Thomas Frank is making sense

thomasfrank.jpg

Holy freaking crap, does Thomas Frank ever get a gigantic “Heh-Indeedy” for this:

If Barack Obama or anyone else really cares to know what I think, I will simplify it all down to this. The landmark political fact of our time is the replacement of our middle-class republic by a plutocracy. If some candidate has a scheme to reverse this trend, they’ve got my vote, whether they prefer Courvoisier or beer bongs spiked with cough syrup. I don’t care whether they enjoy my books, or would rather have every scrap of paper bearing my writing loaded into a C-47 and dumped into Lake Michigan. If it will help restore the land of relative equality I was born in, I’ll fly the plane myself.

Memo to Clinton and Obama supporters: your candidates’ differences are vastly smaller than their similarities. Also: they’re politicians. Politicians are not saviors. Politicians are there to be used to achieve political goals. As long as you elect one of them that isn’t actively hostile to your interests – and let’s be honest, neither HRC nor Barry X are in the same category as Holy Joe Lieberman – then it isn’t all that important which one of them gets in. I supported Obama mostly because he was right on the Iraq war from the start and I thought it was important for that particular viewpoint to get the mainstream cred in the press that it deserves. But other than that, I honestly don’t care. Both of them have similar strengths and weaknesses. Both are vastly better than St. BBQ.

That is all.

(Also, I should’ve stuck to my guns from the beginning and become a fanatical Mike Gravel supporter. Oh wellz, that’s water under teh bridge and whatnot.)

 

Glennzilla’s new book

glennbook1.jpg

The most famous scene in Paddy Chayefsky’s ingenious satire Network comes when its main character, TV anchorman Howard Beale, delivers a long tirade where he declares himself “mad as hell” and “not going to take it anymore.” But even before Beale goes off on his “mad as hell” kick in the film, he gives another, equally poignant monologue in which he declares himself tired of delivering people bullshit every day:

I don’t have any bullshit left. I just ran out of it, you see — every day, five days a week, for fifteen years, I’ve been sitting behind that desk — the dispassionate pundit — reporting with seemly detachment the daily parade of lunacies that constitute the news, and just once I wanted to say what I really felt.

It is in this context that we should read Glenn Greenwald’s latest book, called Great American Hypocrites. Glenn, like a lot of us, is sick of all the bullshit in American politics. He is tired of our press corps reporting incessantly on only the most shallow, personality-based topics all the while ignoring issues such as the war, the economy and the Bush administration’s rampant lawlessness. In this book, he examines how the right’s propaganda machine not only depicts Democrats as effete, aloof elitists (AL GORE USES ELECTRICITY!!! JOHN KERRY WIND-SURFS!!!), but how it builds up Republicans as tuff, manly defenders of traditional Amurkin values.

As Greenwald documents, this ploy has been remarkably successful. Our elite “press corps” has spilled countless ink and pixels detailing the horrors of John Edwards’ expensive haircut, Hillary Clinton’s laugh, Al Gore’s earth-tones, Barack Obama’s bowling, and on and on and on and on and on. John McCain, meanwhile, has gotten the most astonishing free ride of any American politician in recent memory, as alleged “journalists” trip over themselves to hand him boxes of donuts and to attend his private barbecues. How do we on the left combat this sort of stupid nonsense? Greenwald says that the solution is simple: just relentlessly point out how utterly full of shit the Republicans are.

As Greenwald notes, the GOP and its propagandists in the press frequently “personify the sexual sleaze and amoral hedonism against which they endlessly sermonize.” Examples include Newt Gingrich, a serial adulterer who ditched his first wife while she was recovering from cancer surgery; Rush Limbaugh, with his drug addiction and “Viagra-fueled jaunts to the Dominican Republic”; David Vitter, the “Values Voter” champion who frequented Madame Deborah Palfrey’s high-class prostitution service; Mark Foley and his lewd emails to congressional pages; Larry “Wide Stance” Craig, Bill “Falafel King” O’Reilly, etc., etc. In each case, Greenwald shows that all of these men have a long record of statements supporting “family values” issues such as the Federal Marriage Amendment and the Defense of Marriage Act, and that none of them personally adhere to the lofty standards that they espouse for others.

In addition to Republicans’ proclivity for personal vice, Greenwald also documents their shameless chickenhawkery and how their alleged love for small government disappears the minute they gain political power. They are, in short, completely full of shit about everything they claim to stand for and deserve to be hammered for it repeatedly. Greenwald’s tone throughout the book is not gentle, which is one of the reasons why fed-up lefties such as myself enjoy reading him so much. His polemical prose has all the tact and subtlety of a chainsaw, and given the subject he’s discussing, this is entirely appropriate. After all, it’s difficult to point out that vast swathes of our political elites are full of shit by being polite and restrained.

The bottom line, peeps, is you should buy this book. Greenwald is one of the most tireless and passionate voices in the lefty blogosphere and this book is a fine addition to his already-impressive and significant body of work.

 

Our dumb media

NBC just informed me that Hillary Clinton has a 21-point lead over Obama among bowlers, but that the two are dead-even among beer drinkers. I literally dropped my remote control when I saw this.

Anyway, I’ve got a review of Glenn Greenwald’s latest book coming shortly. It’s sadly more relevant than ever.

 

Happy 4-20!!!


Above: Dirty Fucking Hippie

I hope everyone remembered to toke it up today*. Or ‘seig, heil’ Our Hitlery of the Liberal Fascist Ganjakopfs. Or something. Anything. Personally, after a few hits from the bong, I like to snort a line of fetal stem cells off a gay stripper’s ass and then ululate, at the peak of my buzz and the top of my lungs, a fatwa against America and apple pie. Then I poop on the flag. But the fact of the matter is, your mileage may vary.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

Knee-Deep in the Dumb

dafydd.jpg

ABOVE: Dafydd and His Weiner Sammie


A reporter for the Los Angeles Times made the heinous error of writing in a review of the HBO miniseries John Adams that George Washington stepped down after his first term. This, of course, has caused a group conniption fit among the sweatpants and cheetos crowd. More proof, they splutter, that liberals hate America so much that they can’t even keep the basic facts about our sacred Founding Fathers straight.

Not surprisingly our friend and faux-Welshman Dafydd Ab Hugh (né David Friedman) waddled straight into the controversy:

The HBO miniseries presumes throughout that viewers have some basic knowledge of colonial and early American history — a rather unfair disadvantage to liberals in the first place.

Now it would seem to me that if Dafydd is going to tout the superiority of his grasp of American history as compared to that of foolish liberals, it might be a good idea to avoid making any howlers himself:

Ergo, it doesn’t bang you over the head with irrelevancies… such as Washington’s 1792 reelection. They don’t bother showing it: Nobody “ran” for president back then, as you know; the electors were chosen by the states and sent to the capitol (Philadelphia, in Washington’s case) to cast their votes.

Sadly, no. The electors vote in their own states and send their votes, not themselves, to Congress to be counted. This is how it was done in 1792 and how it has been done ever since — except apparently on Phobos, which appears to be the only planet celestial body, real or imagined, about which Dafydd can claim any expertise.

 

Being Mark Steyn Means Never Having To Say You’re Stupid

Is he dumb?  Listen, bud

ABOVE: With great power comes great imbecility


Because he is somewhat articulate and gives the appearance of thinking before he speaks, it is easy to believe that Mark “The Human” Steyn is only stupid about politics. But, in fact, as with his as-portrayed-by-Arnold-Stang American counterpart James Lileks, the musical theater enthusiast is capable of being stupid about any subject to which he puts his pen, as we see in a recent article he wrote for Macleans (“the National Review of the Frozen North”).

The article concerns legendary comic book artist Jack Kirby, and since politics and superheroes are two of my nerdiest obsessions, naturally I was thrilled when I heard that one of the dumbest political pundits in North America had turned his attention to one of the greatest superhero artists in history. How long would it take for Mark to make a total jackass of himself? One paragraph? Two? As it turns out, he didn’t get any farther than the title:

WHAM! Spider-Man, the Hulk . . .

Astute readers, of course, will be aware that Jack Kirby had nothing to do with Spider-Man. But hey, as I am all too aware, magazine writers do not often have the privilege of writing their own titles and/or headlines. Perhaps this was just an innocent goof on the part of some Maclean’s intern; let’s give Mark the benefit of the doubt and see what he’s got to say.

Let’s go back to the sidewalk, and ask pedestrians if they know Spider-Man, the Incredible Hulk, the X-Men…If they’re pretty much anyone under, say, 55 to 60, they’ll say sure. If they’re under 75, maybe the Fantastic Four and the Silver Surfer don’t ring any bells, but they’ll have heard of Captain America.

Hmm. I’m not sure what he’s trying to establish here. That people over 60 won’t have heard of Spider-Man? That seems kind of odd, given that people born before 1948 would have been adolescents (in other words, comics’ target demographic at the time) when the character debuted to great popularity. He then seems to claim that only people over 75 will have heard of the Fantastic Four or the Silver Surfer, which seems even odder, because if you were born in 1933 or before, you probably didn’t pay much attention to comics in the mid-’60s. But hey, this is arts criticism, not math! Let’s leave the poor guy alone and let him talk.

Who created — or co-created — all of the above? A fellow by the name of Jack Kirby.

Oh, dear. This is a bit harder to work around. Jack Kirby didn’t create or co-create Spider-Man. That task fell to reclusive genius/right-wing Objectivist crank Steve Ditko. Beyond drawing the cover of his first appearance, Kirby never had anything to do with Spidey, and was never even a regular artist on any of his regular titles. Okay, so, Mark has made a pretty egregious factual error about a subject at the very start of a two-page article about that subject in a national magazine. But surely he won’t make it any worse by yammering on about politics, right? Right!

Stan [Lee] was Marvel’s head writer and presiding genius and, to a couple of generations of readers, Mister Comics. (I met him briefly at the Democratic convention in Los Angeles in 2000: yes, he’s a Democrat — why do you think comic-book heroes gave up truth, justice and the American way to sit around on rooftops like Spidey riddled with self-doubt about whether their awesome powers are a blessing or a curse?)

Of course! Stan didn’t make his characters psychologically deep and riddled with anxiety in an attempt to bring more adult, sophisticated writing to a medium that had previously been aimed at children. He didn’t do it because he wanted to make them easier to relate to, more human and resonant. He did it because he’s a dirty filthy stinking liberal! Curiously, no one seems to have tipped Mark that Jack Kirby was also a lifelong Democrat, and much more of a liberal than Stan: Kirby supported unions, was an early champion of civil rights, and was doing a comic that satirized McCarthyism at a time when Marvel was still cranking out tons of books with sinister Commie villains.

Mark goes on to lament how much more money Stan Lee made than Jack Kirby, which has to be the only time in his career he’s stood up for an employee against management. (He also makes it out that Stan is committing some sort of crime by continuing to rake in the bucks — “Jack wasn’t that jolly by the late sixties, and Stan’s still smilin’, still pulling down gazillion-dollar-a-year retainers for ‘consulting’ on this or that” — which is not only suspiciously anti-capitalistic for a movement conservative like Steyn, but also ignores the fact that Stan has the advantage of still being alive. Kirby died 14 years ago, but had he lived, he might just have recouped a lot of the money he felt that Marvel owed him thanks to the groundbreaking efforts of dirty filthy liberal Democrat trial lawyers like Marc Toberoff.) Someone get this guy a copy of Mr. A, quick!

 

Name 3 things the average American doesn’t do

According to David Brooks, those things are: ride a tank, windsurf, and get a haircut:

But the fact is that voters want a president who basically shares their values and life experiences. Fairly or not, they look at symbols like Michael Dukakis in a tank, John Kerry’s windsurfing or John Edwards’s haircut as clues about shared values.

BTW: Shared values and life experiences? Dukakis in a tank? WTF?!? Guess it’s too bad Dukakis didn’t look like this.

 

A Tale of Two Covers

“A disgrace.”

iowa_jima_gw.jpg

“Forthrightly patriotic.”

iowa_jima_cheney.jpg

 

Do I Have To Draw A Picture For You?

sandy_rios.jpg

ABOVE: Sandy Rios


Sandy Rios, the anti-gay divorcée who was too crazy for, and fired from, Concerned Women for America, is over at Clown Hall today once again demonstrating that she has more hair than brains. Lots more hair.

“We will rid the church of pedophile priests,” said Pope Benedict on his flight to America. That’s good news except for one thing: the root problem among the priests was homosexuality, not pedophilia. Pedophilia is the attraction by adults to children, both boys and girls and the priest scandals have been, with few exceptions, man to boy.

Okay, we can either laugh, cry, slam down three martinis, resort to Venn Diagrams, or do all those things. Excuse me while I do the first three. I’ll be back in a moment with the Venn Diagrams.

. . . . . . . .

Okay, back:

venn_diagram.png

Now although the intersection between teh gay and teh pedophiles should be smaller than the one between teh straight and teh pedophiles, this diagram is an otherwise accurate representation. Sandy has somehow gotten it lodged in her “hair brain” that because pedophiles as a class are attracted to boys and girls, then a group that is attracted only to boys can’t be pedophiles. Sadly, as we say here, no.

And things go downhill from their because Sandy somehow thinks that all gay men want to have sex with little boys and she has the evidence to prove it:

Man/Boy “Love” has been a staple in homosexual practice since the time of the ancient Greeks, famous for taking young boys as students and bonding with them sexually.

Gay men, of course, are still completely influenced by ancient Greek culture which is why so many of them prance around in linen tunics, keep slaves and consult the Oracle of Delphi before making important decisions.

Modern gay magazines have regularly advertised for “Chickens,” defined by Bruce Rogers in “Gay-Talk: A Dictionary of Gay Slang” as “any boy under the age of consent … heterosexual … fair of face and unfamiliar with homosexuality.”

Where is she getting this shit? I mean, I have perused my fair share of “modern gay magazines” — probably hundreds of “modern gay magazines” if you count Gourmet and The New Yorker too — and I haven’t seen them “advertising for chickens,” whatever that means. (Maybe it means “Wanted: chicken to assist in subscription sales department” or perhaps it’s a reference to advertisements for the Backstreet Boys?)

It is a disservice to shift the focus of the Catholic Church disgrace to pedophilia in order to soft pedal the larger danger of homosexual behavior to an ever-increasingly, gay-sympathetic public. Denying the correlation of homosexuality and priest-abusers of young boys further enforces the persuasive myth of activists that it is “just another lifestyle.”

It’s a disservice to whom exactly? Pedophiles? And am I gonna have to drag out some more Venn diagrams? Although every priest who abuses boys is gay, not every gay priest abuses boys And although every abuser is a pedophile, not all abusers are homosexual. It’s estimated that 20 percent of the victims of abuse by priests were females, and the last I checked the Catholic Church hasn’t started ordaining lesbians.

I guess I’ll just have to draw another picture for Sandy:

venn3.png

Which reminds me of another Venn diagram

venn4.png

Or, to paraphrase John Stuart Mill — “All Republicans aren’t stupid, but all stupid people are Republicans.”

 

2Nite: Teh SF Drinking Sadlyly Drinks 4 Drinking Drinkers Of Drinky Drink-Drinks

Where: Edinburgh Castle, 950 Geary St., San Francisco, CA 94109, (415) 885-4074

When: Friday, April 18, 2008, 6pm to whenever

Who: Everybody who wants to meet up with S,N!, Three Bulls! and BARBARians! regulars and their extensive, high-maintenance entourages

Pass-phrase: “The Ruppert soars at dawn.”

Lost? Call (415) 630-3527

Lonely? Come Drink Sadlyly with us!