guy. And he comes on The Factor a lot, and then I treated him to dinner, because he's made himself available to us, and I felt that I wanted to take him up there. And we went to Sylvia's, a very famous restaurant in Harlem. I had a great time, and all the people up there are tremendously respectful. They all watch The Factor. You know, when Sharpton and I walked in, it was like a big commotion and everything, but everybody was very nice.
And I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship. It was the same.
And then:
There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, "M-F-er, I want more iced tea."
And:
You know, I mean, everybody was – it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all.
I don’t want to waste a lot of time on the many ways in which this whole speech is incredibly offensive – and totally unsurprising coming from O’Reilly – because what’s far more interesting is the way he’s chosen to defend himself since verbally pooing this out. After CNN and NBC both aired bits on O’Reilly’s typically insensitive and asinine remarks, he used his program to blast both networks, accusing CNN of going “over to the dark side” and airing the stories as a result of jealousy over ratings:
The reason CNN did this is because its ratings are abysmal. It is getting hammered by FOX news, so they’re desperate for attention. And smearing me is one way to get it. This is dishonest and dangerous. If a slime machine like Media Matters can get its far left propaganda on CNN and NBC News, the nation is in trouble. Failure leads to desperation. The Factor has been number one for six consecutive years and defeats our cable news competition combined. The other cable news outlets are ratings disasters. But that is no excuse for being dishonest.
This is classic O’Reilly, twisting situations to divert attention from the real issues at hand, and seeking blind revenge against anyone who disagrees with him – or calls him out. If you dig through all the total b.s. above, you’ll find that O’Reilly unintentionally lays out what really happened: 1) O’Reilly unwittingly admitted that until recently, he had no idea that black people are actual people and that they do…you know…people stuff, 2) Media Matters published his admission, verbatim, 3) CNN and NBC News picked up the story, 3) O’Reilly and his producers tried (and failed) to stem the negative press by calling CNN to stop the story and 4) seeing they were fighting a losing battle, O’Reilly and staff turned to Plan B – not the plan to acknowledge the racism apparent in the remarks and apologize, mind you, but the other plan B – the plan to blame the whole messy incident on CNN’s jealousy (of…O’Reilly’s journalistic integrity? His reputation for physically threatening guests he disagrees with? His way with the ladies – a way involving unwanted advances and handkerchiefs doused in chloroform?)
The fact is, O’Reilly doesn’t dedicate much time to defending his words because he knows there is no defense for them. And he knows that his show is basically the equivalent of some crazy old man yelling at kids to get off his lawn. He also knows that some people – or rather, dumb people – would rather be entertained by watching that crazy old man than the stuffy old news. That’s why real journalists – the kind that actually win Peabodies – lose ratings to people like him and to FOX News in general.
Also – who lies about winning a Peabody? Bill O’Reilly, that’s who. Meaning this is just another example in a seemingly endless list of reasons why no one out douchebags Bill O’Reilly.
Everybody’s good at something.
You know, I was up in Harlem a few weeks ago, and I actually had dinner with Al Sharpton, who is a very, very interesting guy. And he comes on The Factor a lot, and then I treated him to dinner, because he's made himself available to us, and I felt that I wanted to take him up there. And we went to Sylvia's, a very famous restaurant in Harlem. I had a great time, and all the people up there are tremendously respectful. They all watch The Factor. You know, when Sharpton and I walked in, it was like a big commotion and everything, but everybody was very nice.
And I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship. It was the same.
And then:
There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, "M-F-er, I want more iced tea."
And:
You know, I mean, everybody was – it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all.
I don’t want to waste a lot of time on the many ways in which this whole speech is incredibly offensive – and totally unsurprising coming from O’Reilly – because what’s far more interesting is the way he’s chosen to defend himself since verbally pooing this out. After CNN and NBC both aired bits on O’Reilly’s typically insensitive and asinine remarks, he used his program to blast both networks, accusing CNN of going “over to the dark side” and airing the stories as a result of jealousy over ratings:
The reason CNN did this is because its ratings are abysmal. It is getting hammered by FOX news, so they’re desperate for attention. And smearing me is one way to get it. This is dishonest and dangerous. If a slime machine like Media Matters can get its far left propaganda on CNN and NBC News, the nation is in trouble. Failure leads to desperation. The Factor has been number one for six consecutive years and defeats our cable news competition combined. The other cable news outlets are ratings disasters. But that is no excuse for being dishonest.
This is classic O’Reilly, twisting situations to divert attention from the real issues at hand, and seeking blind revenge against anyone who disagrees with him – or calls him out. If you dig through all the total b.s. above, you’ll find that O’Reilly unintentionally lays out what really happened: 1) O’Reilly unwittingly admitted that until recently, he had no idea that black people are actual people and that they do…you know…people stuff, 2) Media Matters published his admission, verbatim, 3) CNN and NBC News picked up the story, 3) O’Reilly and his producers tried (and failed) to stem the negative press by calling CNN to stop the story and 4) seeing they were fighting a losing battle, O’Reilly and staff turned to Plan B – not the plan to acknowledge the racism apparent in the remarks and apologize, mind you, but the other plan B – the plan to blame the whole messy incident on CNN’s jealousy (of…O’Reilly’s journalistic integrity? His reputation for physically threatening guests he disagrees with? His way with the ladies – a way involving unwanted advances and handkerchiefs doused in chloroform?)
The fact is, O’Reilly doesn’t dedicate much time to defending his words because he knows there is no defense for them. And he knows that his show is basically the equivalent of some crazy old man yelling at kids to get off his lawn. He also knows that some people – or rather, dumb people – would rather be entertained by watching that crazy old man than the stuffy old news. That’s why real journalists – the kind that actually win Peabodies – lose ratings to people like him and to FOX News in general.
Also – who lies about winning a Peabody? Bill O’Reilly, that’s who. Meaning this is just another example in a seemingly endless list of reasons why no one out douchebags Bill O’Reilly.
Everybody’s good at something.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Neal Boortz Still a Moron
You already know that Neal Boortz is a fat piece of shit. But as it turns out, he also is a lazy piece of smelly shit who can’t be bothered to check his sources. The porcine radio host recently posted this message on his website:
“What about this, Al Gore? Over 500 scientists have published evidence refuting man-made global warming. Surprisingly, these scientists and their findings have gotten very little media attention. Could it possibly be that the media has an agenda?”
As proof, the post links not to a published study but to a press release about Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, a book by Dennis Avery and S. Fred Singer that’s essentially a step-by-step guide to shoving your head up your own ass.
At the risk of pissing Mr. Boortz off and being eaten alive – literally – by him, I’d like to point out a few trouble spots.
First, the book is funded by Hudson Institute, a right wing think tank that receives funding from sources such as Exxon Mobil and Eli Lilly and Company and which has employed a startling number of Bush’s staff (Office of Management and Budget Director Mitchell E. Daniels; Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky; Commission on Presidential Scholars Chairman Brunno V. Manno; Department of Housing and Urban Development Assistant Secretary Commission, Federal Housing Authority John Weicher – and lots more, but I don’t want to bore you). The authors of the book, unsurprisingly, are also Hudson Institute players. Dennis Avery, the director of the Center for Global Food Issues at the Institute, has dedicated much of his work to proving that organic food kills and pesticides make vegetable crops healthier for you. His alleged sources for his information, Dr. Robert Tauxe and Dr. Paul Meade of the Center for Disease Control's Foodborne and Diarrheal Diseases Branch, have both denied providing Avery with supporting evidence – even going so far as to issue a press release essentially calling Avery a liar and denying any connection with his “study.” Coauthor Dr. S. Fred Singer has received direct funding from ExxonMobil for tens of thousands of dollars and has openly admitted to doing consulting for oil companies.
Okay, so, these two shills have written a book filled with compelling scientific data, such the fact that “thousands of museum paintings…portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age." Oddly, they also stop tracking climate changes after 1985 – the year of the discovery of the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic, and since which climate change has aggressively accelerated. I’m no scientist, but people smarter than me who wear glasses accuse the pair of knowingly using outdated theories. I was unable to find a listing of the 500 scientists whose findings purportedly support the authors’ thesis so I could check out their affiliations – and I’m sure as hell not going to spend money on this crap-filled-diaper of a book – but I’d bet more than a few are employed within companies that benefit from fewer environmental protection laws. It’s also worth noting that the 500 scientists figure is small (small like Boortz’ penis) – especially when compared with the esteemed 2,000 scientists who make up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control, the United Nations group whose latest report found global warming to be a reality.
I honestly believe Boortz is a great spokesman for the right, mainly because his intentional ignorance seems to be a point of pride for many conservatives. Maybe if Neal Boortz spent as much time checking the validity of the wacko theories and theoreticians he promotes as he does eating anything and everything that comes within his airspace, he'd be less of a douchebag.
But probably not.
“What about this, Al Gore? Over 500 scientists have published evidence refuting man-made global warming. Surprisingly, these scientists and their findings have gotten very little media attention. Could it possibly be that the media has an agenda?”
As proof, the post links not to a published study but to a press release about Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, a book by Dennis Avery and S. Fred Singer that’s essentially a step-by-step guide to shoving your head up your own ass.
At the risk of pissing Mr. Boortz off and being eaten alive – literally – by him, I’d like to point out a few trouble spots.
First, the book is funded by Hudson Institute, a right wing think tank that receives funding from sources such as Exxon Mobil and Eli Lilly and Company and which has employed a startling number of Bush’s staff (Office of Management and Budget Director Mitchell E. Daniels; Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky; Commission on Presidential Scholars Chairman Brunno V. Manno; Department of Housing and Urban Development Assistant Secretary Commission, Federal Housing Authority John Weicher – and lots more, but I don’t want to bore you). The authors of the book, unsurprisingly, are also Hudson Institute players. Dennis Avery, the director of the Center for Global Food Issues at the Institute, has dedicated much of his work to proving that organic food kills and pesticides make vegetable crops healthier for you. His alleged sources for his information, Dr. Robert Tauxe and Dr. Paul Meade of the Center for Disease Control's Foodborne and Diarrheal Diseases Branch, have both denied providing Avery with supporting evidence – even going so far as to issue a press release essentially calling Avery a liar and denying any connection with his “study.” Coauthor Dr. S. Fred Singer has received direct funding from ExxonMobil for tens of thousands of dollars and has openly admitted to doing consulting for oil companies.
Okay, so, these two shills have written a book filled with compelling scientific data, such the fact that “thousands of museum paintings…portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age." Oddly, they also stop tracking climate changes after 1985 – the year of the discovery of the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic, and since which climate change has aggressively accelerated. I’m no scientist, but people smarter than me who wear glasses accuse the pair of knowingly using outdated theories. I was unable to find a listing of the 500 scientists whose findings purportedly support the authors’ thesis so I could check out their affiliations – and I’m sure as hell not going to spend money on this crap-filled-diaper of a book – but I’d bet more than a few are employed within companies that benefit from fewer environmental protection laws. It’s also worth noting that the 500 scientists figure is small (small like Boortz’ penis) – especially when compared with the esteemed 2,000 scientists who make up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control, the United Nations group whose latest report found global warming to be a reality.
I honestly believe Boortz is a great spokesman for the right, mainly because his intentional ignorance seems to be a point of pride for many conservatives. Maybe if Neal Boortz spent as much time checking the validity of the wacko theories and theoreticians he promotes as he does eating anything and everything that comes within his airspace, he'd be less of a douchebag.
But probably not.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Michelle Malkin Gets F'ed Up, Yells at Sally Field on TV
Reading crackhead Michelle Malkin’s column yesterday (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/19/silly-sally-field-doesnt-speak-for-me) was like having a one-on-one conversation with Crazy. Malkin must've gotten her hands on some really good rock (we don’t indulge, so we wouldn’t be able to gauge the quality of crack ourselves, but we’re guessing), smoked that “shiznit” (we hear that’s what she calls it), gotten high as hell, watched the Emmys, and decided the people inside the TV were speaking directly to her. The drugged up aspiring journalist went batshit after watching Sally Field’s acceptance speech, in which she said:
“Surely this [award] belongs to all the mothers of the world. Especially…the mothers who stand with an open heart and wait. Wait for their children to come home from danger, from harm’s way and from war. I am proud to be one of those women. If mothers ruled the…world, there would be no goddamned wars in the first place."
As drug-free readers, we understand that Field was recognizing the mothers of U.S. troops and the devastating sacrifice they potentially face; that she is a mother who is fiercely protective of her children – as mothers are wont to be – and empathizes with those mothers who cannot protect their children from war; and that most mothers in Iraq and America and elsewhere place a premium on life that supersedes war profiteering, oil reserves and political power struggles.
Malkin, however, hopped up on crack and angel dust – and probably drooling – must’ve heard Field talking in Judas Priest lyrics spoken backwards. In a drug induced haze (again, we’re guessing) she writes:
"Sally Field is the mom who looks the other way when the brat on the elementary school slide pushes your son to the ground or throws dirt in your daughter’s face."
We’re unsure how Field’s words, which clearly indicate her motherly instinct to shield her children from every attack, could give rise to this kind of misinterpretation. The only thing we are sure of after reading this is that Malkin will beat up little children if they get out of line or play rough. Or simply if given the chance. Or, you know…if no one is looking.
Malkin then kicks the bonkers up a notch:
"She's the mom who holds her tongue at the mall when thugs spew profanities and make crude gestures in front of her brood."
Um…where does Malkin shop? At malls near crackhouses, apparently, for convenience. Where bands of foulmouthed ne’er-do-wells rove from Lane Bryant to Cinnabon to Rave, looking for passerby toward whom they can thrust their groins, wag their tongues and spit dirty words. And yet, oddly, she always chooses to bring her kids along.
Malkin’s nonsensical ramblings include references to “sheep mothers” and “lion mothers” and she accuses Field of thinking “with [her] womb.” She ends by suggesting Field “speak for [her] bleepin’ self.” The message is clear: Malkin is perfectly willing to send her children off to battle, even in a war that lacks clear justification. What passes for good mothering – and morality – in Malkin’s world is unquestioning compliance with the policies of her country, not the overriding desire to keep every mother’s children safe. In the meantime, we imagine her raising hawkish children who are learning to react violently to perceived indignities on the playground and have their moral systems informed, above all, by their government’s decisions.
It’s sad, really, but we believe – we hope – it’s the drugs (all of them, from the crack to the PCP to the Spanish fly to the Burmese street slug embryonic fluid and back again) talking. And we sincerely want Malkin to get help before she writes again.
Or punches some little kid in the face.
“Surely this [award] belongs to all the mothers of the world. Especially…the mothers who stand with an open heart and wait. Wait for their children to come home from danger, from harm’s way and from war. I am proud to be one of those women. If mothers ruled the…world, there would be no goddamned wars in the first place."
As drug-free readers, we understand that Field was recognizing the mothers of U.S. troops and the devastating sacrifice they potentially face; that she is a mother who is fiercely protective of her children – as mothers are wont to be – and empathizes with those mothers who cannot protect their children from war; and that most mothers in Iraq and America and elsewhere place a premium on life that supersedes war profiteering, oil reserves and political power struggles.
Malkin, however, hopped up on crack and angel dust – and probably drooling – must’ve heard Field talking in Judas Priest lyrics spoken backwards. In a drug induced haze (again, we’re guessing) she writes:
"Sally Field is the mom who looks the other way when the brat on the elementary school slide pushes your son to the ground or throws dirt in your daughter’s face."
We’re unsure how Field’s words, which clearly indicate her motherly instinct to shield her children from every attack, could give rise to this kind of misinterpretation. The only thing we are sure of after reading this is that Malkin will beat up little children if they get out of line or play rough. Or simply if given the chance. Or, you know…if no one is looking.
Malkin then kicks the bonkers up a notch:
"She's the mom who holds her tongue at the mall when thugs spew profanities and make crude gestures in front of her brood."
Um…where does Malkin shop? At malls near crackhouses, apparently, for convenience. Where bands of foulmouthed ne’er-do-wells rove from Lane Bryant to Cinnabon to Rave, looking for passerby toward whom they can thrust their groins, wag their tongues and spit dirty words. And yet, oddly, she always chooses to bring her kids along.
Malkin’s nonsensical ramblings include references to “sheep mothers” and “lion mothers” and she accuses Field of thinking “with [her] womb.” She ends by suggesting Field “speak for [her] bleepin’ self.” The message is clear: Malkin is perfectly willing to send her children off to battle, even in a war that lacks clear justification. What passes for good mothering – and morality – in Malkin’s world is unquestioning compliance with the policies of her country, not the overriding desire to keep every mother’s children safe. In the meantime, we imagine her raising hawkish children who are learning to react violently to perceived indignities on the playground and have their moral systems informed, above all, by their government’s decisions.
It’s sad, really, but we believe – we hope – it’s the drugs (all of them, from the crack to the PCP to the Spanish fly to the Burmese street slug embryonic fluid and back again) talking. And we sincerely want Malkin to get help before she writes again.
Or punches some little kid in the face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)