Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

12.1.11

Death, taxes, and...

Pundits of all political stripes will never cease to amaze me with their ability to use a mind-blowingly awful tragedy as an opportunity to defame their political opponents. Why did Jared Lee Loughner shoot all those people? Was it Glenn Beck who made him do it? Sarah Palin? Sean Hannity? Keith Olbermann? The Hamburglar?

In some instances, the perpetrator of crimes like this has a clearly delineated motive and a clear goal in mind. My amateur speculation tells me this was not the case with Loughner, that he was just an emotionally unstable individual who simply came unhinged.

In some ways, that scenario is even scarier than the terrorist who has a clear, political motive for his or her actions. You can't plan for this kind of tragedy, and you can't predict it. All you can predict is the typical reactionary bullshit from both sides of the aisle afterward. I say that only three things in life are certain: death, taxes, and Rush Limbaugh's eagerness to blame a tragedy of epic proportions on the Democrats. (Dems, don't think you get off scot-free, either!)

Ultimately, I think Jon Stewart had the best take on it.

On a more serious note, Mother Jones has done some very excellent reporting on Loughner, and I would encourage anyone interested in learning more to check out the following articles.




21.5.10

The Supreme Court is not a fucking beauty pageant.


For as strongly as I support a woman's right to choose abortion in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, a pregnancy gone wrong, or any number of other difficult life situations, there are indeed some pro-lifers who I really respect. It's a small number, but they're out there. (This is where I give a shout-out to the lovely Ms. Kelsey Hazzard, of Secular Pro-Life.)

There really are some pro-lifers out there who are genuinely interested in helping needy pregnant women. That is totally cool! Much as I may disagree with their views on whether or not abortion should be legal, I greatly respect that some people are actually willing to follow through on their rhetoric and help women who would rather not have abortions. (There are some very legitimate criticisms of some crisis pregnancy centers that I'll have to save for another time.)

Alas, Gingi Edmonds does not fall into the aforementioned category of pro-lifers I respect. I recently discovered the writings of Ms. Edmonds on Facebook. She is an avid anti-abortion activist and a self-proclaimed freelance photographer based out of California. (By the way, for a truly awesome freelance photographer, contact Jeremy White. He will not bother you about politics.) Edmonds also apparently holds very anti-gay views and as far as I can tell, has not an intelligent thought in her head. I'm not saying that to be mean, either! Just check out this post that I'm about to disembowel.

As those of us who follow politics instead of sports know, President Obama recently nominated Elena Kagan to fill Justice Stevens' spot on the Supreme Court. Kagan appears to be pro-choice, so abortion opponents are screaming about that, but not Gingi!

Apparently faced with a dearth of any original or constructive criticism of Kagan, Edmonds decided to exit onto the low road and attack Kagan for her lack of glamour and conventional feminine beauty.

Edmonds muses:
How can she be an aware and insightful interpreter of these complex and modern times if she's never heard of Crest Whitestrips?
What? Really? ... I mean... Seriously? Even if that was an attempt at satire, it was pretty bad satire, unless that's what passes for comedy among anti-abortion activists.

Let's read on, shall we?
All joking aside, I think the fact that she looks like a foot is extremely relevant. A person's cleanliness and tidiness (combed hair, brushed teeth, clean clothing) are a clear indicator of mental orderliness and tidiness. We don't have to view her un-Constitutional and pro-abortion record to get an indication that she is not fit to be in a position of leadership in this country.

To clarify, I don't like her simply because she's unattractive. I can accept that Elena Kagan is an ugly bull dike. But an ugly, pro-abort, socialist bull dike? Never.
Umm... There doesn't actually appear to be any evidence that Kagan lacks basic hygiene. Sure, she doesn't fit our ridiculous standards of conventional feminine beauty (Speaking of those who live in glass houses, neither does Edmonds), but she doesn't look dirty or unkempt. A quick Google image search reveals that Kagan actually looks rather well-groomed and tidy. And while we're judging a person's character based on superficial images found on Google, I think Kagan looks downright jolly.

Gingi, if you want to see some people who really don't give a shit about their appearance, I invite you to come to Enfield Superior Court any day between Monday and Friday. If you're lucky, you might see a DUI defendant wearing pajamas or an obviously unwashed domestic violence defendant wearing a t-shirt that reads "Fuck the police."

But maybe Edmonds is onto something. Maybe women who support abortion rights are uglier than women who oppose them. Just check out the heinous wench whose pic I posted above. :-P

My $0.02 on the Blumenthal-Vietnam controversy

As some of you may know, Connecticut's Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, was recently accused of lying about his military service after this NYTimes article. Essentially, they're saying he said he was in Vietnam when he wasn't. Blumenthal is running for Chris Dodd's Senate seat, and he's up against a clusterfuck of Republicans, including Linda McMahon and Rob Simmons, and Peter Schiff, who is... Well, who knows what the fuck Peter Schiff exactly is. The Tea Party endorsed him, even though he's not really a raving nut, but I probably still won't vote for him, although part of me strangely kind of wants to vote for him. (Of course, I'm moving to New York in about a month, so I may not vote in this thing anyway.)

So anyway, back to Blumenthal. I want to stress that I have no opinion on this, but I do want to share this little anecdote. I was covering the Memorial Day parade in Enfield last year, and there I happened to spy Mr. Blumenthal. I ambled over and started talking to him, so I could get a few quotes for my story. Mostly happy horseshit like, "This parade is great" and "We should honor our veterans."

He said something to the effect of "When I was in the Marines during Vietnam," and I off-handedly followed that up with, "Oh, did you go to Vietnam?" to which he replied that, no, he had not gone to Vietnam. He had simply served in the military while the Vietnam War was happening. I thought so little of that remark that I didn't even put it in my story. (I also thought it might sound kind of stupid to write, "Blumenthal, who served in the military during the Vietnam War but never went to war...")

So... There you have it: My Dick Blumenthal-Vietnam story. Make of it what you will. Or don't. Whatever.

27.9.09

Glenn Beck as a comic character


As of late, I've taken an interest in comedy writing - partly to "broaden my horizons," so to speak, and partly to improve my overall abilities as a writer. Dave was kind enough to loan me an excellent book for just such a purpose, John Vorhaus' The Comic Toolbox: How To Be Funny Even If You're Not. I just finished up Chapter 4, Comic Characters, and I think Fox News pundit/scaremonger Glenn Beck almost perfectly fits Vorhaus' rubric for creating a solid comic character.

First, a comic character must have comic perspective. Vorhaus writes, "The comic perspective is the character's unique way of looking at his world, which differs in a clear and substantial way from the 'normal' world view." Can there be any doubt that Glenn Beck possesses a strong comic perspective, that his perspective on the world is indeed warped?

In this case, Glenn Beck's comic perspective is his peculiar brand of off-the-wall paranoid quasi-libertarian-conservatism, and everything he sees or reads in the news gets filtered through this perspective. If Glenn Beck simply opposed President Obama’s policies or opinions, there would be nothing remarkable or comic about him. To give an example, Beck doesn’t oppose health care reform because he’s concerned about government spending. He actually thinks Obama wants to expand health care as a means of reparations. You know, for slavery. That’s an example of how Beck filters what’s happening out in the real world through his own unique comic perspective.

Vorhaus' second requirement for a good comic character is exaggeration. "The tool of exaggeration, then, simply takes a comic perspective and pushes and stretches and accelerates it until it's sufficiently far from our perspective that it starts to be funny," he explains.

Nobody does exaggeration like Glenn Beck. Beck isn't just conservative. The man lives in crazy, upside-down conserva-world. Up is down! Black is white! Left is right! Need an example? When Obama criticized that Cambridge police officer regarding the whole Henry Louis Gates fiasco (which is really another discussion by itself), well, he wasn’t just perhaps speaking a bit rashly. No, by Beck’s reasoning, Obama said that stuff because he’s a racist! He’s racist against white people! And he hates white culture! No, never mind that Obama is half-white himself and was raised by his white mother and white grandparents. And never mind that when asked by Katie Couric to define what he even meant by “white culture” (Could you have meant this, Glenn?), Beck hemmed and hawed and refused to even answer the question, but still defended his original point. No. The president is just racist. ‘Nuff said.

Third, a comic character must also have flaws. Oh, boy, does Mr. Beck have flaws. He’s paranoid, and he’s easily given to crazy delusions. Nowhere did he better illustrate this than in the episode when he went off on a rant about the "socialist art" in Rockefeller Square. (Also, the Rockefellers were progressives? Again, see the aforementioned criteria, and you'll better understand how this fits into my argument.)

Finally, Vorhaus writes, a comic character must have humanity. "We used flaws to drive a wedge between the character and the audience so that the audience could laugh. Now we use humanity to build a bridge between the character and the audience so the audience can care," Vorhaus says.

Sure, Glenn Beck has humanity. He obviously cares about his country very much. He's patriotic. And on top of that, he's sensitive. And emotional. We know that, however crazy and delusional he is, at least, he cares. And we know that he cares because why else would he throw an emotional fit on national television? Surely, he wouldn't humiliate himself on TV for fame, right? ... Right?

Taken altogether, we can see that Glenn Beck is a real, live, flesh-and-blood example of the perfect comic character. He possesses comic perspective, exaggeration, flaws, and humanity. Just like Michael Scott on The Office, or Jack Donaghy on 30 Rock. But the thing is, Glenn Beck isn’t a fictional character, and whether or not he actually believes half the crazy shit that comes out of his mouth, he at least appears to take himself very seriously. And so do his millions of viewers, although I like to believe that at least some of those viewers either take his bullshit with a grain of salt or they’re just high. Or they’re making a drinking game out of his TV show. (My liver hurts just thinking about that!)

Already this year, we’ve seen at least two incidents of right-wing domestic terrorism, in the actions of Scott Roeder and James von Brunn. It certainly wouldn’t be surprising if similar motivations were behind the recent killing of census worker Bill Sparkman, although to be fair, the investigation is still in full swing. I can’t say with any certainty whether any of those people followed Glenn Beck, or Bill O’Reilly, or Rush Limbaugh, or any of the other “They’re out to get us!” right-wing scaremongers. But I can say, with some degree of certainty, that things are changing in this country, and that’s resulting in a lot of anger, fear, and hatred, coming from, well, white guys who are viewing themselves as increasingly disenfranchised victims of the federal government.

As talking heads, Beck and his colleagues have some degree of control over the tenor of our political discourse. They should accept that and maybe think about toning down some of their more outlandish rhetoric. (Beck, remember, once joked on air about poisoning the Speaker of the House.) For years, conservatives have railed against Hollywood and television’s invidious influence on society. Sorry guys, but it’s too late to backtrack and tell us all that your own words have no impact on any unhinged listener’s violent actions.

And while I’ll concede that liberal talking heads say plenty of stupid things on their own (Janeane Garofalo, just shut up!), you’ll find very few, if any, actually advocating violence. (I personally can’t think of any myself, but I’m sure they’re out there.) On the other hand, it’s hard to think of a conservative talking head who hasn’t done so.

Dissent is great. Debate is fantastic. But we’re human beings, so we should be able to keep it civil, especially during a time of great difficulty for our country. Going on the radio or television and spewing your crazy conspiracy theories, telling your millions of viewers the government wants to pull the plug on grandma when you know damn well that isn’t true, is just irresponsible. Whether or not they mean it seriously, Glenn Beck and his associates often do us one worse when they actually advocate violence and chaos.

And there’s nothing funny about that.