I started this one in August. Happy reading.
From some libertarian (allegedly) website* via TMW: News about another brain-dead "conservative" attempt at humour and satire. As if the splattered shit they called "The Half-hour News Hour" wasn't evidence enough that these people are as funny as, oh, "a creepy 11-year old trying to put the moves on his best friend's hot 18-year old sister." Apparently this abomination will be called "An American Carol" in time for Christmas, in which a "liberal" (a parody of filmmaker Michael Moore) learns about what a horrible person he is:
From some libertarian (allegedly) website* via TMW: News about another brain-dead "conservative" attempt at humour and satire. As if the splattered shit they called "The Half-hour News Hour" wasn't evidence enough that these people are as funny as, oh, "a creepy 11-year old trying to put the moves on his best friend's hot 18-year old sister." Apparently this abomination will be called "An American Carol" in time for Christmas, in which a "liberal" (a parody of filmmaker Michael Moore) learns about what a horrible person he is:
Executive producer Myrna Sokoloff has put together a "pro-soldier, support our troops, pro-America" comedy, which Stephen Hayes previews in the new Weekly Standard. In it, filmmaker Michael Malone (Kevin "brother of Chris" Farley) and his organization MoveAlong.org are trying to repeal the Fourth of July when three angels—the Angel of Death, George S. Patton, and George Washington—come to him and convince him to change his ways. ... The footage we saw floated somewhere in the middle of those two projects, quality-wise. Fat-assed Malone travels to Cuba, pledges to destroy America, and takes advantage of the invisibility granted by ghost status by grabbing a protestor's boobs. Bill O'Reilly appears out of nowhere to slap him. "I just like doing that," he says. Terrorists led by everybody's favorite pockmarked tough guy Robert Davi bitch that they're low on suicide bombers ("All the good ones are gone!") and all answer to the name Mohammed. In a scene that Sokoloff described, but didn't bring, Patton and his soldiers storm a courthouse that's about to remove the Ten Commandments and start opening fire on the people trying to stop them. "You can't shoot these people!" Malone says. "They're not people!" says Patton. "They're the ACLU!" At this point we see that the ACLU members are unkillable George Romero zombies. ... In a clip we saw, Washington takes Malone to St. Paul's Cathedral to lecture him on freedom of religion and "freedom of speech, which you abuse." Malone is grossed out by dust in the priest's box, so the doors open onto the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center. "This is the dust of 3000 innocent human beings!" bellows Washington. Malone whimpers that he's just making movies. Washington won't have it. "Is that what you plan to say on Judgment Day?"
Let's examine this garbage in detail shall we? Because, once again, "conservatives" have provided us with more evidence that their entire political worldview is based on empty phrases, incoherent arguments, irrational hatreds and overall worthless garbage. It is the politics of stupidity, nothing more. Just like Blogging Tory "Hunter" who argued that the proof that Canada is a "conservative" country is self-evident in "our families and our land," the message of "An American Carol" is that US "conservatives" don't really have a fucking clue about what they're talking about -- ever.
Let's begin with their deranged, incoherent hatred of Michael Moore. For the life of me, I don't know where this shit comes from, either from the left or [and especially] the right-wing. Leftist critics tend to point to flaws in Moore's political analysis, which mainly arise from his delusions about the Democratic Party, and therefore conclude that he's part of the problem, a deliberate deceiver, out to lead progressive America astray at the behest of his corporate masters. Instead of reaching out to this hugely important voice for progressive criticism in the United States, and convince him of the flaws in his analysis, they decide to deride and condemn him. But leftist criticism is nothing compared to the paroxysms of hateful rage that issue from right-wingers. To them, Moore is some demonic entity (a grotesquely fat one) who hates all that is good and pure and who must be neutralized if their nation is to ever be saved. He is leftist evil incarnate.
How they get this from the man's work is inexplicable. "Roger and Me" about Moore's attempt to get GM CEO Roger Smith to come and see the damage his massive layoffs (while GM was still profitable) were doing to Flint Michigan? Michael Moore hates America. "Bowling for Columbine," about the USA's strange culture of aggressive gun-ownership that has made school shootings a too-frequent occurrence? Michael Moore hates America. "Fahrenheit 9-11," about the bush II regime's incompetence and laziness leading up to September 11th, 2001, and it's subsequent attacks on free speech and it's fabricated (now so obvious to all but those too insane to accept reality) crisis of Iraq's WMD's and criminal invasion of Iraq? Michael Moore just hates America. There's really no justification for the right-wing's visceral hatred. It's just irrational insanity.
Here's a self-described "conservative stalker" going after Moore. It's interesting in that the "conservative" guy is probably redeemable. He's just a product of a debased political culture that makes people suspicious of new ideas support a party of blatant militarism, racism, and corruption. When confronted with the fact that Moore can be a regular guy, the "conservative" is honest enough to admit it, however, he claims to remain politically opposed to Moore. (If you can call the sewer of "conservative" thought to constitute a political position.) The video itself shows a number of shots of Moore announcing his hatred of the Republican Party and his wish that it be defeated, as if these were self-evidently signs of loony-tunes radicalism.
Back to the stupid film:
filmmaker Michael Malone (Kevin "brother of Chris" Farley) and his organization MoveAlong.org are trying to repeal the Fourth of July ...
What the fuck does that even mean?? What? They don't like that date on the calendar? They hate America? Why? Because they don't like bush II? What utter nonsense!
Fat-assed Malone travels to Cuba, pledges to destroy America,
... and takes advantage of the invisibility granted by ghost status by grabbing a protestor's boobs. Bill O'Reilly appears out of nowhere to slap him. "I just like doing that," he says.
You've got to be fucking kidding me! O'Reilly slaps him?!? But maybe if they were really "spectacular boobies" O'Reilly would have joined him? O' - fucking- Reilly for whom FUCXNews had to pay millions to settle out of court for sexually harrassing an employee? Shameless stupidity; one of the hallmarks of right-wingers.
In a scene that Sokoloff described, but didn't bring, Patton and his soldiers storm a courthouse that's about to remove the Ten Commandments and start opening fire on the people trying to stop them. "You can't shoot these people!" Malone says. "They're not people!" says Patton. "They're the ACLU!" At this point we see that the ACLU members are unkillable George Romero zombies
In a clip we saw, Washington takes Malone to St. Paul's Cathedral to lecture him on freedom of religion and "freedom of speech, which you abuse." Malone is grossed out by dust in the priest's box, so the doors open onto the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center. "This is the dust of 3000 innocent human beings!" bellows Washington. Malone whimpers that he's just making movies. Washington won't have it. "Is that what you plan to say on Judgment Day?"
Maginficent. The perfect testimony to the empty wind-tunnel nature of the right-wing mind. "This is the dust of 3000 innocent human beings!" Yeah? So? The relevance to freedom of religion and freedom of speech (which leftists abuse apparently and so must lose)? They were killed as an assault on freedom of religion and freedom of speech? So, aside from the fact that that's totally wrong, what does it have to with Moore? Seriously. Is he opposed to religious freedom in his films now? Did I miss the Michael Moore movie where he called for the suppression of all religions and the imposition of atheism? Did Michael Moore take a stand on the issue of putting the Ten Commandments up in court-rooms?
Two things on this issue: First, for "conservative" nit-wits to pontificate about "freedom of religion" is pretty rich. They're the ones who are having conniptions because they belive (wrongly, like everything else they think) that Barack Obama is going to take the oath of office on the Koran. Apparently you can shove Christian mythology into everyone's face, but if Jewish, Muslim, or any other prayers were broadcast over their children's school P.A. system, they'd form a lynch mob.
Second of all, these "conservatives" are generally laughable hypocrites regarding their own professed religious beliefs. They worship war and wealth in spite of the fact that they're own holy book tells them that both are the way to Hell. And the religious symbolism that they want to shove into your face? They don't even know what it means themselves. Famous example: Republican Georgia congressman (since re-elected) Lynn Westmoreland, sponsored a bill to put the Ten Commandments up in Courtrooms across the country. Because they were central to who Americans were as a people, and they were an awesome guide for how to live your life. When asked to list them, the idiot could only remember three of them. It happened on a comedy show, because it's laughable. They're laughing-stocks. They're absurd. They're screwball comedy come to life. And they should have no power over our lives whatsoever. They're living jokes, not people with political views that need to be respected.
The victims of September 11th, 2001 died as casualties of blow-back from US Cold War and imperialist politics. The specific actions that produced the tragedy were made possible, to a great extent, by the incompetence and apathy of the unelected bush II regime. End-of-fucking-story. If George Washington wants to berate somebody about the dust of innocent victims it oughta be bush II and Cheney. Given the undeniable facts that they resisted setting up the 9-11 Commission and then withheld evidence from it, it's really those two repugnican mother-fuckers who ought to have George Washington yelling at them. Michael Moore's films had nothing whatsoever to do with 9-11 2001 and this movie's shamelessness and stupidity are mind-boggling.
Orcinus (David Neiwert) blogged on the deranged level of the right-wing. Essentially, whenever a crazed gunman takes out some "liberal" politician, minority-rights activist, abortion provider, women or feminists in general, or people watching a children's play at a Unitarian church, the MSM and the right-wing hot-air factories explain away the right-wing tendencies of said crazed gunmen because they're unrepresentative "loners" and "odd-balls." But that's the whole point says Neiwert:
Part of the problem is that we actually have seen this happen time after time after time: A mentally unstable person is inspired by hateful right-wing rhetoric to act out violently -- and yet because of that mental state, the matter is dismissed as idiosyncratic, just another "isolated incident." And over the months and years, these "isolated incidents" mount one after another.
But simply ascribing these acts to mental illness is a cop-out. It fails to account for the gross irresponsibility of the people who employed the rhetoric that inspired the violent action in the first place, and their resulting moral culpability.
The more articulate and restrained amongst these cretins makes freely with the violent, eliminationist rhetoric, and the less restrained amongst them actually puts these ideas into action. And they do this because they're mouth-breathing idiots who struggle and strain mightily, every day, trying to comprehend the world they've been cast into without the necessary resources.
Finally, a behaviour study demonstrates conservatives more shaken by surprise unsettling images and another one showing they are resistant to logical argument. By "resistant to logical argument" I mean what the study found, that when provided with a (now acknowledged) erroneous bush II regime talking-point, "conservatives" are able to disagree with the error. But when "conservatives" are provided with the talking-point and then a rebuttal, the majority of them tend to agree with the error, perhaps as a defensive response. The same sort of behaviour was not found to be a significant factor in people who self-identified as "liberal." (For record, i consider myself conservative in that I stick to intellectual positions very stubbornly. The difference between me and right-wingers is that when the facts make something screamingly obvious, I'm able to adapt to them, as opposed to sticking to erroneous opinions out of spite.)
To conclude, these are people to be pitied, not debated with. Except for experimental purposes.
*I'm not sure if it's genuinely libertarian or more of the "free markets are a vital part of any society's precious human freedoms and if you don't agree General Pinochet here will smash the bones in your fingers until you do" version of the free-market fanatic.
4 comments:
Good morning, thwap.
The Centrists hate M. Moore because he's showing them what needs fixing, and that would mean standing up to the wingnuts and their full-court lying press. Why, they'll talk mean about them, and call them unpatriotic. Dreadful. Nevermind that Medicare/Medicaid are well-managed for being underfunded, at roughly one-tenth the overhead costs as private Insurance, and the same practitioners would still be seen regardless of the payment scheme; Nope, that's "SOCIALISM", which will give you cancer.
FYI: reason has been very critical of the Iraq war from the get go, has done excellent pieces on various forms of corporate welfare, "the war on drugs" and "the war on terror", the abuse of eminent domain, and is a staunch defender of civil liberties.
Agreed, mark. Not every post at any site will be right on the money, and Reason has done a lot of thoughtful articles, so an occasional stinker is forgivable.
Actually, Reason was mocking the crappy conservative comedy. What I was going on about was that some "libertarian" perspectives, like, say The Economist talk much about civil liberties and even democracy, as if they like them, but when push comes to shove, they'll call for a Pinochet to protect their most sacred of all values, "free markets."
I don't know much about Reason magazine, which was why i wuz only speculating.
Post a Comment