The missing letters are WTF?
Posted on 2009.27.08 at 20:50where am I: That state just south of Massachusetts
Soundtrack: disco covers wafting over from Chelo's restaurant
There are no words:
where am I: That state just south of Massachusetts
Soundtrack: disco covers wafting over from Chelo's restaurant
Comments:
And apparently a whole bunch of teabaggers, as well. Hitler moustaches, that's intelligent. Because of course if Obama's a socialist then he's also a fascist. And up is down and Idaho is Massachusetts.
Garofalo's snark about the brain is silly, but at least it's a joke, albeit a bad one. And she's wrong for painting all Republicans with one brush. The people she's talking about are obviously extremists.
Having said that, I think she is right about most extremists not knowing their historical arse from their elbow (I extend this to most people in general, but that's a rant for another day).
Of course the right wing hasn't become a bunch of knuckle-dragging racists (the teabaggers were definitely a very small minority, and the ones who made Hitler signs an even smaller one), but I wouldn't make book that most of the people at the rallies in the video clip aren't completely clueless about US history, especially what the Boston Tea Party was all about, or even the difference between fascism and socialism (or the fact that under the Nazis Barack Obama would have been overthrown and most likely incinerated).
I actually feel bad for Glenn Beck--not because of his political views at all, but rather because I honestly think he's in the throes of some kind of mental breakdown. It's really sad to watch him decompensate like that on national television. I don't think he needs a padded room, but in my professional opinion, this is a guy who needs to back away from public life, get some rest and maybe think about medication.
Edited at 2009-08-28 16:34 (UTC)
Garofalo's snark about the brain is silly, but at least it's a joke, albeit a bad one. And she's wrong for painting all Republicans with one brush. The people she's talking about are obviously extremists.
Having said that, I think she is right about most extremists not knowing their historical arse from their elbow (I extend this to most people in general, but that's a rant for another day).
Of course the right wing hasn't become a bunch of knuckle-dragging racists (the teabaggers were definitely a very small minority, and the ones who made Hitler signs an even smaller one), but I wouldn't make book that most of the people at the rallies in the video clip aren't completely clueless about US history, especially what the Boston Tea Party was all about, or even the difference between fascism and socialism (or the fact that under the Nazis Barack Obama would have been overthrown and most likely incinerated).
I actually feel bad for Glenn Beck--not because of his political views at all, but rather because I honestly think he's in the throes of some kind of mental breakdown. It's really sad to watch him decompensate like that on national television. I don't think he needs a padded room, but in my professional opinion, this is a guy who needs to back away from public life, get some rest and maybe think about medication.
Edited at 2009-08-28 16:34 (UTC)
Did anyone else notice that the "y" isn't the only letter missing? So is "C." Which apparently is something Glenn Beck simply cannot do... at least not clearly, or rationally.
Ihope expect to see this guy involuntarily committed pretty much any time now.
I
The thing is, FOX let this air, so apparently not only is this guy really stupid, but TPTB at FOX are really ignorant.
Oh, I agree with them letting the episode air, but don't you think someone should have caught that he spelled a word wrong and said, "Hey, Glenn, you might want to add a C to your word"?
1. Absolutely someone should've acted as a human spellcheck for him, but consider that he might not have told anyone exactly what his plans for that segment were other than to sketch a general outline. Kinda fits since Glenn drifts a bit paranoid.
2, Agree about Glenn backing away for a while. Watching his decline has been like watching a slow-motion car crash.
3. The term "teabaggers" is more telling of those who use it than those to whom they deem to apply it. It's indicative of an unwillingness to consider their views in an unemotional manner. For as many people who attended those rallies, I promise you there were at least two who didn't because of work or other commitments, not wanting to get involved in such a public way, or many other sundry reasons. The motivation behind those rallies was not identical to that which fueled the Boston Tea Party, obviously, and most people realize that. They do; a little credit here please. Not all of course, and I agree that extremists on both sides, by their very nature of being knee-jerk reactionaries, don't bother with thoughtful consideration of anything. However, the fire of outrage was - and is - mirrors that same fervor. The great majority of this country, center-right that they are, sees the government infringing more and more in their lives, spending like drunken sailors (with apologies to drunken sailors everywhere for the comparison), taking a ludicrous amount out of their and their children's wallets, and they don't like it. They see their country turning away from its founding documents. Agree with them or not, the position is legitimate, and they should not be ridiculed or marginalized. Beyond that it reveals the shallow-mindedness of those who do so, it is that very ridicule and marginalization that adds fuel to their fire.
4. Now, all rallies draw a certain number of ridiculous extremists who by their very presence delegitimize the cause they purport to support. Logic states those who oppose the rally's point would focus on them.
5. Here's the thing about Garafalo; she wasn't joking. Oh, it might've been framed as a joke, but it springs from what she sees as the truth. It had to, for one can't frame a joke unless one knows something about, or has an opinion about, the subject they intend to lampoon.
It wouldn't matter to me if she sided left or right; she's a closed-minded, smug ignoramus who cannot see beyond her own ego. Much like Ann Coulter.
2, Agree about Glenn backing away for a while. Watching his decline has been like watching a slow-motion car crash.
3. The term "teabaggers" is more telling of those who use it than those to whom they deem to apply it. It's indicative of an unwillingness to consider their views in an unemotional manner. For as many people who attended those rallies, I promise you there were at least two who didn't because of work or other commitments, not wanting to get involved in such a public way, or many other sundry reasons. The motivation behind those rallies was not identical to that which fueled the Boston Tea Party, obviously, and most people realize that. They do; a little credit here please. Not all of course, and I agree that extremists on both sides, by their very nature of being knee-jerk reactionaries, don't bother with thoughtful consideration of anything. However, the fire of outrage was - and is - mirrors that same fervor. The great majority of this country, center-right that they are, sees the government infringing more and more in their lives, spending like drunken sailors (with apologies to drunken sailors everywhere for the comparison), taking a ludicrous amount out of their and their children's wallets, and they don't like it. They see their country turning away from its founding documents. Agree with them or not, the position is legitimate, and they should not be ridiculed or marginalized. Beyond that it reveals the shallow-mindedness of those who do so, it is that very ridicule and marginalization that adds fuel to their fire.
4. Now, all rallies draw a certain number of ridiculous extremists who by their very presence delegitimize the cause they purport to support. Logic states those who oppose the rally's point would focus on them.
5. Here's the thing about Garafalo; she wasn't joking. Oh, it might've been framed as a joke, but it springs from what she sees as the truth. It had to, for one can't frame a joke unless one knows something about, or has an opinion about, the subject they intend to lampoon.
It wouldn't matter to me if she sided left or right; she's a closed-minded, smug ignoramus who cannot see beyond her own ego. Much like Ann Coulter.
1. Paranoia. Not a good sign.
2. See (1.).
3. The term "teabaggers" is more telling of those who use it than those to whom they deem to apply it.
I used it to mean "people who went to tea parties, the symbol of which was a teabag". No political statement implied. If there's a debate about what they called themselves, I've (thankfully) missed that one.
The motivation behind those rallies was not identical to that which fueled the Boston Tea Party, obviously, and most people realize that. They do; a little credit here please.
Maybe it makes me judgemental (Hannah says I'm one of the most judgemental people she knows, and maybe she's right), but I really believe that most Americans--regardless of political inclination-- don't know jack about history. Because the way it's taught in schools is boring and outdated at best and utterly wrong at worst, and so most of us simply take the pablum we're fed to get the class credit and don't choose to look any further.
They see their country turning away from its founding documents.
I absolutely agree with them on this point, I'm sure I see it from a different angle. Of course, the founding documents were written for white men of property, but still, yeah, the Constitution has been trampled on something fierce, from all directions.
Agree with them or not, the position is legitimate, and they should not be ridiculed or marginalized.
Absolutely, and I said that in my comment. Garofalo, et. al. are wrong to paint everyone with the same brush.
MY rant was specifically directed at the people who put a Hitler moustache on Obama--which is historically ridiculous--and then proceed to say he's a socialist. Because, wtf? This kind of stuff only reinforces my opinion that there's a whole lot of people out there who wouldn't know a historical fact if it hit them in the face. Yeah, these ones are extreme, but still. *throws primary-source history books at them*
4. This is true. It's the crazies that take away from the cause, whatever cause that may be.
5. Oh, she probably does believe that. Which means that what she said was satire. And maybe she is the Ann Coulter of the Left, I dunno. I really don't follow her career, or Olbermann's, so I don't know much about her attitude except that she's a left-of-leftie, and that she's first and foremost a comedienne, so I figure snark is her thing.
*Edited because closing quotes is a Good Thing*
*and again times a zillion because I suck at proofreading and apparently have OCD*
Edited at 2009-08-28 17:59 (UTC)
2. See (1.).
3. The term "teabaggers" is more telling of those who use it than those to whom they deem to apply it.
I used it to mean "people who went to tea parties, the symbol of which was a teabag". No political statement implied. If there's a debate about what they called themselves, I've (thankfully) missed that one.
The motivation behind those rallies was not identical to that which fueled the Boston Tea Party, obviously, and most people realize that. They do; a little credit here please.
Maybe it makes me judgemental (Hannah says I'm one of the most judgemental people she knows, and maybe she's right), but I really believe that most Americans--regardless of political inclination-- don't know jack about history. Because the way it's taught in schools is boring and outdated at best and utterly wrong at worst, and so most of us simply take the pablum we're fed to get the class credit and don't choose to look any further.
They see their country turning away from its founding documents.
I absolutely agree with them on this point, I'm sure I see it from a different angle. Of course, the founding documents were written for white men of property, but still, yeah, the Constitution has been trampled on something fierce, from all directions.
Agree with them or not, the position is legitimate, and they should not be ridiculed or marginalized.
Absolutely, and I said that in my comment. Garofalo, et. al. are wrong to paint everyone with the same brush.
MY rant was specifically directed at the people who put a Hitler moustache on Obama--which is historically ridiculous--and then proceed to say he's a socialist. Because, wtf? This kind of stuff only reinforces my opinion that there's a whole lot of people out there who wouldn't know a historical fact if it hit them in the face. Yeah, these ones are extreme, but still. *throws primary-source history books at them*
4. This is true. It's the crazies that take away from the cause, whatever cause that may be.
5. Oh, she probably does believe that. Which means that what she said was satire. And maybe she is the Ann Coulter of the Left, I dunno. I really don't follow her career, or Olbermann's, so I don't know much about her attitude except that she's a left-of-leftie, and that she's first and foremost a comedienne, so I figure snark is her thing.
*Edited because closing quotes is a Good Thing*
*and again times a zillion because I suck at proofreading and apparently have OCD*
Edited at 2009-08-28 17:59 (UTC)
3. Those Who Attend Tea Party Rallies do not refer to themselves as "teabaggers." Those Who Oppose The Tea Party Rallies do, and it's not meant as a compliment, nor is it indicative of any political leaning, nor does its use make a political statement, though it does make a statement of a smug and derogatory sort. If you aren't familiar with the term, I'm too much a lady to explain here, but wikipedia would be happy to shed some light.
Re: history in school. I'd be interested to know what you're basing your opinion on considering that we can only accurately reference our own experience in history classes, and perhaps, to a lesser degree, those of our kids. When I've asked people about their favorite subjects in school (which I don't go yanking people off the street to do, but I've asked most of my family and friends), history comes up more often than not. Encouraging, that. Hopefully most will have done as I did and took it upon themselves to pursue the interest beyond the boundaries of the textbook.
5. Garafalo is a comedian who fancies herself a political commentator. I believe she had her own show toward that end on the left-wing radio network whose name escapes me at the moment.
Re: history in school. I'd be interested to know what you're basing your opinion on considering that we can only accurately reference our own experience in history classes, and perhaps, to a lesser degree, those of our kids. When I've asked people about their favorite subjects in school (which I don't go yanking people off the street to do, but I've asked most of my family and friends), history comes up more often than not. Encouraging, that. Hopefully most will have done as I did and took it upon themselves to pursue the interest beyond the boundaries of the textbook.
5. Garafalo is a comedian who fancies herself a political commentator. I believe she had her own show toward that end on the left-wing radio network whose name escapes me at the moment.
3. Eep. I never associated the two terms at all. *facepalm* I was thinking "teabaggers" was like "backpackers" or "John Birchers"--just a name, was all. How silly of me to not associate sexual slang with politics. ;)
High school US History books are written by committees, no matter what the author name is on the title (There are history books with a famous historian's name on it even when the author only wrote some long-ago edition and has been DEAD for years.) There is very little primary- or secondary-source material. New editions reference the last edition, which references the edition before that, and so on, so even if new stuff comes up it's not always put into the book. The books are usually a bland list of names and dates and events that emphasize a generalized 'feel-good' attitude (so as not to alienate the kiddies). For instance, they'll contain lot about how influential Woodrow Wilson was in the formation of the League of Nations and almost nothing about the fact that he was quite the racist and tried to implement racist policies. The same goes for the (small) bits about Helen Keller--a lot about her childhood and how she became a spokesperson for the blind, but practically nada about the fact that she was a very ardent (and also very idealistic and naïve) Socialist. There tend to be whole chapters about the Pilgrims and the probably fictional First Thanksgiving but usually not more than a couple of pages about the Vietnam War. Not to mention that all the Great Things written about are generally ones done by white men;consequently the history of women and people of colour tend to be left out of it.
And the courses are often taught directly from the books--sure there are innovative teachers, but mostly, nobody wants rock the boat, not the teachers, and not the textbook approval committees.
My info comes from a heck of a lot of reading, but recently mostly from a wonderful book called Lies My Teacher Told Me. I highly recommend this book to everyone. It's not politically driven, and it's very, very well-researched The author researched a bunch of high school American history books published over many years and compared them to each other and to their primary sources. The introduction is here. I think I need to make a rant post about history, though, because I'm gonna run out of room here.
5. That would have been Air America, but I don't remember her show. Air America kind of got to me, because even though I agreed with the message, the method was too much like everything I hate about right-wing radio.
Edited at 2009-08-28 23:44 (UTC)
High school US History books are written by committees, no matter what the author name is on the title (There are history books with a famous historian's name on it even when the author only wrote some long-ago edition and has been DEAD for years.) There is very little primary- or secondary-source material. New editions reference the last edition, which references the edition before that, and so on, so even if new stuff comes up it's not always put into the book. The books are usually a bland list of names and dates and events that emphasize a generalized 'feel-good' attitude (so as not to alienate the kiddies). For instance, they'll contain lot about how influential Woodrow Wilson was in the formation of the League of Nations and almost nothing about the fact that he was quite the racist and tried to implement racist policies. The same goes for the (small) bits about Helen Keller--a lot about her childhood and how she became a spokesperson for the blind, but practically nada about the fact that she was a very ardent (and also very idealistic and naïve) Socialist. There tend to be whole chapters about the Pilgrims and the probably fictional First Thanksgiving but usually not more than a couple of pages about the Vietnam War. Not to mention that all the Great Things written about are generally ones done by white men;consequently the history of women and people of colour tend to be left out of it.
And the courses are often taught directly from the books--sure there are innovative teachers, but mostly, nobody wants rock the boat, not the teachers, and not the textbook approval committees.
My info comes from a heck of a lot of reading, but recently mostly from a wonderful book called Lies My Teacher Told Me. I highly recommend this book to everyone. It's not politically driven, and it's very, very well-researched The author researched a bunch of high school American history books published over many years and compared them to each other and to their primary sources. The introduction is here. I think I need to make a rant post about history, though, because I'm gonna run out of room here.
5. That would have been Air America, but I don't remember her show. Air America kind of got to me, because even though I agreed with the message, the method was too much like everything I hate about right-wing radio.
Edited at 2009-08-28 23:44 (UTC)
