Is Glenn Beck Suicidal or Paranoid?

Posted by on May 14, 2009 at 1:19 am. 9 Comments :

Well, actually, he may be both.

On his Fox News program Tuesday, Glenn Beck revealed that he suspects some nefarious, unspecified, malicious entity has it out for him. He beseeched his audience to be vigilant on his behalf, lest some dreaded fate befall him:

“If I’m ever in a weird car accident, or I commit suicide or something, after the media stops celebrating my death, could they check into it? Because I’m not suicidal. And I’m a pretty good driver.”

Apparently Beck thinks that assassins are stalking him, and they plan to disguise his murder as an accident or a suicide. That demonstration of classic paranoia might be sufficient to raise concerns about his mental well being (such as it is). The problem is that part of his comment was not entirely truthful – and I’m not talking about his driving skills.

Beck has written about his suicidal tendencies wherein he threatened to snuff himself out on more than one occasion. He even recorded a rambling video that included a confession that he was “full-fledged suicidal.” Beck is a recovering alcoholic and there is a history of mental illness in his family. His mother committed suicide when he was thirteen. His brother also committed suicide.

Given this background, I think that upon hearing that Beck was in a car accident, or that he committed suicide, I’m not sure that my first thoughts would be of some Illuminati-inspired murder conspiracy.

Or maybe that’s just what they want me to think…..

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

News Blights: Re-Branding Edition

Posted by on May 13, 2009 at 3:06 pm. NO Comments :

Item #1: The Republican National Committee is planning to meet in a special session next week. One of the items on their agenda will be a resolution to re-brand the Democratic Party as the “Democrat Socialist Party.” I’d like to go on record as saying that I have no problem with this as long as I can re-brand Republicans as the “National Socialist Party.”

Item #2: Has Sarah Palin signed a deal to write her memoirs? You betcha! And she’s signed with HarperCollins, the publishing arm of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire. The book will be co-marketed by Harper’s Christian imprint, Zondervan.The publisher says that Palin will work with a collaborator, but Palin’s agent says that every word in the book will be hers. Which begs the question: What’s the collaborator for? Perhaps she’ll need someone to keep an eye on Russia while she’s hammering out her tales of hunting Moose on the tundra – also.

Item #3: Tea Bagger Redux. The Republican Governors Association, led by South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and Texas Secessionist Rick Perry, are attempting to launch Tea Party 2.0. However, this one will be strictly phoned in as it is being arranged as a conference call. The organizational role of the GOP should serve to affirm that the Tea Partiers are indeed a partisan operation, but we may want to wait until Fox News comes aboard before final certification.

Item #4: Louisiana Senator David Vitter is also jumping on the Tea Party bandwagon. He is calling for teabaggers to come together again to “Stand up and fight this July 4th, and make Washington, DC listen to you.” Vitter is redirecting considerable resources from his patronage of prostitutes so that he can promote a Tea Party that is sponsored by his reelection committee (Seriously. The website for this project was “Paid for by David Vitter for U.S. Senate”). We’ll see how many people give up their barbecues and fireworks in exchange for an afternoon of teabaggery. It’s brews vs. brewed.


Carrie Prejean Dishonors The First Amendment

Posted by on May 12, 2009 at 4:31 pm. 6 Comments :

In last month’s Miss USA pageant, Carrie Prejean replied to Perez Hilton that she believed that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. That response ignited a controversy that extended well beyond her role as Miss California. The controversy has since snowballed into a soapy opera that is dripping with deceit, pornography, and greed.

This morning Prejean’s crown was pulled from the fire by pageant owner Donald Trump with his pronouncement that she will be permitted to continue her reign. But there is a story here that diverges from the debate over gay marriage and beauty queens. And it’s a story that has just as much impact on Constitutional liberties.

Much of the debate circling around Prejean has been focused on the content of her answer and whether same-sex marriage should be recognized under the law. But underlying that discussion were allegations that she was being discriminated against for her point of view and/or her religion. She was amongst the first to decry what she felt was the violation of her right to free speech. But she was not the last. Numerous pundits piled on with their hysterical assertions that Prejean was not being allowed to speak.

That imaginary allegation peaked this morning with the speech Prejean gave (YouTube) during a news conference with Trump. The speech presented a severely contorted view of the First Amendment and her rights under it. First of all, since there was no government entity involved with any of the alleged stifling, the First Amendment was not violated because the law only applies to suppression by the state. But even her complaints that she was unable to express herself were absurd fabrications. At the press conference she said:

“Three weeks ago I was asked a politically-charged question with a hidden personal agenda. I answered my question honestly and sincerely from my heart […] As [Perez Hilton] was trying to be self-promoting and hateful while I have remained silent since, I am honored to be here today to finally let my voice be heard and address the hateful attacks, despicable rumors and false allegations I have had within the last three weeks.”

I’m not even going to enter into speculation about how Prejean knew there was a “hidden personal agenda” or her disparagement of Hilton as “hateful,” and “self-promoting” (like beauty pageant contestants don’t promote themselves). But her statement that she has “remained silent” until today and that only now can she “finally let [her] voice be heard.” is outright delusional. She has been a fixture on TV news for most of the three weeks since losing the Miss USA pageant. She has been interviewed by Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto, Megyn Kelly, and Courtney Friel – all of Fox News. In addition she appeared with James Dobson (Focus on the Family), Pat Robertson (700 Club/CBN), and Matt Lauer (Today/NBC). If that represents suppression of speech, what on Earth would free expression require? Perhaps her own primetime network talk show? In her speech she also offered a tearful remembrance of her veteran grandfather:

“On April 19th, on that stage, I exercised my freedom of speech and I was punished for doing so. This should not happen in America. It undermines the Constitutional rights for which my grandfather fought for.”

So what’s all the fuss about about? Here she admits that she was in fact allowed to exercise her freedom of speech. Her assertion that she was punished for doing so is utterly without foundation. Some reports indicate that she was behind in scoring even before her fateful question. It appears that what she is actually bemoaning is that there is also freedom of expression for anyone who happens to disagree with her. She is one of those who believes that free speech is defined as the right to speak your mind without fear of rebuttal.

There is a peculiar irony in the fact that Prejean is so disturbed by her imagined slights; that after flooding the airwaves with her opinions, she perceives herself as being silenced. But she has only praise for Trump and the pageant operators who are affirmatively constricting her public appearances and utterances:

Meanwhile, if Ms. Prejean wants to speak publicly about same-sex marriage in the future, she will have to go through the Miss California USA pageant officials to discuss the platform where she will speak and how she will present her opinion.

“We’re not changing our rules for Carrie,” Keith Lewis, a co-executive director of the California pageant, said in an interview. “We’re bringing her back into compliance with her contract; every appearance is approved by us, every statement is a reflection of us.” He said that if she is asked about her views, she should answer honestly, but that pageant officials would help her “fine tune” her response so that it “is accommodating to both parties.”

Wait a minute. Didn’t she just finish saying that “That should not happen in America?

When people exploit false arguments that rely on claims to Constitutional liberties, they trivialize those liberties. It is a form of crying wolf that harms all of those who have legitimate grievances. Prejean’s views on marriage are her own business, and she has a right to form and convey her opinions as she chooses. But that right does not include imposing a gag on everyone else. She must be tolerant of opposing views and she ought not to wrap herself in the Constitution when her situation is so far removed from any reasonable interpretation of it.

In the case of Carrie Prejean, not only was she not constrained by the government, she was not constrained period. And whining about her perceived victimhood makes for a distinctly unattractive beauty queen.

Update: This was inevitable: Prejean has been tapped to fill in for Gretchen Carlson (Miss America, 1989) on Fox & Friends on May 27. Also, Sarah Palin (Miss Wasilla, 1984) made a statement in support of Prejean wherein she doubled down on the misunderstanding of the First Amendment.


The White House Correspondents’ Comedy Hour

Posted by on May 11, 2009 at 3:23 am. NO Comments :

The White House Correspondents’ Dinner is an annual event that places members of the media in close proximity to the subjects they are supposed to be covering. It’s a little like the philosophy behind modern zoo design, where they attempt to show animals in their native habitat. The event generally features comedy routines from both the President and a professional comic.

In the past there have been some memorable moments, particularly Stephen Colbert’s devastating assault on the stenographers in the audience who fancy themselves as journalists. This weekend’s affair ranks fairly well by virtue of having a president who isn’t an inarticulate, emotionally stunted frat boy who thinks he’s a cowboy superhero.

Perhaps the funniest thing about this year’s dinner is the reaction to it afterwords from comedically-challenged right-wingers who simply can’t focus on anything other than their hatred of all things Obama. If they aren’t whining about Wanda Sykes being over-the-top in her remarks, they are shocked that President Obama laughed at them. The right seems obsessed with the President laughing. Recall his appearance on 60 Minutes when he laughed at a question from Steve Kroft. Conservatives went into a full-tilt frenzy. Much the same thing is happening now. Here are a couple of samples:

Ben Shapiro: “[Sykes is] the most gutless and feckless performer ever to grace the White House Correspondents Dinner.”

Michelle Malkin: “Liberal comedian Wanda Sykes indulged in Palin-bashing, Rush Derangement Syndrome, and post-Bush/Cheney-induced psychosis while leftist journalists rubbed elbows with politicos and Tinseltown eye candy.”

Roy Edroso of the Village Voice has compiled a fun and fascinating collection of the conservative umbrage taken at the comedy stylings of Obama and Sykes. Edroso harvested critical gems from the comedy experts at the Weekly Standard, NewsBusters, the always hilarious Wall Street Journal, and more. Here is how Edroso summed up his travels in Rightville:

“So, to recap, Wanda Sykes’ routine was a hate crime abetted by Obama’s hateful laughter, and Obama’s routine was Not Funny except to the liberal media (which in its heart of hearts knows George Bush is actually funnier), as well as an assault on free speech. Plus Obama is prejudiced against black people. Oh, and by noting these rightblogger reactions to the event, we are overreacting, which is an automatic win for conservatism. Given all that good news, you’d think they’d be more cheerful.”

To get the full benefit of that summation, go read the full article. It affirms just how pathetic the right is when it comes to being funny. Not that further affirmation was needed. Just try digging up some old episodes of Fox News’ Half-Hour Comedy Hour. Or Check out Tucker Carlson (whom Jon Stewart demolished on the defunct Crossfire) giving Jon Stewart tips on comedy. or, if you can stand it, wait for Glenn Beck’s upcoming comedy tour: The Acute Paranoia Revue. And since Beck is amongst those so incensed by Sykes’ alleged hostility, perhaps he will include in his act the bit he performed on his radio show wherein he fantasized about strangling Michael Moore to death with his bare hands.

Here are the YouTube videos of Obama and Sykes at the WHCA dinner:
Barack Obama / Wanda Sykes


Why We Need A Blogosphere

Posted by on May 9, 2009 at 4:29 pm. NO Comments :

Television news was a great idea. Just think of it: A box that sits in your living room and brings you important information from around the block or around the world. Sounds too good to be true. And apparently it is.

Whatever value television adds to the distribution of news must be weighed against the harm it produces through its incorporation of bias, selective editing, and the pursuit of its own self interest.

SpinComFor example, last year David Barstow of the New York Times wrote a meticulously well researched and documented story that should have sparked a national uproar. The story described how the Pentagon in the Bush administration conspired to train and deploy former military personnel to spread propaganda in support of the war in Iraq. And if that weren’t bad enough, the program also permitted them to use their high profile media platform to enrich themselves and the defense contractors to whom they were attached.

Barstow’s story was received with what some call a “deafening silence,” particularly from the TV news community. Then, last week, Barstow won a Pulitzer Prize for the story. The silence built into a crushing whisper. Even progressive media icons like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow only glanced over this story. Obviously there are strong arm tactics being employed to prevent the public from learning that our government purposefully and unlawfully engaged in propaganda directed squarely at us. The TV news networks are simply covering their own asses since it was primarily their facilities that hosted the phony military analysts.

Yesterday, Barstow was interviewed by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now to discuss the announcement that the Pentagon inspector general’s office had withdrawn its own report that had previously exoneraed the program. In the interview Goodman asked Barstow to comment on the lack of reporting on his story. Barstow said…

“You know, to be honest with you, I haven’t received many invitations-in fact, any invitations-to appear on any of the main network or cable programs. I can’t say I’m hugely shocked by that.”

“On the other hand, while there’s been kind of deafening silence, as you put it, on the network side of this, the stories have had-sparked an enormous debate in the blogosphere. And to this day, I continue to get regular phone calls from not just in this country but around the world, where other democracies are confronting similar kinds of issues about the control of their media and the influence of their media by the government.”

“So it’s been an interesting experience to see the sort of two reactions, one being silence from the networks and the cable programs, and the other being this really lively debate in the blogosphere. “

When an important and newsworthy story that exposes government wrongdoing at the highest levels – a story that appears on the front page of the New York Times and wins a Pulitzer Prize – cannot get the attention of television news outlets, there is something seriously wrong with that medium. When a respected journalist has to console himself with having his story get traction only on the Internet, it tells us a great deal about how corrupt the corporate-run news divisions of America have become.

Barstow should not have to be satisfied with generating lively debate in the blogosphere. The revelations in his article illustrate a betrayal of trust on the part of our government. The public deserves and needs to know the facts about this affair. But the failure of the television news enterprises to responsibly carry out their duties is also a betrayal of trust. How are we supposed to rely on their journalistic integrity if they refuse to exhibit any?

I don’t expect Sean Hannity to be issuing an invitation to Barstow anytime soon. Fox News has always been as deeply integrated into the Bush administration’s propaganda machine as any of these Pentagon Pundits. But if Olbermann, Maddow, Ed Schultz, or even Chris Matthews don’t extend an invitation to Barstow, then we need to let them know that they are failing to serve the public and they are buckling under to a media conspiracy to keep the people ignorant.

If it embarrasses NBC/MSNBC to admit that they participated in this charade, they need to suck it up, take responsibility, and ask for forgiveness. Permitting these phony analysts on their air was bad enough. They should not compound the offense by attempting to cover it up.

Barstow is right about the blogosphere. But we need to shape it into something more than a forum for debate. We need to use it to make the old media behave responsibly; to hold their feet to the fire. And this is as good an issue as any with which to assert that principle.

Contact MSNBC
MSNBC General
Keith Olbermann
Rachel Maddow
Ed Schultz
David Shuster
Chris Matthews


Janeane Garofalo Gets The Last Laugh On Sean Hannity And The Tea Baggers

Posted by on May 9, 2009 at 10:47 am. 2 Comments :

Last month, Janeane Garofalo appeared on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. In the course of the interview, she made some rather controversial comments about the those attending the Fox News sponsored Tea Parties:

“…let’s be very honest about what this is about. It’s not about bashing Democrats, it’s not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about, they don’t know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.”

Subsequent to that appearance, Sean Hannity, and a phalanx of other feverish right-wingers, immediately went on the attack. They criticized Garofalo for expressing her views, and Olbermann for allowing her to do so. Mind you, these are the same defenders of the First Amendment that are now complaining that the noted racist schlock jock, Michael Savage, has been banned from the U.K. To them, in other words, speech by a racist is fine, but speech about racists is foul.

In an attempt to further chastise Garofalo, and even harm her professionally, Hannity promoted this story which he prefaced by saying that “Revenge is sweet…”

Hannity (4/29/09): “The Boston Herald reports that supporters of the Boston tea party protests earlier this month. well they’re planning to attend one of her upcoming stand up performances. And they plan to give her a piece of their mind […] tickets, by the way, are reportedly going fast. Unfortunately for the left-wing actress, many of the tickets are being sold to the same tea partiers that she labeled racist […] It looks like Janeane isn’t going to get the last laugh this time around. By the way, good luck in Boston.”

Hannity and the tea baggers had better exercise some restraint in doling out pieces of their minds. They seem to have little to spare. First of all, the clown who came up with idea to scoop up tickets to Garofalo’s show in order to hurt her by making her richer is truly hilarious. Secondly, Hannity offers no evidence whatsoever that any tickets were sold to tea baggers, much less “many” as Hannity claimed. Lastly, the threat to which Hannity is referring from the article in the Herald really comes down to a single anonymous e-mailer with anger management issues:

“This (bleep) is gonna hear it from Boston,” the anonymous e-mailer said. “All us bigots and racists are buying up tix to let this piece of excrement hear it from us. shame on her.”

Despite the cantankerous warning from the mad e-mailer, and Hannity’s free publicity for it, the turnout of angry tea baggers was decidedly underwhelming. In fact, according to an update in the Herald, Garofalo performed her entire, nearly sold-out set without interruption from inside or outside the theater. She even had a bit of fun with them on stage saying…

“If there are any tea baggers here, welcome, and white power.”

As it turns out, Hannity’s contention that “many of the tickets” were sold to tea baggers was, not surprisingly, a lie. And it looks like Garafalo did end up getting the last laugh. But Hannity was right about one thing: Revenge is sweet.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

ACORN And Burger King And Glenn Beck, Oh My

Posted by on May 7, 2009 at 1:53 am. 8 Comments :

Glenn Beck - BleckoGlenn Beck’s program on Fox News is a daily cavalcade of crazy and yesterday was no exception. Beck’s guest was Scott Levenson, the national spokesman for ACORN. As ACORN is a perennial target of Fox News paranoiacs like Beck, there was bound to be a major train wreck looming. And Beck didn’t disappoint (video).

The occasion for the visit was a recent report that ACORN employees in Nevada had been charged with violations related to voter registration. This is where panicky right wingers rush to mischaracterize such charges as voter fraud, when in fact, none occurred. So Beck was true to form as he asserted the same old tired lies in his signature juvenile style – substituting funny faces and noises for rational debate.

The real comedy came when Beck attempted to offer an analogy that was ludicrous on its face. Levenson defended ACORN as a victim of employees who failed to comply with the organization’s standards. Beck sought to argue that ACORN was responsible for the misbehavior of their employees and ran a tape of the infamous Burger King bather (who had his buddies shoot a video of him bathing in the restaurant’s sink) to make a point that must have made sense somewhere in his cartoon brain.

Actually, Beck’s point had something to do with ACORN’s management being deficient because fourteen or so ACORN employees, out of some 13,000, were alleged to have submitted fake registration forms. Beck contended that this proves it was not a case of a rogue employee, but an unacceptable pattern of malfeasance. And after telling Levenson to “pipe down” and cutting off his mic, Beck said:

“If you had that many employees at Burger King bathing in the sink, would you ever eat a burger there? Ever? No. This is unreasonable to believe he had that many bad employees.”

Well, I did a quick Google search looking for criminally wayward Burger King employees and found this:

  • Burger King employee arrested in homicide
  • Burger King employee arrested for giving away free meals, stealing
  • Burger King Employee Arrested After Jumping Through Drive-Up Window to Attack a Customer
  • Burger King employee arrested for serving pot
  • Burger King employee arrested for alleged identity theft
  • Ex-Employee, Pal Arrested in Burger King Kidnap Case
  • Burger King employees arrested for faking robbery
  • Coke Being Sold At Burger King
  • Burger King Franchise Pays $400,000 for Alleged Sexual Harassment of teens
  • 27 illegal aliens working at seven Delaware Burger Kings

Granted murder, drugs, robbery, etc., are not exactly in the same league as unlawful bathing, but some people might consider those to be serious offenses too. It should also be noted that the Burger King violators represent only those with the sort of criminal profile likely to be written up in the news. There are surely corporate personnel who have engaged in more mundane activities ranging from pilfering office supplies to extortion or other financial improprieties.

Returning from a commercial, Beck announced that Levenson said that Beck was afraid of black people. So Beck, says he, threw Levenson out of the studio. That’s a bit difficult to believe and, conveniently, there was no video (in a television studio?). But considering the facts enumerated above, Beck may want to reassess the situation. Compared to Burger King, ACORN actually looks pretty good. So I presume that Beck will either apologize to Mr. Levenson or do a show about the BK gang for balance.

There is, however, a much bigger picture within which to view this affair. While Beck and his ilk get so worked up about an organization working to help low income communities – even though the things they allege produce no harm except to ACORN itself – these same guardians of virtue don’t seem to care much about the criminal behavior of defense contractors who have been responsible for outfitting our soldiers with faulty gear, electrocuting them in their showers, and bilking American taxpayers for billions of dollars. In a congressional hearing in 2007 it was reported that…

“…a panel of senior defense acquisition and investigative officials attributed the rampant errors and abuse in contracting — which have resulted in 10 convictions, 78 criminal indictments and audits into $88 billion in questionable contracts — on lack of controls, poor leadership and an undermanned and untrained work force operating in a combat zone.”

That far exceeds anything ACORN has been accused of. And yet, I have not heard Beck take Halliburton to task for a record of gross mismanagement. I haven’t heard him declare that we should never buy anything from KBR again. And we aren’t talking about about a few forms filled out in the name of Mickey Mouse (who has yet to turn up at the polls to vote). These legal breaches cost lives and drain our nation of scarce resources. The perpetrators are generally punished with a severe slap on the wrist and a spanking new contract for more inferior products and services.

While it is unlikely that Beck will turn his attention to these serious matters with such dire consequences, we can at least count on him to spend another few hours railing against ACORN and guys who bathe at Burger King – two stories that have about the same impact on the problems of ordinary Americans.


Joe The Plumber Joins Arlen Specter

Posted by on May 7, 2009 at 1:50 am. NO Comments :

The Republicans favorite symbol for what they imagine ordinary Americans to be, Joe the Plumber, has turned his back on the GOP. And while he has not taken the additional step of registering as a Democrat, the blow will surely come as a shock to Sarah Palin and the rest of the right’s lunatic fringe. From Time:

Big Government is never popular in theory, but the disaster aid, school lunches and prescription drugs that make up Big Government have become wildly popular in practice, especially now that so many people are hurting. Samuel Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, tells TIME he’s so outraged by GOP overspending, he’s quitting the party – and he’s the bull’s-eye of its target audience. But he also said he wouldn’t support any cuts in defense, Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid – which, along with debt payments, would put more than two-thirds of the budget off limits.

As the defections accelerate, the GOP will soon be left with only Carrie Prejean, Ted Nugent, and an ocean of dittoheads, to lead their trek back to relevancy. Of course, this could all be unfolding exactly as planned by Republican National Committee chairman, Michael Steele.


The Pre-Obituary Hate Thread

Posted by on May 5, 2009 at 4:31 pm. 15 Comments :

George W. Bush: “History? We don’t know. We’ll all be dead.”

This past weekend, Jack Kemp, a giant of Reagan-era conservatism passed away. The news has been covered with an almost uniformly reverential tone, no matter the venue. Even from the most avowedly partisan Democratic sources, there was abundant praise and sympathy from all but a few insensitive weasels. And that’s as it should be, whether regarding Kemp, or William F. Buckley, or Tony Snow, etc.

Death is without a doubt the single most non-partisan issue that any of us will ever face. No amount of devotion to the second amendment or global warming will be sufficient to filibuster the grim reaper. And while mortality observes the purest form of equality, it is not in the remotest sense democratic. We must all comply with its laws, but no one gets to vote. Nature is such a Fascist.

So as time collects its due from amongst life’s loitering souls, those of us still queued up react to the passing of our earthly cousins. For the most part we are respectful and reserved. We follow the dictum that prohibits us from “speaking ill of the dead.” Whether the deceased is someone with whom we have affinity or hostility, we share the knowledge of our common fate and withhold judgment.

But no such forbiddance precludes us from ripping the living to shreds.

I can’t help but wonder what our reaction would be to the passing of certain individuals whom we regard as patently evil. Would we be as generous with our sympathy upon hearing that Donald Rumsfeld kicked the bucket? Would we exhibit the same tolerance for those responsible for lying us into a war that snuffed out the lives of hundreds of thousands? Would there be an R.I.P. thread for Karl Rove or Paul Wolfowitz or Dick Cheney? And what about George W. Bush himself?

Would we struggle to find redeeming qualities in folks who so resolutely brought pain and tragedy to so many? Would we be considerate of their mourning families? How would our demeanor change from what we would say about them today, compared to what we would say about them in hindsight?

I, for one, believe that there is a special place in Hell (if I believed in Hell) reserved for the mass murderers of BushCo. I could care less about their eternal souls, other than to hope that they suffer. The only sympathy I have for their families is due to their having been cursed with such despicable relatives.

This is not to say that I presently wish death upon anyone. And, despite the tone, it is not even vengeance that I seek. It is more something like justice (which, by the way, is something that we can still achieve while the perpetrators live). The question is, if I can articulate the harsh thoughts that I have above, while the subjects are still enjoying the fruit of their atrocities, could I still do so upon their demise? The answer is, probably not.

The impropriety of disparaging those who have shuffled off is so ingrained into our culture that anyone who engaged in it would be immediately ostracized. It is nearly irrelevant if someone practiced Satanism yesterday. If they die tomorrow society expects you to reassess your judgment and say something nice about the devil.

Well, it isn’t tomorrow yet. So we are still free to wail on the dastardly denizens of doom that torment us. And we should avail ourselves of the opportunity to bitch at the fiends who drove our nation into an unnecessary and illegal war; who tainted and trivialized our Constitution; who sanctioned torture; who continue to befoul our planet; who value wealth over human dignity and compassion. We should get it off our chests now, loudly and with conviction. We should pound them into pulp and show them no mercy.

Why? Because tomorrow they may be dead and we’ll have to bite our tongues.


Top 10 Crazy Political Commentators

Posted by on May 4, 2009 at 2:43 pm. NO Comments :

According to AskMen.com, the Top 10 Crazy Political Commentators are:

  1. Bill O’Reilly
  2. Keith Olbermann
  3. Ann Coulter
  4. Michael Savage
  5. Rush Limbaugh
  6. Sean Hannity
  7. Chris Matthews
  8. Geraldo Rivera
  9. Dennis Miller
  10. Glenn Beck

Somehow I missed this list when it was published back in February. On the surface it doesn’t seem particularly groundbreaking. After all, the personalities enumerated are mostly deserving, although the order could inspire much debate.

The funny thing about this list is that AskMen is owned by Fox Interactive, a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. So it’s interesting to note that five of the top 10 crazies, including number one, are actually employees of Fox News. Three more (Coulter, Savage, and Limbaugh) are Fox-aligned right-wingers. That’s eight out of ten Foxies, with the remaining two from MSNBC.

What we have here is one Fox affiliate acknowledging that another Fox affiliate is dominated by pundits who are patently insane. Will the editors of AskMen be punished for this eruption of honesty? Will they be admonished for insulting their corporate cousins? Of course not. This is exactly what Fox intended when they hired these lunatics. They were pursuing a programming strategy that leaned heavily on exploiting madness for its entertainment value. They were convinced that nothing excited the American viewing public as much as a live, on-air, mental train wreck.

Well, they are sure getting their money’s worth.