There is so much brilliance here that words can not describe it:
The part about the gay mafia/Gestapo is so priceless that it can virtually save our economy all by itself.
Sometimes I think I understand all of the abovie in an abstract way – but then the pure reality of their bigotry smacks me in the face.
(via)
Glen Beck, submitted without comment:
Now you’ve got the former vice-president of the United States and a Nobel Prize winner looking your kid in the eye and telling them, ‘You know what? You know things that your mom and dad don’t.’
… The government and its friends are indoctrinating our children for the control of their minds, your freedom, and our choice and our future. It must STOP! Because history — when properly taught — has already shown us where it leads. This is what Nazi leader Josef Goebbels said about the Hitler Youth:
If such an art of active mass influence through propaganda is joined with the long-term systematic education of a nation, and if both are conducted in a unified and precise way, the relationship between the leadership and the nation will always remain close.
Well, what’s next? If Mom and Dad decide to keep the temperature above 72, should our ‘Gore Youth’ report Mom and Dad? Should they also report groundings and spankings every time Daddy comes home to watch that evil Fox News?
(via)
In some commentary on CNN’s main page today, Glenn Beck comes this close to making a good point, before his argument completely crumbles into nonsense. It’s really extraordinary how quickly the whole thing falls apart.
The opening of the commentary gripes about an AP article detailing Obama’s exercising schedule. Fair complaint. The AP undoubtedly has better things to do than fluff pieces. Then he gives some statistics on the amount of time spent on Obama vs. the amount of time spent on McCain since June. Still acceptable, though undoubtedly much of that coverage was due to Obama securing the Democratic nomination. He complains about the large number of reporters following Obama to the Middle East when barely any did the same for McCain during his trip in March. Let’s not forget Clinton vs. Obama was still in full swing during March, so fair or not, that greatly overshadowed McCain’s trip. Still, there’s nothing wrong with making that point.
Minor complaints aside, those points do lead up valid conclusion:
“…To be fair, Men’s Vogue also did an in-depth story on John McCain but, strangely, a photo of McCain didn’t make their cover.
Why the disparity? According to Men’s Vogue deputy editor Ned Martel, there’s a simple explanation: Obama “is what is called in the magazine world an ‘interest driver.’” Translation: Obama sells magazines.
As a conservative, I can’t argue with that logic. “The Media” aren’t around for their health, they’re around to make money, and if Obama drives sales or ratings, then I can’t really blame them for continuing to tap that well until it runs dry….”
And there you have it, Glenn. Right in your fingers. A legitimate point that you can take in so many directions. You could skewer the celebrity-obsessed media for treating Barack and Michelle like they were Brad and Angelina instead of a politician and his wife. You could challenge media outlets to rise above cheap ways to drive up ratings. You might even use this space to declare that your show will not resort to such tabloid journalism and will only discuss Obama’s policies. (Alright, maybe that last one is wishful thinking.) C’mon Glenn, show me what you’ve got!
I do, however, find it funny that many of the same people who are clearly not fans of big business or truly free markets have embraced this “run what rates” philosophy. I guess capitalism is evil until it’s you whose paycheck is at stake.
Wait… but… weren’t you just… You were upset about this a second ago. Who are these people you’re talking about who’ve embraced this philosophy? The editors at the major media outlets? Since when have they hated capitalism? What the hell does the above paragraph mean?
But all of this points to a larger point: We’ve become a country that continually chooses the sizzle over the steak. McCain may not get my vote, but he gets my admiration for at least offering some substance and new ideas when he speaks. Obama, meanwhile, is like the rock star who’s realized that he can just scream unintelligible words into the microphone between songs, and the entire stadium will still scream. When your fans already love you, there’s no reason to risk it by offering anything that might be controversial. Remember the Dixie Chicks?
What… what? The Dixie Chicks? What the hell are you talking about?
As candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain are ironically a lot like the way the media treats them: Obama is the glitzy magazine cover that screams for people to buy the issue, and McCain is the fact-filled article buried inside that makes you glad you did.
Who are you Alanis Morrisette? That’s not at all what ironic means! It would be ironic if Obama and McCain were the opposite of the way they were treated. That’s what irony is, when something is the opposite of what is expected. And where’s all this substance you’re talking about McCain having? And where’s the lack of substance that Obama has? This isn’t at all where you started with this article. This isn’t reflected in any thing you said above. How can this be your conclusion? You started out complaining about partisan, sensationalist coverage of Obama and somehow ended with a partisan conclusion about the quality of the candidates. I might as well end this post with “In conclusion, McCain is a cranky old man.” I understand that in critiquing media bias you always run the risk of exposing your own bias… but c’mon Glenn… you could have at least tried to keep your point coherent.
Glenn Beck, you get a D+ on this paper, though you can rewrite the last three paragraphs for extra credit if you turn it in by Friday. Also, for future assignments, you might want to bring drafts by the writer’s workshop offered by the English department. Many students have found it to be very useful in helping to organize their ideas on paper.
This is just utter silliness.
1.) There is no actual proof (the article was unsourced, which means it was just based on jack shit) that this veteran was spat on. Plus, the vet’s story has shifted at least a couple of times.
2.) He wasn’t spat on, he was spat at. A technical but important difference.
3.) The story seems that one jackass out of the thousands of protesters at the rally spat at a veteran. If this is true, the spiter is an asshole but one asshole at the anti-war protest does not make all of the anti-war protesters assholes. Just like one crazy anti-choice activist at a anti-choice rally does not make all anti-choice protesters crazy.
4.) As the Media Matters points out, there is no empirical evidence that Vietnam vets were ever spat on. None. All stories about such incidents are, at best, circumstantial. The ‘hippies/anti-war people spat on our troops’ line of thinking is a very dangerous myth that continues to damage American discourse to this day.
Beck, like usual, just gets on TV and blowvates about something that he knows little about. Seriously, what sort of productive, insightful commentary has this man ever produced?
I truly believe Glenn Beck is the worst commentator on TV. At least O’Reilly and Hannity use coded language. I mean, fuck, even Rush does.
Is being an asshole all that’s required to get a cable news show these days?
