Three Romantic Ideals

Is it me, or does it seem sometimes that the race to the top of Conservative media is little more than a contest to see who can be the biggest dick?

As I mentioned in my last post, I posted something on Media Matters that got a hugely positive response and I wanted to expand on it. It was in response to this little display of douchebaggery by Glenn Beck:



Now... put all politics aside for the moment, and let's consider what he's barfing at: The daughter of a skin cancer survivor (and a decorated Vietnam Veteran, at that!) is raising public awareness about the disease and the risk of sun damage, and in doing so, exposes her... SHOULDERS! (Oh my god, the SCANDAL! Next there will dancing!) And while it is completely irrelevant, I'll point that the woman in question is rather quite attractive. Really beautiful, actually.

So... What the fuck is Glenn Beck problem?! (Please don't answer that, we'll be here all day and night!)

Now... what I posted, and what I'm going to re-state here, I posted once before on MMFA, on another piece showcasing Glenn Beck's naked misogyny, when he used the Royal Wedding as a platform to rate women on his scale of 'hottness.'

OK... At this point it is patently obvious that Glenn Beck has a SERIOUS problem with women. But, as I'm sure I don't need to point out, the Right has a serious problem with women in general. (You KNOW that Rush Limbaugh is not on his fourth wife because so many women can't get enough of him!)

And besides... Think about it: If a woman is brainlessly repeating the party line? (Coulter, Malkin, Ingrahm, etc...) or is a party insider? (Palin, Bachman, O'Donnell) They can't get enough of her. These guys practically dry-hump Palin every time she's in the room. But if one starts questioning their malfeasance (like Rachel Maddow) or has the audacity to be independent or has the nerve to *gasp* age (Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton) suddenly they can't even discuss policy without mentioning how ugly they think these women are! And fro the most part? That the extent of their argument!

You know... I don't think I ever heard a Conservative coherently state one of Nancy Pelosi's policies and explain why they find it so abhorrent. All any Conservative has EVER been able to tell me about Nancy Pelosi is that she's (1) Liberal (duh!) and (2) Ugly, old and/or botoxed.

So I want to be clear that I am not stating the following merely as a way of burnishing my own feminist cred, but rather to, in one simple post, neuter and debunk every single occurrence of this brand of Right Wing misogyny that has ever occur ed and ever will. So let me get on my soapbox, and elaborate on my romantic idealism:

Rule #1: All women are beautiful.

Rule #2: If you meet someone who truly makes you happy, and who you truly want to make happy in return, physical traits up to and including gender are not important. Should you be gay, or the they be trans, etc... This is not important. Just BE HAPPY. And MAKE EACH OTHER HAPPY. This is all you can do in this life.

Rule #3: The sexiest part of a woman's body is between her ears.

First off, let me point out strait up that these are ideals. As I am human, I am forced to admit that I do not always live up to my ideals. No human being does. At times, we fail. (And to be fair, I can not honestly say that I have ever been tested on Rule #2.) But these are things I truly believe. And I want to address some of the challenges that have been posed, just to show you that, yes, I do really believe in them.

ALL Women? Really?

Yes, all women. And here: I'll prove it to you. This is for the Heterosexual Men out there: Picture for a moment the least fortunate looking woman you know. (On a purely physical level, I mean.) Now think of the best looking man you can think of... Brad Pitt in Legends of the Fall, maybe. (Sure, why not?) Now, let me ask you: Which one would you rather have sex with?

I rest my case.

If the least beautiful woman you can think of is sexually preferable to the most beautiful man I can think of? Then all women MUST be beautiful!

LOL

What about... ANN COULTER?

Hoo boy... That's a tough one isn't it.

And it a sad example because it the one time you really see LIBERALS piling on and pointing out how ugly they think she is. And guys? Don't do this. Seriously. Not cool.

First of all, what Ann Coulter SAYS and WRITES is vile, disgusting and despicable in it own right. Her physical appearence is irrelevant to the scumbaggery that she puts out for a living. (She puts out for a living? LOL) (SHAME on me for writing that, and on you if you laughed at it!) The importance of exposing the vile, dishonest and downright un-American nature of what she says and writes is to great to risk the credibility of your argument by acting like a dick-thinking right winger and trashing her appearance. We're better than that. And more importantly? WE'RE RIGHT.

Besides... Imagine for a minute that Rachel Maddow looked exactly like Ann Coulter. Would you stop watching her? Would you stop listening? WOuld you no longer take her seriously? Would you feel the need to point out how hideous she is? I doubt it.

So fine: Coulter goes out of her way to be repulsive. And he lack of attractiveness? I'll bet dollars to dimes comes from our hatred of what she says, writes and stands for, and has little, if anythng at all to do with her physical traits. Ann Coulter is exactly as beautiful as she chooses to be at any given time. The same can be said of every other RW Woman I mentioned above: There is nothing wrong with their physical appearace. (Rule #1) It's completely irrelevant (Rule #2) because the sexiest part of a woman's body is her BRAIN (Rule #3)...

...which is really why we can stand the sight of these people!

But that certainly doesn't mean that we should act like RW misogynists and put it in those terms!

Anyway, that's my philosophy. And let me tell you: My world is a far more beautiful place for having adopted it.

Glenn Beck is amazing!

In the Quentin Tarantino-written movie, True Romance,  Don Vincenzo (played by Christopher Walken) explains to the soon-to-be-tortured-and-executed  Clifford Whorley (played by the late Dennis Hopper) that “Sicilians are great liars,” and that “[his] father was the world heavy weight champion of Sicilian liars.”  That may have been true in the Tarantino-verse, but I’m betting that his Don Vincenzo’s father couldn’t hold a CANDLE to the new heavyweight champion of American, Right Wing Liars: GLENN “BOOM-BOOM” BECK.

Consider this. As of earlier today, Media Matters has 4,424 items from this oracle of obfuscation, dating back to January 17^th of 2006, when CNN first hired him.  That’s exactly 1,781 days ago.  Which means that Glenn Beck has lied an average of two and half (2.48) times a day*, every day, for the past FIVE YEARS! And that doesn’t even account for the time he was off the air between his ouster at CNN and when Fox picked him up.  Now… one might say that maybe he’s not “lying,” per se, because he actually believes this stuff, or that he’s not “lying,” just really bad at research, journalism, etc…  But I’m not willing to give him the benefit of that doubt here.  Because when you rake in over $30 Million Dollars a year to talk about current events, you really should GET IT RIGHT occasionally.  If you’re paid that much, and screw up two and half times a day for five years?  You’re a paid liar, and you know it.

This past week however, Glenn Beck has truly outdone himself, both with the number of lies, the diversity of subject matter, and the absolute, utter absurdity of the claims being made.  The following are just SOME of the items from MMFA, just in past couple of days:

Here’s Beck, making things up about the Food Safety Bill,

Making things up about Health Care Reform,

Making things up about the Smithsonian,

Making things up about the Federal Reserve,

Making things up about Wikipedia,

And finally, making things up about Net Neutrality.

That last one is particularly artful/egregious, as it manages to conflate the RW distortion of the Fairness Doctrine, which was taken off the books almost 10 years before the Internet was even a thing, and their idiotic opposition to Net Neutrality which (usually) amounts to little more than “It’s a violation of their freedom of speech to prohibit them from censoring you. ”  It’s also truly amazing, when you consider the long established RW opposition to Net Neutrality, that he could seriously manage to screw up the basic premise of the issue that badly.

But then… He’s Glenn Beck.  A very good candidate to become MMFA’s very first TWO-TIME Misinformer of the year!  (He’s definitely got MY vote!)

(And no, I don’t get a vote.)

*As a point of comparison, Rush Limbaugh had only 2,953 items, dating back to 1/6/06, for an average of just 1.65 lies a day. And Rush has his own section on the website! And yet Glenn Beck is still about 50% more dishonest – by just under a lie a day, over five years – than Rush Limbaugh!  Who have thought that was possible?

Glenn Beck meets Donald Duck

OMG! Have you seen this yet?


Funny as hell.  Captures the spirit and message of that hypocritical, lying snake PERFECTLY, not to mention the double-speak!  The gap between rich and poor keeps growng, so vote REPUBLICAN?! 

That he is both (1) somewhat popular and (2) still a net positive for the GOP, is proof of just how stupid this country has become.  Listening to this, I've decided that Glenn Beck is NOT crazy, and NOT stupid.  He's a very, VERY EVIL MAN.  And I never would have thought I'd have underestimated that quality in one of these Right -Wingers.  But he is, and I did.  He's an damned evil genius!  He rubs people faces in everything the Right-wing has done to them, and yet somehow convinces then it's all the LEET's fault! (And they you should give him money!) It abso-fucking-lutely BRILLIANT!

For more like this, check out http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/.

And if you haven't given me your two cents yet, here's my paypal address... no, just kidding! LOL If  you haven't given me your two cents yet, please be sure to comment on my Question for y'all post.  I've got about 3/4 of the overall plot roughly outlined, but I still want to know how "real" (or how fictional)  this 'real world' shoudl be. Thanks!

Open Fascism

Many of us have made case that the new American Right Wing are a bunch of fascists. I have. Classic Liberal has. Down With Tyranny has. And so have many others. And the situation on the Right has now devolved to the point where they apparently think Godwin’s Law will continue to shield them from any and all criticism, indefinitely. But they are WAAAY beyond the point of merely abusing that otherwise reasonable principle: they’ve beaten it to a bloody death with their bare hands and ass-raped its still-warm corpse.

And now you can MMFA to the mix: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201011120017

Granted, that piece was exclusively about Glenn Beck (well… and his handlers/enablers at Fox) but we are all grown up enough by now to know full well that this is just the latest, and arguably most blatant, example in what is becoming a disturbing and disgusting trend in American Right-Wing Politics.

I particularly want commenter Duta to read that piece. Because while I won’t ever try to over-simplify the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the online company of someone who LIVES there – there’s no doubt in my mind that there’s nothing I can tell her about it, and plenty she could tell me – I think she (and many others) grossly oversimplify our Right Wing’s policy of unwavering support of Israel.

My advice is just this:

You should be very wary of the support you get from a group of people who LOVE ISREAL, but HATE JEWS.

Gold Star Awards, September, 2010

Yeah, yeah, I know, they're a day late.  No one reads these entries anyway, so sue me. LOL

We're up to 1953 - and that means two golds, and two... (*ahem*) lesser metals.


The Dizzy Dean Gold Star #24: Republicans for Obama

I just like these guys!  If the Republican Party, were more like these dudes? I'd still be a Republican. Oh, I'd still be a centrist / maverick / soclially liberal / libertarian type, but these guys support Obama for pretty much the same reason I DO: He's a moderate, and he's got good ideas.

If there is a single element of the Republican Party left that doesn't put Party interests WAAAY ahead of those of the country, these guys represent it.


The Al Simmons Gold Star #25: Open Secrets

If there is a single force in politics MORE destrucutive than Religion... Wait... No, sorry, strike that: Religion will ALWAYS be number one. 

But what will consistantly rank a very distant second is CORPORATE INTERESTS.  And I absolutley hold to this principle regardless of Party.  (After all, all of the worst parts of every Obama policy have corporate fingerprints all over them!)  So I'd have no problem requiring public disclsoure from politicians recieveing money from ANY such group.  (Even those whiny little bitches over at the NRA!)  Since we'll basically NEVER have that, I salute these guys who are doing the next best thing and EXPOSING who's getting what.  It sad that this is needed in an open, Democratic society, but as long as it is I hope these guys keep up the good work!


The Chief Bender Iron Star: BigGovernment

September 2010 markes the one-year anniversary of a website "presented by" the worst journalist who ever lived, not named "James O'Keefe:" Andrew Brietbart's BigGovernment.  Few greater repositories of Rigth-Wing spin and out-Right misinformation have ever been spawned.  Mister Breitbart? You have accomplished a truly ignoble achievement in your work. Congratulations. If there is a God in heaven and justice on this earth, you will die a very poor, very hungry, very lonely and despised man.

BTW... This "honor" is meant to represent ALL of the "Big" sites.  I'm not wasting anymore keystrokes in the future on a waste of donor organs like Andrew Brietbart.


The Bobby Wallace Iron Oxide Star: The Blaze

What better way to honor the birthday of one of the web's most vomit inducing sites than to simulataneously honor the site it inspired: Glen Beck's, the Blaze.

Um...

Do I really need to say anything else here? I mean... It's fucking Glenn Beck for fucksake!  Glenn Beck, following the inspiration of Andrew Breitbart!  Do you really expect me to top that?!

"Can you lead me though this minefield?" said Ray Charles to Stevie Wonder.


I hope everyone has a great weekend!

The impilcations of this are pretty scary...

Just read an article about false and manipulated memories on Slate.

The findings were pretty surprising, but the IMPLICATIONS are downright scary.  It's pratctially a Blueprint for how the RW Media (which is to say, ALL of the media) operate.

And the WORST offender, BY FAR, is Glenn Beck and revisionist historical rants.  I think this lays out why we cannot risk letting Glenn Beck re-wrtie history.  He's dangerous, and so is Fox, and so is the Right-Wing, Conservtaive bias that infects practically EVERY level of the media to varying degrees.  And this article does a great job of showing why.

More Friday Fun: Nazi Tourette's

OK... Even though it WORKED, the Google Tag Poetry was still pretty lame.  So... for anyone who hasn't yet seen Lewis Balck completely pwn Glenn beck on the Daily Show, or catch the replay on Countdown, here you go.  This is what genius sounds like.



"What you gotta do, is find an attic!"

Brilliant.

How evil is Glenn Beck?

Maybe I need Meds, but I'm seriously starting to believe that Glenn Beck is the Anti-Christ.  And that's coming from a staunch agnostic!  Here's why...

You may recall a few posts back, I posted my latest attack on organized religion essentially asking why we should believe lies when they lead to the deaths of children.  OK... to put it more reasonably, I attributed evil to the church, and denied them credit for the [little] good they did.

Now... What amazes me is that is you listen to this clip from Glenn Beck, I'm struck by the fact that this is trying to do away with the ONLY GOOD the church has EVER DONE!  Seriously.  I'll concede that Religion has done some good (still not convinced it couldn't have happened without all the bullshit that comes with religion, but whatever) but pretty much any good that religion does, including all of it's charitable works, would fall under "social justice."  Feed and clothe the homeless, help the poor, etc...

This guy, OTOH, think church should instead EMBRACE only the racism, exclusion, judgement, prejudice, inequality, etc... That even many religious people will admit is problematic!

So here's another "open question" to those who might defend religion: If you do as Beck suggests, and eliminate all that "social justice," is there ANY redeeming quality left?  Should we really allow an institution to exist that makes people superstitious AND evil?  Seriously?  I'd love to hear HIS answer on that!

BTW - I think it should be obvious but... I'm not calling for the elimination of the CHURCH.  Just for people to WAKE THE FUCK UP about Glenn Beck.  He's dangerous.  And he's the one who should really be on meds.

Glenn Beck's newfound principles on racism

"This president I think has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, with a deep seated hatred for white people, or the white culture..."

~Glenn Beck, 7/28/2009 on Fox & Friends

"I'm not saying he doesn't like white people. I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist."

~Glenn Beck, 7/28/2009, later that episode

"When somebody cries fire, why do they cry fire? Because it's dangerous. Kind of like racism. It's dangerous, okay?"

~Glenn Beck, 9/16/2009, on the Glenn Beck Program

"If we really felt racism, which I do, if we really felt racism was bad and harmful, we would ask more questions about it when we heard those cries. And we decide which was the truth and then we do something about that truth."

~Glenn Beck, 9/16/2009, later on that same program

OK. We all know two things here...

1) That Glenn Beck's absolutely batshit insane.

2) That conservatives are not known for their tolerance of cognitive dissonance

So... Knowing that he's already teetering on the brink, how can Mister Beck possibly hold both of the above thoughts in his head at the same time?

How does one man reasonably accuse the President of the United States of racism...

...And then turn around and declare that "false accusations" of "racism" are "dangerous"?

Well...

I see three possible reasons...

1) In the mind of the Right Wingers, you can pretty much say anything you want about liberals or Democrats. And if you do so on a Right Wing show, you pretty much know that NO ONE will ever ask you to back it up. But the "false accusation" was made against Joe "You Lie!" Wilson (R), so... well... you just KNOW that's gotta be false!

2) Since making the statement, he's had a crisis of conscience and decided that you can't just throw the term "racist" around willy-nilly. It's a serious accusation and requires some serious evidence to not be considered slander. And... It's just a coincidence that the first beneficiary of these new-found principles just happens to be a Republican who, both loudly and baselessly, accused the [Racist] President of lying, right in the middle of his televised address to a special joint session of congress.

Yeah, I supposed that's possible...

Or (3) JUST MAYBE these new "principles" have more to do with the SIXTY-TWO advertisers who have decided that they no longer want to have their customers paying this clown's salary, and have pulled their support of Glenn's program, costing the Fox News Channel as much as $1,060,000 at the peak of the boycott, and it's really more about self-preservation rather than any idealistic principle.

Just sayin'.