Archive | Politics RSS feed for this section

Mark Halperin

30 Jun

Most people probably missed it, and the media probably won’t cover it because it really isn’t that big of a deal, but the fact remains that Mark Halperin, a TIME political analyst, called President Obama a dick on live television today.

Look Mark. I agree with you. I do. President Obama is kind of a dick a lot of the time. But this is our turf, and we’d appreciate it if you’d back the fuck off. You think you can just stumble your way into the calling people dicks field? We’re professionals, Mark, and we’re not just going to let this shit slide. Don’t try to bust in on our territory again.  And definitely don’t spend the next 20 minutes apologizing like you and the rest of the Morning Joe crew did after your little slip up. It’s embarrassing and degrading to those of us in the field.

We’re on the front lines here, Mark. If you’re going to try to muscle in on our turf, do it like a man.

UPDATE: Mark Halperin has been suspended indefinitely from his analyst role at MSNBC. See Mark? This is what happens when you stick your nose where it doesn’t belong.

Advertisements

Dick Analysis: Ramón Gerardo Antonio Estévez

1 Mar

Who?  I thought this was Charlie Sheen week.  You shmucks lied to me.

Wait, wait!  Hold on there!  This man is the FATHER of Carlos Irwin Estévez, you know…

This guy?

Actors, apparently, have these stage names to appear more “common”.  Ergo, these individuals changed their names to seem more like “average” Americans.  To avoid ethnic bias in hiring, he chose the first name Martin after a good friend, and Sheen after Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, who had a popular TV show in the 1950s.  See?  He and Charlie both changed their names.  Did you think Emilio Estévez was adopted?  Anyway, we are not here to discuss Americans’ opinions of foreign names or to discuss the cut throat nature of the film industry…we are here to find out where Charlie Sheen came from and why he is this way (Oh, if only it were so simple).  As the father of Charlie, one could reasonably infer that Martin Sheen is an awesome addict who has Adonis DNA or is half tiger (he’s not).

He WAS arrested for crossing a line in protests at a military base as part of over 70 (political) arrests.  As a long time liberal (so the character was not THAT off base), he has been a valuable political figure given the popularity of the show the West Wing. He has gone as far as to endorse political candidates and stump for them (for example, Howard Dean).  Wait a moment, wait a moment…January 2004, what happened during that campaign?  Dean didn’t win the nomination, but I remember some important event happening on that day!  What was it…

Ah yes, that's the one.

Welllll we can’t always get them all right, can we?  Pretending to be a sage political president who is both a savvy public speaker and highly educated doesn’t mean you can pick ’em, does it?  But being a democrat and being arrested for political activism doesn’t put one in the same league as his son or a bad American (Some would say it is MORE American).  He has been considered very religious, why hasn’t that translated to his children (i.e. Charlie)?  Ohhhh, Sheen is a reformed alcohol abuser. The heart attack he endured during the filming of Apocalypse Now in the Philippines led him on a four-year spiritual journey that culminated in his return to Catholicism.  Now, Charlie makes a little more sense considering his father’s, wait, Apocalypse Now?  That move is fucking cool.  But I digress.

Martin clearly has some demons in his past that he overcame by finding God.  Perhaps Charlie can find his way through religion to purge the “cancer” of addiction.  Oh no.  While he respects his father’s beliefs he does not think the jibberish of fools will be allowed inside his brain.  We here at DOTW sincerely wonder what IS allowed to penetrate his brain, but all things considered, “thanks but no thanks” is a lot nicer way to talk to your dad, right?  You won’t say something ba-“Jeez, dad… shut it!”  This would probably explain why Martin is considering having a conservatorship obtain control over how Charlie spends his money…  I’m sure that will create an interesting reaction.  However, Martin Sheen’s overcoming addiction and finding religion could serve as a valuable example to Charlie.  As they shared a similar problem, it is possibly that his son can find the same peace he did.

As we see it there are two ways to look at this relationship, as we see it from the countless interviews.  Charlie sees that his dad really cares and is trying to help him out.  He cares about his dad, hell he got a quote from Apocalypse Now on his chest.  But your dad’s advice probably sounds tired and overdone at the time you are 45.  And when you’re really not willing to accept help from anyone you like to remind your father of certain things…

“When I was 7 years old, I woke up on the school bus behind the last seat. The bus had been driven downtown somewhere I had never seen before parked where they park buses. I was 7 and had to find my way home. That was pretty gnarly. I woke up and went, ‘This ain’t Malibu.”

It’s that low blow that kids get to put on parents when a third-party says, “does your dad do anything funny?”  You can say he cut a tree limb that fell on his neighbor’s car, slipped on the ice, orrrrrr forgot to get you from the bus so you ended up miles away from where you live with no idea how to get back….Funny.

To sum it alllll up on this grand Sheen-tastic week.  Martin Sheen had an interesting past but it’s doubtful that his alcohol abuse or political activism can be seen as the cause of Charlie’s addiction.  Well, Charlie won’t even admit to being addicted so I guess he hasn’t done anything immoral so this post served as a giant waste of time.  That being said, Martin Sheen may have left the country to avoid the constant media barrage that is his son.  So, we expect little else to come from him on this topic.  Clearly he has voiced his opinion and has left it at that.

Hmm, while Charlie’s mother has been relatively active  and in unison with her husband; I wonder what some of his brothers think?  Perhaps, Emilio Estévez?  I could not find anything on Charlie’s brother, so, I was forced to make my opinion based on the beginning of The Mighty Ducks.

 

"Breathe, Blood or Urine?"

“No thanks, I’m full.”

What a line.

Too bad Charlie Sheen doesn’t have a peewee hockey team filled with endearing, rag-tag misfits like his brother, Gordon Bombay.  I guess we have no choice but to sit back and see what happens next.

Dick of the Week, Feb. 14-20: Nir Rosen

22 Feb

A lot of weeks, I enjoy writing Honorable Mentions.  In fact, there was even one week where it was so difficult to decide who should hold the Dick of the Week title that I went ahead and let the two leading candidates share it.  Sometimes it’s very hard to decide who the biggest dick is.

This was not one of those weeks.

In fact, Nir Rosen is the Dick of the Week by such a wide margin that I’m not even going to entertain secondary dicks right now.  Head and shoulders above the competition, Rosen stood up this week and announced to the world, “You may not have heard of me, but I am the biggest asshole alive!”

This picture is his Twitter background. I shit you not. I shit. You not.

We at Dick of the Week were both saddened and angered to hear about the tragic attack on CBS reporter Lara Logan this week.  For those who haven’t heard, Lara Logan was brutally attacked and sexually assaulted while covering the Egyptian protests last week.  The news reached the states and was met with an inspiring upwelling of support for Logan and condemnation of her assailants.  Thank God she was rescued by a group of Egyptian women and soldiers, or the story might have ended even more tragically.  But as we all recoiled in horror at what had happened, Rosen stood up for rape apologists everywhere and shouted the equivalent of “yeah, but she was asking for it.”

Rosen isn’t well know, but he does have a reputation as a staunchly anti-war leftist commentator and serves as a fellow at the NYU Center for Law and Security.  When Rosen heard about the Lara Logan assault, his first reaction was to go on Twitter and let everyone know what an attention seeking bitch he felt Logan was.

I’d love to talk about what Rosen said, but I think it might be more effective to…well, to just go ahead and tell you exactly what Rosen said.

“Lara Logan had to outdo Anderson. Where was her buddy McCrystal.”

“Yes yes its wrong what happened to her. Of course. I don’t support that. But, it would have been funny if it happened to Anderson too.”

“Jesus Christ, at a moment when she is going to become a martyr and glorified we should at least remember her role as a major war monger”

“Look, she was probably groped like thousands of other women, which is still wrong, but if it was worse than [sic] I’m sorry.”

Wow.

Actually, I’m at a loss for what to say beyond that.

I guess…I guess let’s just start at the top.  Not one, but TWO tweets implying that Lara Logan wanted to be sexually assaulted so that she could beat Anderson Cooper in (drumroll please) the ratings battle.  Which, if you think about it makes sense.  I mean all a woman has to do is have her body completely violated and she gets a slight bump in ratings?  Sounds like a fair deal to me!  Who WOULDN’T make that trade?

And really, what’s worse about the Anderson Cooper comments?  The fact that Rosen is comparing the minor assault that Cooper suffered while covering the protests to Logan’s sexual assault or the fact that Rosen is implying that if Anderson Cooper were sexually assaulted in a similar manner, it would be “funny”?  We joke about a lot of things here, but rape isn’t one of them…and I have no desire to see Anderson Cooper raped (for a variety of reasons).

Why is it always the pretty ones.

I really wish that was the end of Rosen’s crimes.  Amazingly though, Rosen was only getting warmed up.  It’s his apologies that really set the standard.  Rosen made several attempts at an “apology” that range from whining and petulant to flippant and dismissive.  It becomes very clear very quickly that Rosen feels absolutely no remorse whatsoever for his inappropriate, insulting tweets.  Why don’t we take a few moments to look at Rosen’s various explanations/apologies:

“Ah fuck it, I apologize for being insensitive, its always wrong, that’s obvious, but I’m rolling my eyes at all the attention she will get.” [posted on Twitter. Rosen’s first attempt at an apology. Really tugs on the old heartstrings, doesn’t it?]

“No matter what I say, I look like a jerk.” [said on the Anderson Cooper show. A whiny attempt to paint himself as the victim.  Also…maybe just a little awkward since Rosen wished rape on Cooper.]

“When you’re in war zones you develop a black humor and make jokes about your death, other people’s deaths, other terrible things, writers and photographers do it, as of course do Bosnians, Iraqis, Somalis and others as a coping mechanism. But taken out of context this can be deeply hurtful, especially when made by a man.” [said in an interview with Media Bistro.  Hate to say it, Mr. Rosen, but you weren’t tweeting from a war zone.  And while black humor might be appropriate between two close friends, Twitter is…not between two close friends.]

“How 480 characters unraveled my career.” [title of an essay written by Rosen to, in the words of New York Magazine, “paint a picture of himself as a progressive martyr.”]

“I have been frustrated by the ideological opportunists who have used this ordeal for their personal gain.” [from the aforementioned essay. Yeah, you’re quite the victim, Nir.]

“I felt she was a terrible journalist who supported wars that I had covered….I point it out now only to explain my thinking.” [from the same essay.  And oooooooh, yep. That’s a step in the wrong direction.]

“Had I been a right-wing writer I doubt this would have happened to me.” [maybe the most ridiculous statement of all.  Not only is it petulant, does he really think that Republicans don’t suffer backlash for inappropriate comments?]

There’s a whole lot to work with there, but I can’t improve on perfection.  No, Terry Glavin of the National Post says it best:

“The evidence he submits in his own defence: Exhibit A. At least you can’t accuse me of saying bad things about Julian Assange. Exhibit B. I’m probably not as stupid as Anne Coulter. Exhibit C: I was only joking, “and an entire mob turns on me.”

Objection: Actually, the mob turned on Lara Logan. You weren’t even there.”

Sharp rebukes don’t get much better than that.  It’s amazing that Rosen managed to get even MORE offensive while trying to apologize for his INITIAL offensive comments.

But why?  Why is Rosen like this?  I’d have to say that the evidence points to him being little more than a colossal attention whore.  Aside from the myriad interviews he has given since his comments went public, from the essay he wrote to give as many excuses as possible, to the insincere public statements he released, Rosen AMAZINGLY turned back to TWITTER to gain more attention.  On the 16th, shortly after the controversy began, Rosen SWORE OFF TWITTER!

“but there is no point following me, i am done tweeting. too ashamed of how i have hurt others and the false impression i gave of who i am”

Immediately after that, he made a follow-up statement.  This was an apology to Lara Logan, and, to his credit, this one at least sounded sincere:

“I feel I should make one last statement. I offer my deepest apologies to Ms. Logan, her friends and her family. I never meant to hurt anyone”

He then…continued to tweet for the next few days.  And Rosen wonders why nobody seems to believe that he actually feels bad for this.  When a guy can’t even be sincere about something as simple as whether or not he’s going to continue tweeting…I’d have to say it’s probably not much of a surprise that no one thinks his apologies are sincere either.

The real happy ending here is the fact that the Rosen, at the very least, had the good sense to tender his resignation from NYU.  News articles announced the NYU “accepted” Rosen’s resignation, but, really, come on.  What were they going to do, fight to keep the man who made jokes about the rape of a female reporter?  What a great headline that would be.

No, Rosen “ruined his own career.”  When Rosen said those words, it was in an attempt to paint himself as a victim.  When I say those words, it is as a solemn thank you that there is some justice in the world, after all.

Well done, avenging angel of Twitter.

Dick Hall of Fame, Entry #15: Michael Moore

17 Feb

Anyone who has watched the news in the past 10 years probably already knows that Michael Moore is a dick.  Moore is a “documentary” director who spends his time exposing the evils of the Republican party.  And while some might consider this a service (there are certainly plenty of Republican hypocrisies worth exposing), it is the manner in which Mr. Moore goes about producing these exposés that ruffles a few feathers, including ours.  To tell you the truth, it’s mostly about the facts…namely, the lack of them in Moore’s movies.

As I said, it’s not as though there is a shortage of problems with the GOP.  As a Republican myself, I am well aware of the myriad issues plaguing my party’s policies.  And it would not be difficult for someone to make an engaging and informative documentary exposing any number of those issues.  Instead, however, Mr. Moore has chosen to take a route more akin to sensationalism.  Rather than allowing facts to get in the way of a good movie, Moore has embellished, misrepresented, straight-up lied about a fantastic number of things in each of his movies.

Come on Uncouth, what does Peter Griffin have to do with anything?

Let’s take a look at a few of his movies, shall we?  We can start with Roger and Me, Moore’s first documentary.  Moore fans will often admit that he has misrepresented facts in some of his other movies, but will almost always fall back on Roger and Me as an example of an honest and effective documentary.  Roger and Me does succeed in some ways.  The film is designed to document that effect that the closing of a General Motors plant had on Moore’s hometown of Flint, Michigan.  Certainly an interesting topic, but Moore paints General Motors to be an evil, faceless corporation whose CEO (the title “Roger”) refuses to meet with him and doesn’t care at all about the damage that he has caused Flint.

Here’s the thing.  That’s what makes him a good businessman.  It sucks that closing a plant has negative repercussions on people living in that town, but if businessmen were paralyzed by not wanting to cause anyone harm, they would never make any money.  If I’m an investor in GM, I want to know full well that my CEO is going to make the decision that is best for the company, not the decision that is best for the people of some podunk town that I could care less about.  I. Do not care. About Flint, Michigan.  And by the way, that’s no reflection on Flint.  I’m sure it’s a very nice town.  It just so happens that I do not live in that town, and therefore what happens to it is of absolutely no consequence to me.

Of course, Moore also blatantly misrepresents what has happened to the town.  Pauline Kael offers some insight in her review; here are a couple of excerpts:

“[T]he eleven plant closings announced in 1986 were in four states; the thirty thousand jobs were lost in Flint over a period of a dozen years; and the tourist attractions were constructed and failed well before the 1986 shutdowns that they are said to be a response to.”

“We’re told that Ronald Reagan visited the devastated city, and we hear about what we assume is the President’s response to the crisis. He had a pizza with twelve unemployed workers and advised them to move to Texas; we’re told that during lunch the cash register was lifted from the pizza parlor. That’s good for a few more laughs. But Reagan visited the city in 1980, when he wasn’t yet President–he was a candidate. And the cash register had been taken two days earlier.”

But the movie that made Moore famous was Bowling for Columbine, a movie about gun culture in America.  I have to admit, there were a few parts of Bowling that even I enjoyed.  In particular, there is one scene, designed to demonstrate how easy it is to conceal a weapon, in which an individual in baggy jeans and a sweatshirt pulls literally dozens of guns, including a full-sized shotgun(!), out of his clothes.  That said, the movie is also filled with lies.

For one thing, there wasn't a minute of bowling in the whole movie.

Moore uses a variety of tricks, including splicing together different election ads to discredit Republicans, demonizing the NRA’s response to the Columbine shootings (despite the group’s largely sympathetic response), including splicing together different Charlton Heston speeches to make it appear as though he was callously dismissive of the tragedy.  Moore even attacked the NRA’s response to a different shooting in Michigan by making it appear that the group had rushed to town to hold a pro-gun rally, when in fact Heston happened to be in Michigan for a get out the vote rally at the same time as George W. Bush, Al Gore, Lee Iacocca, and other prominent political figures.  Far from the pro-school-shooting stance that Moore would have his viewers believe the NRA takes.  Moore even attempts to imply that the NRA was founded by the members of the disbanded KKK, and that its mission is parallel to the former Klan.  Extreme, even by Moore’s standards.  He takes great pains to make Heston and the other NRA members appear to be racist, a favorite tactic of liberal extremists everywhere.  The claims are blatant nonsense, which can plainly be seen in this study.

But perhaps Moore’s most controversial work would be Fahrenheit 9/11, a film about the September 11th tragedy which borders on accusing the United States government of being complicit in the attacks.  Essentially, Moore explores the theme of how the US government took advantage of the attacks to build support for an unrelated war in Iraq.  The response to the movie was mass outrage.  It’s not that the administration didn’t use 9/11 to justify many things–it’s that Moore continued to stretch the truth far beyond its limits.  Filmmakers have created movies solely focused on the lies in Fahrenheit 9/11.  Books have been written about it.  Vast numbers of websites have been created to expose those lies.  My personal favorite writer, Christopher Hitchens, was one of the first to react.

"And if you look closely, you can see President Bush driving Hurricane Katrina, too."

We’ll take a look at a couple misrepresentations from Fahrenheit 9/11, just to get a taste.  This excerpt comes from this Free Republic article:

National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice is depicted in the movie telling a reporter, “Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11.”

The actual full quote?

“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11. But if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that led people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.”

Well…that’s certainly less…you know…wrong.  How about another?

Not revealing relevant facts is dishonest enough. But to paint the Bush Administration as sympathetic and friendly to the Taliban prior to September 11, is not only dishonest, but maliciously so. ü Moore shows film of a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban delegation, claiming that the Administration “welcomed” the Taliban official, Sayed Hashemi, “to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban.” But the Administration did not welcome the Taliban with open arms. In fact, the State Department rejected the Taliban’s claim that it had complied with U.S. requests to isolate bin Laden. To demonstrate even further the Administration’s contempt for the Taliban and its illegitimacy, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher – on the day of the terrorist regime’s visit – said, “We don’t recognize any government in Afghanistan.”

huh.

Even readily available figures are exaggerated for effect in Fahrenheit 9/11. The claims have a basis in reality, making them believable, but are false nonetheless. ü In the film, Moore asks Craig Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud, “How much money do the Saudis have invested in America, roughly?” to which Unger responds, “Uh, I’ve heard figures as high as $860 billion.”  The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy reports that worldwide Saudi investment approximated $700 billion – a figure much lower than Unger alleges the Saudi government to have invested in the U.S.  The Institute reports that 60 percent of that $700 billion – roughly $420 billion, less than half of what Unger “heard” – was actually invested in the United States by the Saudi government.

OKAY, OKAY, we get it. Michael Moore is a lying sack of shit.  Thanks again to the Free Republic for providing some juicy quotes here.  Again, there is more where that came from–go here to read the full article.  In essence, it isn’t difficult to prove that Michael Moore has a political agenda, and to call Fahrenheit 9/11 a documentary is almost laughable.  Unfortunately, Moore apparently basked in the critical acclaim that Bowling for Columbine had earned him and took it as a mandate to make even more outrageous claims to support his radical agenda.  I’ll say it again–there is no shortage of things to attack the Republican party about, including the issues of gun control and 9/11 exploitation.  But Moore got greedy, and rather than stick to the facts, juicy as they already are, he elected instead to dramatize and sensationalize every aspect of his films until the facts upon which they are based are scarcely recognizable.  Moore threw away what was certainly a promising career as a documentary filmmaker and chose instead to serve as a political lightning rod for the left.  It seems to suit him, so it is difficult for me to criticize.  But the fact remains that he is one of the biggest lying dicks in the history of filmmaking.

Hear no, see no, speak no truth.

Oh and, by the way…Michael Moore, the man who has spent his entire career railing against “fat cat” capitalists…is suing his partners from Fahrenheit 9/11 for millions of dollars in profit from his film.  Shine on, you crazy, hypocritical diamond.

Dick of the Week, Feb 7-Feb 13: (Former) Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak

15 Feb

While I feel this weeks winner doesn’t need much explaining, I feel we would be forfeiting our duties if we didn’t talk about this man a LITTLE bit.  While, this may make us all sound like redundant talking heads who missed the boat in trying to comment on this all-encompassing story; I feel like I can give you some reasons that weren’t in the headlines that can further explain why this man is a complete dick.  Now, I may not be stretching the truth to make the claim that a man who has stayed in power for 30 years through numerous failed elections and countless corruption claims.  It is blatantly clear when your country rates a 3.1 on a scale to 10 for trust and transparency in government.  Perhaps claims of voter fraud and tampering are not that far off when you live in a country with that kind of rating.

But the guy finally started to do the right thing by saying that he would no longer stand for election in September which would in effect end his 30 year rule.  Apparently that didn’t sit well with the people of Egypt.  They denounced this as a trick and took to the streets to see that the leader would be ousted immediately.  If you needed further confirmation about how much of a dick this guy was, just look to the fact that people were no longer willing to wait until September to kick this guy out of office.  To give you some context, this would be like having your friend crashing on your couch telling you he’s going to move out at the end of the month, and your first reaction is to carry his free-loading ass out of the apartment.  Clearly there was some pent up emotion.

This clash of supporters and protestors inevitably turned bloody given the passion and change that people wanted to see from their government.  While we as Americans stood in awe of these people’s sacrifice for their government, it is also important note that we don’t have to suffer through the same ruler for 30 years (we just get stuck with representatives that just won’t go away).

He just. Won't. Stop.

So, many watched with anticipation as to what was about to occur.  Would this man decide to relinquish power that he had held for 30 years?  Would he use his military on his own people?  Would he graciously bow out?  No, that would be too easy.  Defiance is a much nicer song to sing.  Listen, we get it.  You’ve been in power for a long time and its not something you want to give up. But seriously, most of your ALLIES were saying that you should step down.  Are you just a stubborn child who won’t accept when your time is up?  Seriously, these people were willing to die to stand in defiance of you, what makes you think this will make things any better for you in the long run?  Oh.  There you go.  Finally, you resign to give your people the opportunity to pursue elections for themselves.  They are moving so quickly that they were clearly starved for this opportunity.   And while I understand that a new government may not be the most friendly toward the USA; if they act like dicks, we will have no problem calling them on it.  But it was more important to get the biggest dick out of the way before passing judgment on dicks to be named later.  Thirty years in power and you got taken down by Mark Zuckerberg. We might want to cool it with these correlations.

Random out of order dick things that confuse me:

(Former) Congressman Christopher Lee (R-NY): Hey we have a theme going!  Well this one is almost too easy and less fun given the fact that this guy was a relatively low level representative.  Was it his insisting that he didn’t have a wife?  Was it that emails of him bragging about his fitness?  How about the fact that this even came out in the first place.  Seriously, this is DC life, they pretty much have things to ENCOURAGE THIS.  How about TigerText that deletes text messages after they are READ.  Listen I don’t condone this or anything but it clearly wasn’t that difficult for this woman to figure this out.  I’m honestly surprised the contact address wasn’t christopher.lee@mail.house.gov.  For every Chris Lee there is an Eliot Spitzer.  To be fair this would have been much less embarrassing in England.

NBA All-Star Uniforms:

Please tell me those things go UNDER the uniforms

Now I realize that All-Star games are hollow exhibition games that fail to draw most fan attention.  Even baseball’s attempt to put home field advantage on the line for the World Series hasn’t been the greatest.  The NHL had marginal success drafting the All-Star teams, and these two leagues do compete for success amongst viewers.  As much as fans will gripe, baseball and football will always be the largest sports and these niche sports will be competing for 3/4 in the rank.  But these uniforms are a poor attempt to spice up a dull exhibition game.  From what I can tell, these uniforms are there to whore out NBA players by replacing the normally baggy uniforms with the exact opposite.  The biggest travesty is that they will discriminate against some of their fans that may not be able to purchase these uniforms.

I'm sorry, we don't have a sausage skin in your size

Dick of the Week Special Comment

24 Jan

Today, as promised, a Special Comment on the firing of Keith Olbermann.  A mere two and a half months ago, we selected Keith Olbermann as our very first Dick of the Week.  With his unique blend of unapologetic hypocrisy and overwhelming egotism, Olbermann has always stood out to us as one of America’s most precious partisan commodities, and we have valued his almost constant presence near the top of the Dick of the Week list each and every week.  Yes, Olbermann has been at the top of our list week in and week out.  No one else.  Not Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin.  Not Brett Favre or Rex Ryan.  Not Ben Affleck, and not Charlie Sheen.

Just Keith.

And we believe that level of consistency has to be admired.  Few have been able to maintain such a constant lack of integrity.  Of course, those in charge at MSNBC shouldn’t admire him.  Granted, Countdown with Keith Olbermann had the highest ratings of any show on MSNBC, though that’s really akin to being the fastest sprinter at the Special Olympics.  We’re proud of Comcast, NBC’s new owners, in a way.

If I bought NBC, firing Keith Olbermann would be the first thing I would do, too.

Hope you weren't too attached to that office, Keith.

Two days have passed since Keith announced that he was leaving the network.  They were kind enough to allow him the time to sign off on his own terms.  But Keith couldn’t even let that go in a pleasant manner, using some of his time to instead throw his former employers, ESPN, under the bus for not allowing him a similar luxury when he left that network.

Indeed, I do believe that Keith…that Keith…

Okay, you know what, no.  I was going to do this entire post in the style of Keith Olbermann’s Special Comments, but I just couldn’t bring myself to finish.  Do you know how hard it is to sound that Goddamn pompous while maintaining a nonstop slew of hypocrisy?  It’s hard fucking work!  I threw up seven times just writing the intro to this post.  Olbermann has a strong stomach and (evidently) no mirror.

So we’re just going to go ahead and celebrate that our very first Dick of the Week has bitten the proverbial dust.  Maybe the title of this post is rubbing it in a little bit, but…well, yeah, it is.  And I love it.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Dick of the Week, Jan. 10-16: Eric Fuller

18 Jan

Regular readers will no doubt remember my last two posts and understand that the Arizona shooting tragedy was an event that affected me deeply.  Those who attempted to capitalize politically off of the tragedy should be ashamed of themselves, from Paul Krugman to Jonathan Alter to Sarah Palin for using the term “blood libel” to those who attacked Sarah Palin for using the term “blood libel.”  All dicks, every one of them.  And while Alter and Krugman were probably the most egregious violators of Wheaton’s Law, there were a few others who managed to separate themselves from the pack.  Eric Fuller is one such person.

Mr. Fuller not only demonstrated his dickishness, he did it a week later, allowing us to stretch this tragedy out even further and giving Godawful cable news networks even more material to run with.  You see, Eric Fuller was a survivor of the original shooting which left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords hospitalized and six others dead.  Fuller was hit by one of Jared Loughner’s bullets that day, but was thankfully able to drive himself to the hospital to receive treatment.  How did Mr. Fuller choose to celebrate his release from the hospital?  Perhaps he went off to celebrate life and reflect on how lucky he was?

Perhaps he went where we go to celebrate life.

None of the above, I’m afraid.  Instead, this past Saturday, Mr. Fuller elected to go to an event hosted by Tea Party spokesman Trent Humphries and Republican State Rep. Terri Proud.  There, Mr. Fuller did what we expect anyone who just went through a near death experience would do: he began to heckle and boo the speakers, causing a general disruption.  Naturally when you’ve just lived through a public massacre perpetrated by an unbalanced-looking gentleman with a gun, the first thing you want to do is disrupt a public forum while appearing to be unbalanced.

Amazingly, that appeared to be Mr. Fuller’s thought, as his next move was the more insidious one.  After the speakers had made some comments that he disagreed with, Mr. Fuller stood up, took a picture of Mr. Humphries with his camera, and announced, “you’re dead.”

Kind of seems like not much more needs to be said on that score.  Having just had his life threatened by a gun-toting maniac, Mr. Fuller decided to make death threats against those he, apparently, disagreed with politically.  Not the smartest of moves, but we’ll give him credit for having balls of steel.  Not surprisingly, Mr. Fuller was escorted from the premises by deputies immediately and “involuntarily” checked into a mental institution for psychiatric evaluation.
Naturally, Fuller drew praise from some left-wing sources, such as Eric Boehlert, of Media Matters.  Boehlert mockingly states that unjust smearing of Fuller would begin immediately.  Of course, this must have been before a little bit of evidence showed up that Fuller might just be as crazy as he seems.  The Tucson Citizen turned up a host of radical and inappropriate comments from Fuller.  Let’s look at a few of them:

“It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target,” Fuller said. (Democracy Now interview)

Mr. Fuller spoke dismissively of Republicans during the interview. “They appeal to simple-minded rednecks,” he said. (New York Times interview, via RedState)

In the interview, he repeatedly denounced the “Tea Party crime syndicate[.] ” (New York Times interview, via RedState)

The Tea Party, maybe.

Does it seem hypocritical for anyone to defend Fuller after the barrage of hatred and blame placing that followed the Arizona shootings?  And even after all the calls for unity and peace, are we surprised that someone would do something like this?  Speaking personally, I can’t say I am.

Is there a silver lining?  Perhaps.  Mr. Fuller saved a little face by apologizing a few days later, saying that he deeply regrets the incident and really wishes that he could take it all back.  Well of course.  Fuller demonstrated that he isn’t very self-aware, but it would take a Palin-esque lack of self-awareness to not realize that he seriously fucked up.  Still, we do give him a minutia of credit for apologizing.  However grudging it may have been, it’s still a major step up on a lot of other Dicks of the Week.  But for turning massive public goodwill on its head just for the sake of threatening a minor Tea Party operative, Eric Fuller is, hands down, your Dick of the Week.

Honorable Mentions:

Anyone Who Gives A Shit About The Zodiac Changes: Yes, I know our friend Shenanigans already did a Hall of Fame post on a similar topic, but honestly.  It’s pretty crucial to note that it’s not as though the Earth shifted positions last night.  This “change” has been true for hundreds (if not thousands) of years, it’s just that someone now decided to point it out on (GOD FORBID) the internet.  Oh, and anyone who didn’t notice the part about how none of this matters unless you were born after 2009 is also a fucking moron.  Of course, none of this matters anyway because if you believe in astrology you are already a colossal fucktard and we do not want you reading our blog. Seriously. Click the X, assholes.

Rex Ryan: GOOOOOOOO TOOOOOOOOO HELLLLLLLLL. And that’s all I have to say about that. At least until you die of heart failure and I can dance on your grave, you gigantic fat fuck.

 

Midweek Dicks: Jonathan Alter

13 Jan

Alright, I’m not going to lie to you. I’m not comfortable making Jonathan Alter our Dick of the Week this week for two reasons.  First, I just did a Dick Hall of Fame post on Pundits as a whole, and since Mr. Alter falls squarely into that category, it would be unnecessarily redundant.  Second, Alter’s Newsweek article following the Arizona shooting tragedy was so unbelievably out of line that I’m almost hesitant to call him a dick.  The flippancy of “dick” almost cheapens the fact that Alter demonstrated himself to be, really, just an awful fucking human being.

But, then again, if I merely ignore him, many of our readers many never know what a complete fucking dickbag Jonathan Alter is, and that would be a greater tragedy.

Alter, preparing to eat this old woman (citation needed).

Compared to Jonathan Alter, Paul Krugman looks like Walter Cronkite.  In fact, I would rather read every Paul Krugman article than read one more Jonathan Alter article.  The many of you who read my previous article dealing with Krugman, will understand how much spite it would take for me to say that.  Let’s examine some of what Mr. Alter said:

“Conservatives like to argue that these are isolated incidents carried out by lunatics and therefore carry no big lessons (unless the perpetrator is Muslim, in which case it’s terrorism); liberals view them as opportunities to address various social ills. Obama is in the latter category and should act accordingly. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel famously said in 2008. The same goes for a shooting spree that gravely wounds a beloved congresswoman.”

If just reading those words doesn’t make your skin crawl, allow me to spell out their meaning a little more clearly.  Republicans, according to Mr. Alter, are fools for believing that this incident was carried out by one insane individual (which it was).  Furthermore, they are racist for believing that Islamic terrorist strikes are a symptom of a larger terror threat (which they are).  To Mr. Alter, the tragic shooting of Rep. Giffords and, lest we forget, the death of six others (including a nine-year-old girl) is little more than an opportunity to advance a political agenda.  Alter references the gun control laws that were passed in the wake of the Martin Luther King, Jr. shooting, and laments the fact that similar opportunistic legislation won’t be passed.

But you think I’m exaggerating, no doubt.  “Yeah, that paragraph sounds bad, but it’s not like Alter is seriously advocating blatantly politicizing the tragedy for political gain.”  And I would like to agree with you, I really would.  But Alter chooses to close his article with this:

“Sad to say, if Giffords had died, she would have been mourned and soon the conversation would have moved on. But Giffords lives, thank God, which offers other possibilities. We won’t know for weeks or months whether she can function in public. If she can, she will prove a powerful referee of the boundaries of public discourse[.]”

Now THAT should make your skin crawl.  Jesus Christ!  James Taranto puts it best in the Wall Street Journal when he says “‘Thank God’ she lived, he says, because he has the rest of her life planned out for her. This is such an obscenity that Newsweek should be delivered in a plain brown wrapper.”  Alter’s desire to parade the victim of this tragedy to promote an political agenda is as shameful an act of yellow journalism as we have ever seen.  And when I say “yellow journalism,” I don’t mean the yellow journalism you learned about in history class.  I mean Alter is a coward.  If Newsweek had any decency, they would fire him.

On right, Newsweek.  The people that published this shameful excuse for an article.  Let’s not pretend even for a moment that Alter acted alone.  Alter’s editors are equally if not more responsible for his terrible rhetoric, as they had the power to stop or moderate him at any point in the editorial process.  Yet they allowed his article to stand.  Perhaps they did edit some things out–wouldn’t that be scary?

Newsweek's editorial process.

Taranto links to a Fox News video in which even Rahm Emanuel was horrified that Alter invoked his words in the article: “First of all, what I said was: Never allow a good crisis to go to waste when it’s an opportunity to do things that you had never considered or that you didn’t think were possible. That’s not intended for this moment, [nor] does it apply to this moment.”  When even Rahm “I Send Dead Fish To My Political Detractors” Emanuel calls you out, you’ve got to be one serious dick.

Fuck Jonathan Alter.  Fuck him for trying to politicize this national tragedy.  Fuck him for not even having the courtesy to hide behind pretext, as even Paul Krugman did.  Fuck him for thinking that his words were in ANY WAY appropriate.  He has faced backlash, as he should.  Hopefully Newsweek will face similar repercussions.  But those who criticize the right for making baseless claims that incite violence should take care to consider the fact that Alter’s article should make any man with common sense want to punch a wall.

Dick Hall of Fame, Entry #11: Pundits

11 Jan

Listen, we know. It’s a broad category.  But we really couldn’t decide on just one.

Usually we try to steer away from Dick Hall of Fame inductees that reflect things that are happening right now–that’s Dick of the Week territory.  But we’ve got to say, pundits as a whole are LONG overdue for some sort of lifetime achievement award.  And the horrible, tragic events of this weekend have served as a sad reminder about the state of television “journalism” in this country and our need as Americans to find someone to blame for even the most senseless of acts.  Let us be clear, and serious, for a moment: we would like to express our most heartfelt condolences to the families of Judge John Roll, Gabe Zimmerman, pastor Dorwin Stoddard, Dorthy Murray, Phyllis Scheck, and nine-year-old Christina Greene, as well as to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the others wounded in the attack.  We express our condolences, because the dicks in the media, those pundits whom we have come to “trust” so much, have neglected to do so in favor of searching for a way to blame individuals, ideologies, political movements, and, in some cases, each other.

We’re going to start at the top here.  We’re not going to mince words: Paul Krugman is an idiot.  An idiot, idiot, idiot.  Paul Krugman makes our blog look like Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting.  Paul Krugman grasps at straws so hard he’s going to break his hand.  Paul Krugman’s momma so fat, when she goes on a diet the US economy crashes.  Okay, maybe we leave his momma out of it, but keep in mind she did give birth to one of the biggest wastes of oxygen on this planet.  On Sunday, Krugman had the guts to release this article, essentially blaming the republican party as a whole for the shooting.  That’s really not an exaggeration, either.  We’ll share with you a couple of excerpts from the article.  And we’ll translate:

“It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.” [“Okay, so the shooter was insane. But if you think about it, didn’t the republicans MAKE him insane?”]

“As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.” The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line.” [“Everyone in America watches TV. And SOME people in America commit acts of violence. Therefore, TV causes violence. Also, I never let my kids play Grand Theft Auto.”]

“Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right.” [“I have never watched Keith Olbermann.”]

“Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.” [“Caustic remarks and mockery are essential to our political process. Are you implying that Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly are allowed to make jokes too? I WILL BEHEAD YOU, SIR.”  We might also note here that Olbermann once said that Democrats’ solution to Hillary Clinton was ‘somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out,’ but Krugman conveniently forgets these things.]

“So will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less toxic? It’s really up to G.O.P. leaders.” [“When will Sarah Palin stop shooting people?”]

Paul Krugman has every right to his opinion, but in this case his opinion makes him an unbelievable dick. The entire article is one long diatribe searching to find a way to blame the GOP for an atrocity committed by one insane man.  It’s not unreasonable to search for answers in the wake of a tragedy, but it is pretty unreasonable to write an article filled with the same sort of vitriolic, blame-gaming, hate-filled language that he supposedly condemns the GOP for.  But here’s the good news: we guess if someone goes nuts and shoots a journalist now, we can totally blame Paul Krugman for it.  Nice going, dick.  This article essentially sums up everything that is wrong with American journalism.

You're an asshole, Krugman. We really can't put it any more delicately than that.

Of course, Paul Krugman isn’t the only one.  We’re going to take a minute to take Sarah Palin to task.  Is she responsible for the shootings?  Of course not.  Is she still an idiot?  Yes. Yes she is.

One thing that the media chose to jump on immediately after the shootings was the “target map” that Palin put up on her website not long before the attack took place.  The map was a graphic showing the districts that the GOP had carried in 2008 which now hosted Congressmen who voted for the health care overhaul.  Palin listed them as GOP targets and aimed to have them voted out of Congress.  However…the symbol that Palin’s people chose to place over the districts in question happened to be crosshairs.  Since Rep. Giffords happened to be one of the Congresswomen targeted by Palin’s campaign, this gave a much more sinister meaning to the map than it was intended to have.

Like there was any way this was ever going to be in good taste.

You can see the map above.  Obviously Sarah Palin was hardly advocating the assassination of the Representatives in question.  But seriously, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING.  Doesn’t the Tea Party use enough threatening rhetoric already?  Did she not expect people to jump on this regardless of whether or not someone had taken a shot at a Congresswoman?  This is just poor form all around.  As much as we think the media are dicks for jumping on the bandwagon to blame Sarah Palin for this horrible tragedy, Palin herself is equally at fault for providing them with this unbelievably stupid ammunition.  So Sarah, you are also a dick.

Of course, we’d be remiss is we  didn’t further address that hypocrite of all hypocrites, Keith Olbermann.  Olbermann devoted Monday’s “special comment” to calling out right wing commentators for their supposed “hate speech” and instigation of violence.  He even went so far as to demanded apologies from Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly.  Yes, Keith Olbermann suggested that Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly should apologize for someone else committing murder.  And his main argument was the target imagery on Palin’s map.  Honestly, that was basically it.  As Krugman and Olbermann point out, you never see imagery like that or hear threatening messages from left wing politicians or commentators.

Except, you know, that time President Obama talked about bringing a gun to a political knife fight.

Or that time Chris Matthews said someone should jam a CO2 pellet in Rush Limbaugh’s head and kill him.

Just a couple of examples that various bloggers have pulled from the woodwork this week.  Certainly though, this vitriol is coming only from the right.

But let’s give these left-wing commentators their due: Jared Loughner, the shooter, may have been insane, but he was pretty obviously an Tea Party member.  That has to count for something, right?  Wait, wait.  You mean Jared Loughner wasn’t a Tea Partier?  You mean he wasn’t even a republican?  You mean his own former classmate described him as a “left-wing pot head“?  Oh yeah.  Those who knew Mr. Loughner described him as a “left-wing political radical,” which sounds an awful lot like, we don’t know, not someone likely to be influenced by Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, or any other supposedly hate-filled right-wing commentator.  In fact it sounds like someone a lot more likely to be influenced by…we don’t know…

But we would never hold him responsible, because we're not fucking idiots.

So yeah, sorry Keith, but you’re a huge dick, too.

This is already getting lengthy, but there is one more important point to touch on that makes pretty much everyone involved a dick.  Does everyone remember the Fort Hood shooting?  Feel free to brush up here: 13 killed, 30 wounded on a military base by an Islamic man yelling “Allahu Akbar” while he shot.  The guy had some issues, yeah.  But the media repeatedly urged us to avoid jumping to conclusions about Nidal Malik Hasan, the shooter, and his motives.  We were urged to exercise caution by just about everyone.  The Washington Examiner was kind enough to compile a number of these quotes for us here.  Let’s take a look, shall we?

“I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.” -President Obama

“We have to make sure that we do not jump to any conclusions whatsoever.” -CNN’s Jane Velez-Mitchell

“The important thing is for everyone not to jump to conclusions.” –Gen. Wesley Clark, on CNN

“Now, President Obama has asked people to be very cautious here and to not jump to conclusions. By saying that you believe this is an act of terror, are you jumping to a conclusion?” -CNN’s John Roberts to Rep. Pete Hoekstra, when Hoekstra suggested the shooting was an act of terrorism

That last one is particularly interesting to us, especially since some liberal commentators have already taken to calling Loughner a “domestic terrorist.”  We’re hesitant to attack this article too much, because it says a lot of smart things about not indicting commentators for rhetoric that you don’t like.  We like seeing that.  But this particular blogger also leaps headfirst into calling Loughner a terrorist and accusing the Tea Party and those with similar ideologies of (essentially) being racist for assuming that all terrorists are middle eastern.  He makes a big deal of complaining that people like Loughner are labelled as “mentally unstable” rather than “terrorists.”

Okay. Look. Maybe that’s because the “mentally unstable” part is the important part here?  In our language today, terrorism implies a wider threat, not one crazy guy.  And while a lot of terrorists may be idiots, most of them are not actually insane.  Calm down, Peter Beinart.  It’s just a word.  And as your own fellow left-wing commentators have said, it’s important that we avoid jumping to any conclusions here.

There you have it.  A tragic indictment of commentators as a whole.  Some will say this is heavily skewed towards the right.  We say…sorry.  It’s important to remember that Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and others are, usually, just as bad, just as biased, and just as factually inaccurate.  It’s too bad for the left-wingers reading this that people like Olbermann, Krugman, and the left-wing blogosphere all managed to drop the ball at the exact same time this week.  We again reiterate our condolences to all affected by this tragedy, and also reiterate how everyone in the media associated with covering, commentating on, analyzing, or otherwise discussing this event is a complete and utter dick.

Dick of the Week: Dec 6-12

12 Dec

Welcome once again to our fun-filled review of people who exhibit phallic personalities. Hooray thesaurus.  Anyway this was an interesting week because we had a lot of palpable dicks and it was really hard to narrow it down.  However, it became very clear it was random house democratic caucus member. For his witty retort to the president’s negotiated tax cut agreement.  Let’s be clear, this was not ‘you lie’ guy, this was a member of the President’s own party being crass enough to curse off the president under his breath.

I think he phased Pelosi more than anything

Continue reading