I happened to catch an exchange between Bill Maher and Elisabeth Hasselbeck on The View this morning and came away with one question: why does Bill Maher hate women? Elisabeth confronted him over a tasteless joke he made back during the Lara Logan attack, saying that we (the US) will send Elisabeth Hasselbeck to Egypt in exchange for Lara. What about that joke is funny? The implication is we'll send Elisabeth to be brutally attacked. Funny? I think not. Unless you're a blind liberal.
Remember the Gabby Giffords tragedy? Suddenly liberals were up in arms about the lack of civil discourse in our society and in politics, and were quick to point to Palin's campaign for using target symbols as the likely culprit for Jared Loughner's crazy actions. And there was NO implication of violence in Palin's crosshairs. There IS implication of violence Maher's tasteless joke.
I was shocked that the fellow co-hosts didn't stick up for Elisabeth. These ladies are supposed to be feminists and liberated women. These women are all up in arms about Herman Cain's alleged behavior towards women, yet they were silent on Bill's tasteless joke. Barbara insulted all women's intelligence when she told Elisabeth that she had to put up with "Baba Wawa" for years and she lived. Um, dear Barbara, please tell us what part of the "Baba Wawa" joke implicated violence, sexual, brutal violence, against you? Would you feel the same way if a conservative comedian "joked" that we'll take Lara Logan back and send Barbara Walters in her place. Something tells me the self-righteous Walters would not be happy.
So why didn't the ladies stand up for Elisabeth? Where is their moral compass? This is a huge problem that conservatives have with liberals: it's impossible to find their moral compass. Bill gave a weak argument that she is a public figure and he is a comedian on HBO, therefore his job is to flirt with the line and she is a public figure so she is naturally going to be a target. Joy chimed in that it's true that comedians do flirt with a line. The problem is, liberals don't have a clear line. That line moves depending on who is making the joke and who is the butt of the joke. Apparently when Bill Maher makes an awful joke about violence against women, libs, or at least the libs on The View, think this is a funny joke. I'm with Elisabeth; I don't understand how that is funny.
I hadn't heard about the tasteless joke at the time, and when I heard it this morning I was appalled. And I continued to be appalled that the ladies didn't stand up for Elisabeth, didn't recognize how tasteless of a joke that was. Those ladies seem to have no moral code, and their outrage over other issues rings hollow when they don't stand up for one of their own.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Glitter Gate
What does one do when they feel passionately about a cause and want to sway others to their side? Well, I guess it depends on your maturity level. If you're Nick Espinosa, you dump glitter on a presidential contender and former Speaker of the House.
Conducting an act as immature as that makes one wonder what Espinosa really hoped to gain. His act seems designed more for gaining notoriety for himself than it does in swaying public opinion on gay rights. After all, the dialogue I've read about Glitter Gate is focusing on the act itself and the "embarrassment" to Gingrich, but not on the plight of the gay population. I once had an art instructor that said technique should never get in the way of message, and ironically, that totally applies in this situation.
Those that already agree with Espinosa will continue to agree with him. So if you're an activist, I would imagine you want to do more than just raise awareness about an issue; I would think you would want to educate, inform, and persuade those on the opposing side. Espinosa, however, seems to be an activist form of Jackass: 'Let's see how much attention I can get for the outrageous things I do', and sadly, his acts are at the expense of the gay community. Because those that do not agree with Espinosa will look at this act and view it as disrespectful and immature, and it does nothing to further the dialogue that I can only assume many wish to have.
So congratulations, Nick Espinosa, YOU certainly got a lot of attention!
Conducting an act as immature as that makes one wonder what Espinosa really hoped to gain. His act seems designed more for gaining notoriety for himself than it does in swaying public opinion on gay rights. After all, the dialogue I've read about Glitter Gate is focusing on the act itself and the "embarrassment" to Gingrich, but not on the plight of the gay population. I once had an art instructor that said technique should never get in the way of message, and ironically, that totally applies in this situation.
Those that already agree with Espinosa will continue to agree with him. So if you're an activist, I would imagine you want to do more than just raise awareness about an issue; I would think you would want to educate, inform, and persuade those on the opposing side. Espinosa, however, seems to be an activist form of Jackass: 'Let's see how much attention I can get for the outrageous things I do', and sadly, his acts are at the expense of the gay community. Because those that do not agree with Espinosa will look at this act and view it as disrespectful and immature, and it does nothing to further the dialogue that I can only assume many wish to have.
So congratulations, Nick Espinosa, YOU certainly got a lot of attention!
Katie the Brilliant?
Now that Katie Couric is leaving her anchor post at CBS, there is talk about her interview with Sarah Palin, rehashing the "glory" of taking Palin down. Am I the only one that sees the irony of lifting Katie up for taking Sarah down? Let's just follow some simple logic:
Allegedly Palin is an uneducated idiot who is unqualified to hold public office.
Allegedly Katie is a brilliant journalist who can drive in for the kill when she needs to.
Because Katie exposed Palin's weaknesses we are to believe that Katie is a brilliant journalist.
Um, is it really hard to expose an unqualified idiot? If Palin is as big an idiot as the liberal talking heads would have us believe, then really any journalist would have been able to expose her. So that leaves us with one of two conclusions: either Katie is not as brilliant as she wants to make herself out to be or Palin isn't as big an idiot as everyone says she is and therefore it took some keen journalistic skills to out her.
Allegedly Palin is an uneducated idiot who is unqualified to hold public office.
Allegedly Katie is a brilliant journalist who can drive in for the kill when she needs to.
Because Katie exposed Palin's weaknesses we are to believe that Katie is a brilliant journalist.
Um, is it really hard to expose an unqualified idiot? If Palin is as big an idiot as the liberal talking heads would have us believe, then really any journalist would have been able to expose her. So that leaves us with one of two conclusions: either Katie is not as brilliant as she wants to make herself out to be or Palin isn't as big an idiot as everyone says she is and therefore it took some keen journalistic skills to out her.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Loudmouths and Sarah Palin
Has hell frozen over? Joy Behar, out from The View all last week, rejoined the ladies this week and had her first chance to chime in on the Sarah Palin craze. Most liberals in the media (so basically, 95% of all major media) blame Sarah Palin's brand of politics for the Tucson shooting. Joy Behar, however, made me about fall out of my chair this morning. She stated that she does not blame Sarah Palin. Joy recognizes that it's a dangerous road to blame Palin because that same microscope has to be put on everyone else that expresses any kind of opinion in public. Joy admitted that she herself is a loudmouth, just like Palin, and that every loudmouth out there will have to be looked at. I can't believe I'm saying it but Joy Behar is actually the voice of reason on this issue. Too bad the major media doesn't agree.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Civil Discourse Starts With Our Media
Is anyone besides me feeling like common sense is gone and double standards and irrationality has taken over? I've been watching the media firestorm over the Tucson shootings. When I found out the injured congresswoman was a democrat, I knew that within 24 hours the mainstream media would be blaming Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and the right wing. I was right on who they were blaming, but they came out swinging much more quickly than I had anticipated. Within hours of the shooting the accusations were flying against Palin and the "vitriol". Isn't it nice that the "vitriol" on the left has somehow escaped scrutiny?
Palin endured a media firestorm for days and other than a message of condolence, she stayed silent on the accusations against her. Anyone with common sense and rational thinking skills (or any truly "objective" journalist) would know that you don't start pointing the finger until you have some idea of who the shooter is and what his motivations might be. As we've seen from the evidence that has since come out, Loughner appeared both apolitical and very disturbed. But that didn't stop the MSM from continuing to point the finger at the "vitriol" from Palin and talk radio, and they are now pushing for the Fairness Doctrine. Have they no shame? Will they politicize absolutely everything?
I've digressed. Palin stayed quiet for days while multiple news outlets and personalities had their say about her and accused her for being complicit in the shooting. Finally, Palin releases an 8 minute video in defense of herself. And the insanity ensued.
One alphabet soup network declared that Sarah had managed to interject herself again into a news story. Um, didn't the rabid left interject her into a story that had absolutely nothing to do with her? And so Palin defending herself is "interjecting herself"? Another alphabet soup accused her of playing the victim card. Again, how can she defend herself against wild, unfounded accusations that are coming from every single mainstream news outlet without sounding like a victim? What defense could she have given that would shut the talking heads up? And do the talking heads of all these outlets not realize they are fueling the fire that they are claiming is destructive? By having so much power through the media, they render the rest of us powerless, and powerlessness leads to desperation to be heard, as well as anger at the insanity and injustice of it, and the divisiveness continues.
I just saw the the New York Times compared both Palin's "speech" and Obama's "speech". The two cannot be compared. Obama was not accused of being complicit in the shooting; Palin was. Obama is our elected leader; Palin is not. Obama was giving a speech at a memorial service (does anyone besides me question why on earth he went down there?) and Palin released a video defending herself. Yet the Times deemed it necessary to compare the two speeches. Now, I know most people will be surprised by the Times' summation, but they found Obama's speech to be inspirational (implied) and Palin's to be an example of the "vitriol" that the MSM had been talking about.
I want a MSM that will treat both the right and the left equally. Currently the MSM are acting as though the left has never engaged in over the top antics, violent images, and vitriolic rhetoric. If the MSM truly cares about the discourse in our country, they could go along way towards healing if they would just treat the right and the left the same. But right now they are so predictably against the right that I was able to predict exactly who they would blame for the shooting since it was a Democrat that had been targeted. (And I find it sad that they have given barely a mention of the conservative justice that lost his life that day)
Despite their shallow pleas for a more civil discourse in our country, unless they are willing to look in a mirror at their own actions, the MSM is going to find that the discourse will most likely get worse as they use their power to favor one side over another and dole out misinformation and unfounded accusations.
Palin endured a media firestorm for days and other than a message of condolence, she stayed silent on the accusations against her. Anyone with common sense and rational thinking skills (or any truly "objective" journalist) would know that you don't start pointing the finger until you have some idea of who the shooter is and what his motivations might be. As we've seen from the evidence that has since come out, Loughner appeared both apolitical and very disturbed. But that didn't stop the MSM from continuing to point the finger at the "vitriol" from Palin and talk radio, and they are now pushing for the Fairness Doctrine. Have they no shame? Will they politicize absolutely everything?
I've digressed. Palin stayed quiet for days while multiple news outlets and personalities had their say about her and accused her for being complicit in the shooting. Finally, Palin releases an 8 minute video in defense of herself. And the insanity ensued.
One alphabet soup network declared that Sarah had managed to interject herself again into a news story. Um, didn't the rabid left interject her into a story that had absolutely nothing to do with her? And so Palin defending herself is "interjecting herself"? Another alphabet soup accused her of playing the victim card. Again, how can she defend herself against wild, unfounded accusations that are coming from every single mainstream news outlet without sounding like a victim? What defense could she have given that would shut the talking heads up? And do the talking heads of all these outlets not realize they are fueling the fire that they are claiming is destructive? By having so much power through the media, they render the rest of us powerless, and powerlessness leads to desperation to be heard, as well as anger at the insanity and injustice of it, and the divisiveness continues.
I just saw the the New York Times compared both Palin's "speech" and Obama's "speech". The two cannot be compared. Obama was not accused of being complicit in the shooting; Palin was. Obama is our elected leader; Palin is not. Obama was giving a speech at a memorial service (does anyone besides me question why on earth he went down there?) and Palin released a video defending herself. Yet the Times deemed it necessary to compare the two speeches. Now, I know most people will be surprised by the Times' summation, but they found Obama's speech to be inspirational (implied) and Palin's to be an example of the "vitriol" that the MSM had been talking about.
I want a MSM that will treat both the right and the left equally. Currently the MSM are acting as though the left has never engaged in over the top antics, violent images, and vitriolic rhetoric. If the MSM truly cares about the discourse in our country, they could go along way towards healing if they would just treat the right and the left the same. But right now they are so predictably against the right that I was able to predict exactly who they would blame for the shooting since it was a Democrat that had been targeted. (And I find it sad that they have given barely a mention of the conservative justice that lost his life that day)
Despite their shallow pleas for a more civil discourse in our country, unless they are willing to look in a mirror at their own actions, the MSM is going to find that the discourse will most likely get worse as they use their power to favor one side over another and dole out misinformation and unfounded accusations.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Well, apparently George W Bush's memoir is selling more copies than Bill Clinton's memoir did. As you can imagine, this has liberals in a tizzy, looking for an explanation. After all, conservatives don't read, and everybody hates GW, right? So, one of the explanations being touted is that people like to read about people they hate. Amazing how I've never heard this explanation for books by Barack. In liberals' minds, it is impossible for a conservative to be liked, especially one that they hate so much. If they would ever step out of their bubble and visit "flyover country" they would meet the millions that love GW. Liberals have wrongly equated a low approval rating with hatred for the former president.
There are many people that disapproved of GW's leadership as president, but still like the man himself. I believe that polling questions should have been more elaborate during his presidency. Do you approve of the job the president is doing? If no, do you think he needs to be more conservative, more moderate, or more liberal? I think the answers to those questions would have been very telling. Liberals are always going to hate a Republican president, always, so we can expect low approval numbers from them. When a Republican fails to act conservatively, then conservatives are going to disapprove of his job performance as well. I believe that conservatives disapproved of GW's job performance because he did not veto any spending bills, and sent our country on the path of a spending frenzy. Although, compared to the current administration, GW looks downright fiscally conservative. But, with Democrats controlling Congress for GW's last 2 years of office, conservatives expected some vetoes of the outrageous spending bills, and he didn't do that, so we disapproved of his job. Didn't mean we didn't like him and wouldn't look forward to reading his memoir; it just meant we wished he would govern as a conservative.
I know this will be a hard concept for the elite liberals to grasp, so they will continue to cling to their nonsensical explanations and paint the rest of us as stupid. But, the rest of us know that job approval does not equate to hatred of the president, and we will continue to lift sales of GW's memoirs to downright inexplicable numbers for the liberals:0)
There are many people that disapproved of GW's leadership as president, but still like the man himself. I believe that polling questions should have been more elaborate during his presidency. Do you approve of the job the president is doing? If no, do you think he needs to be more conservative, more moderate, or more liberal? I think the answers to those questions would have been very telling. Liberals are always going to hate a Republican president, always, so we can expect low approval numbers from them. When a Republican fails to act conservatively, then conservatives are going to disapprove of his job performance as well. I believe that conservatives disapproved of GW's job performance because he did not veto any spending bills, and sent our country on the path of a spending frenzy. Although, compared to the current administration, GW looks downright fiscally conservative. But, with Democrats controlling Congress for GW's last 2 years of office, conservatives expected some vetoes of the outrageous spending bills, and he didn't do that, so we disapproved of his job. Didn't mean we didn't like him and wouldn't look forward to reading his memoir; it just meant we wished he would govern as a conservative.
I know this will be a hard concept for the elite liberals to grasp, so they will continue to cling to their nonsensical explanations and paint the rest of us as stupid. But, the rest of us know that job approval does not equate to hatred of the president, and we will continue to lift sales of GW's memoirs to downright inexplicable numbers for the liberals:0)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)