"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Saturday, June 04, 2011

Why do the media take these poeple seriously?
Posted by Jill | 9:10 AM
Things are at a sorry pass indeed when news media whose missions are supposed to be to inform become so enslaved to tabloid culture that they take their marching orders from guys like this (from The Smoking Gun):

JUNE 3--The Twitter user who first floated the rumor that a lewd photo scandal was brewing for Representative Anthony Weiner is not your typical conservative avenger, an investigation by The Smoking Gun has determined.

Mike Stack, a 39-year-old New Jersey resident, is known as “goatsred” in the Twitterverse, where he has helped lead a months-long assault on the New York City politician. Stack was joined at the hip in this pursuit by “patriotusa76,” who gave his name as “Dan Wolfe” and was the online avenger who happened last Friday night to discover the notorious tweet emanating from Weiner’s account.

As TSG reported yesterday, “Dan Wolfe” has conveniently evaporated in the wake of “Weinergate.” In fact, today Wolfe's entire Twitter page was deleted.

But Stack, the other Twitter Twin, remains online. An examination of his background has discovered:

* Stack, who aggressively pushed the story about Weiner’s underpants shot, has worked as a moderator on a pornography web site, and been a regular commenter on several other X-rated sites. Stack describes himself as a “Pervert” on one site, where his avatar, captioned “Antichrist,” is a drawing of President Barack Obama as Jesus Christ.

* New Jersey court records show that Stack was convicted of drunk driving in February 2008. He was previously arrested for domestic assault in July 2004 following a drunken fight that left his girlfriend with bruises on her arm (that case, though, ended with a dismissal in April 2005). Stack is pictured above in a mug shot taken by the Readington Township Police Department following his 2004 collar.

* Stack has twice declared bankruptcy during the past 14 years. His most recent Chapter 7 case ended in July 2008, around the time Stack lost his Hunterdon County home to foreclosure. At the time of that filing, Stack reported working as a warehouseman for Johnson & Johnson.


* The Internal Revenue Service last year filed a $5907 federal tax lien against Stack.

“The past is the past,” Stack said in an interview today. Describing himself as a “private person,” he added, “there’s no reason my records need to be public.”

Stack also contended that while he sent out the May 5 tweet first hinting that a “big time” Congressman was about to be ensnared in a sex scandal, he claimed that Wolfe actually provided him that information. Wolfe, Stack said, told him that he had heard the rumor from a source who worked for a well-known conservative web site.

After Stack sent out the initial tweet, Wolfe quickly ran with the rumor, attributing it--“via@goatsred”--to his online buddy. In retweets, Wolfe immediately attached Weiner’s name to the rumor, wondering “@RepWeiner are you this Congressman?” Stack did not have an explanation as to why Wolfe sought to launder the rumor through him. He also vehemently denied that he was Wolfe.

While Stack’s rap sheet and financial calamities may be of interest to “Weinergate” followers, his affiliation with porn sites might raise the eyebrows of the conservative coterie with which he is affiliated.


Probably not. We already know that hypocrisy is the currency of Republican and conservative politics. How else to explain the presence of potential GOP candidates at a conclave put together by a so-called "Christian leader" who, as Dennis G. points out, was exposed in the Jack Abramoff probe as "a money grubbing, hypocrite who had no problem scamming Christians into support gambling, human trafficking, sex slavery and forced abortions just to make a fast buck." John Edwards deserves everything that can be thrown at him for the same kind of hypocrisy that we usually see among Republicans -- passing himself off as a devoted husband to political supporters while fucking a grifter on the side. But it's becoming ever more clear with every scam that the Breitbart/O'Keefe axis comes up with, or that guys like Mike Stack (not to be confused with Mike Stark, whose modus operandi is only to make Rush Limbaugh look stupid on Limbaugh's own radio show) come up with, that conservatives will do anything...anything...and destroy anyone who gets in their way.

And by the way, what the hell are we growing in New Jersey, that both this guy Stack AND James O'Keefe were raised here?

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, April 25, 2011

Why do they have such a need for hell?
Posted by Jill | 5:51 AM
Just in time for Easter to be over, Ross Douchebag over at the New York Times makes himself an almost-too-easy punching bag in an essay in which he laments the decline of belief in Hell.

In part, hell’s weakening grip on the religious imagination is a consequence of growing pluralism. Bell’s book begins with a provocative question: Are Christians required to believe that Gandhi is in hell for being Hindu? The mahatma is a distinctive case, but swap in “my Hindu/Jewish/Buddhist neighbor” for Gandhi, and you can see why many religious Americans find the idea of eternal punishment for wrong belief increasingly unpalatable.

But the more important factor in hell’s eclipse, perhaps, is a peculiar paradox of modernity. As our lives have grown longer and more comfortable, our sense of outrage at human suffering — its scope, and its apparent randomness — has grown sharper as well. The argument that a good deity couldn’t have made a world so rife with cruelty is a staple of atheist polemic, and every natural disaster inspires a round of soul-searching over how to reconcile with God’s omnipotence with human anguish.

These debates ensure that earthly infernos get all the press. Hell means the Holocaust, the suffering in Haiti, and all the ordinary “hellmouths” (in the novelist Norman Rush’s resonant phrase) that can open up beneath our feet. And if it’s hard for the modern mind to understand why a good God would allow such misery on a temporal scale, imagining one who allows eternal suffering seems not only offensive but absurd.

Doing away with hell, then, is a natural way for pastors and theologians to make their God seem more humane. The problem is that this move also threatens to make human life less fully human.

Atheists have license to scoff at damnation, but to believe in God and not in hell is ultimately to disbelieve in the reality of human choices. If there’s no possibility of saying no to paradise then none of our no’s have any real meaning either. They’re like home runs or strikeouts in a children’s game where nobody’s keeping score.

I understand the need to feel that there's a reward for the tribulations we experience in life. Without the promise of goodies at the end of it all, it would have been difficult to do things like convert slaves to Christianity, but it's Douchebag's insistence that there be a Hell to go with Heaven that is so emblematic of the conservative mind.

I'm not necessarily an atheist, but I sure as hell don't believe in some Great White Alpha Male in the sky who micromanages people's lives, knocked up a girl and then told his son "I'm going to let them kill you so that 51-year-old John Ensign can screw around with his best friend's wife and then ask his parents for money to keep said best friend quiet," and who told Abraham to sacrifice his son to him and then just as the latter was about to do it, said "Kidding! Just wanted to see if you'd do it! Hahahahaha!" But I have about as strong a moral code as anyone I know. I would cite the Incident of the Bell Pepper at the Grand Union as evidence. I once found a bell pepper wedged in my shopping cart when I took it out to the parking lot. I found myself with three choices:

1) Put the pepper in my bag and go home;
2) Leave the pepper in the shopping cart;
3) Take the pepper back into the store and put it back;
4) Take the pepper back into the store and pay for it.

Almost everyone would agree that Option 1 would be the wrong thing to do, except those who believe that as long as I believed that Jesus died for my sins and that I was saved and forgiven, I could have taken the pepper, gone home, and had a clear conscience. It's arguable that option 2 might be a moral choice, because I wouldn't be taking something I didn't pay for. But the pepper would be out in the hot sun and wouldn't be saleable, which from the viewpoint of the store (if it were, say, a mom 'n' pop shop instead of a supermarket) is the same. To me, Options 3 and 4 were the only moral choices, so I took the pepper back into the store and paid for it.

It wasn't God who made me do it. It wasn't some Jewish guy getting nailed to a tree that allowed me to do it. It's simply being able to tell what is right and what is wrong.

Douchebag's insistence that "If there’s no possibility of saying no to paradise then none of our no’s have any real meaning either" may be the most profoundly twisted thing I've ever read. Are we simply infants who respond only to carrot or stick? Maybe Ross Douthat needs to have the threat of punishment hanging over his head to keep HIM on the straight and narrow (and given some of his columns, it wouldn't surprise me, as you can see from this Tbogg compendium of Doutiana), but some of us are capable of making moral choices on our own.

And that's what infuriates culture war conservatives, isn't it? This idea that someone might actually be able to navigate a path through life that involves honesty, hard work, fidelity, and truth, for its own sake rather than because of some punitive parent figure we conjure up who also offers unconditional forgiveness? What are we, five-year-olds?

It certainly explains their insistence on implementing laws to keep the rest of us on the straight and narrow -- because they can't do it without the threat of punishment, and the simply cannot understand how some of us can -- and do, every day.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, April 01, 2011

Actual photo of the "massive" Tea Party rally yesterday in Washington DC
Posted by Jill | 5:33 AM
Just look at these tens of thousands of hundreds of Teabaggers converging in Washington DC yesterday:

only a few hundred pwople showed up at the 'big' Tea Party rally in Washington DC on March 31


I saw more people than this gather for a Peter Karp concert in Tenafly a few years ago.

Jed Lewison braved Faux Noise for coverage, where the meme was that the bad weather kept people away. Remember, these so-called tea party patriots are the same guys who dress up in three-cornered hats and invoke the Founding Fathers; they give lip service to worship of Our Brave Military, yet they are too wussy to get a little bit wet and a little bit cold in the service of their Noble Cause.

Frauds. Every last one of them.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, March 07, 2011

Ross Douthat's obsession with the sex lives of American teenagers
Posted by Jill | 5:25 AM
There are days when I wake up and read something, and I'm about to write about it, but it pisses me off to such a degree that I just can't. Today, Ross Douchebag writes about how young people aren't having sex because they are developing a strong moral code. In Douchebag world, it has nothing to do about the slut/whore rhetoric coming out of the Republican Party, the churches, and right-wing pundits like Douchebag that keeps the double standard alive. It has nothing to do with the right-wing war on contraception that makes birth control less available to young women. It has nothing to do with a judgmental climate that allows David Vitter and John Ensign to remain Senators while casting judgments on girls who won't keep their legs closed. Nor does it have anything to do with the fact that they're tending to live with their parents longer because they can't find jobs and it's icky to have sex in mom 'n' dad's house. In Douchebag-world, it's all about finally embracing what is inevitable: that the only way a woman can be moral is to not have sex.

I'm quite sure Amanda will have something more cogent to say about this, but for now I'm going to leave it to TBogg, who is always my first source for concise Douchebag analysis and translation:
Shorter Ross Douthat:
If Chunky Reese Witherspoon was a teenager today, she probably wouldn’t want to fuck me. I mean for reasons besides the most obvious ones. This gives me great comfort.


Don't forget to click the link embedded in that quote. And also be sure to click TBogg's name for some serious graphic fun.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, December 16, 2010

Tears of a Clown
Posted by Jill | 5:20 AM




That's Mozart's Lacrimosa.

And then there's John Boehner.

Last weekend on 60 Minutes, John Boehner (whom those who are steeped in political theatre already know cries at the drop of a hat) attempted to turn himself into a human being by claiming that he cries at the sight of children in a schoolyard because of his fear that they won't have the same opportunities he had. The women of The View were been all over the notion of what would happen if Nancy Pelosi cried even one-tenth as much as Boehner does. Gail Collins snarks today about it. We can only imagine what would happen if Barack Obama cried every time someone looked at him crosswise. We KNOW what happened to Ed Muskie when the publisher of the Manchester Union-Leader attacked his wife in print. I suspect that even today, a Democratic man in tears would be looked on by the faux-macho men of the Republican Party as a girly-man, a weakling, a quisling, something less than human, someone who can't be relied upon to send a generation of other people's children off to die in a futile war. Because on the right, bellicose talk and feeding twenty-year-olds into a futile overseas meat-grinder is the mark of a man.

In the same New York Times that has Gail Collins snarking, Timothy Egan offers a devastating critique of the REAL disconnect between the Boehner Blubbering and the reality:
“Making sure these kids have a shot at the American Dream like I did is very important,” he said, choking up, when asked on “60 Minutes” about his crying.

But a look at Boehner’s record during his two decades in Congress shows a man who has voted against nearly every boost for the working stiff. There’s no empathy for those with the longest shots at the American Dream in his voting pattern. Instead, we see a politician who is hard-hearted in his legislative treatment of the people now coping with the kind of economic conditions in which the Boehner family grew up.

The American Dream that Boehner evokes between tears has never been more threatened. By some measures, social mobility — that is, the ability of people to move up a notch in class — is at an all-time low in this country. Poor Americans now have less than a 5 percent chance of rising to the upper-middle-class within their lifetimes.

At the same time, the gap between the rich and poor, and the concentration of wealth owned by those at the very top, has never been so great. After examining these trends, The Economist wrote that “the United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society.”

Numerous studies have shown that what knocks people out of the middle class, or keeps them from ever joining it, is a catastrophic bill or two — usually from getting sick and not having health care. Then, those debts go on credit cards, which leads to a misery hole of high interest and limited choices.

[snip]

Against this backdrop, Boehner has fought against strivers and strugglers at the lower end, while shilling for ever-more concentrated corporate power and banker control. The one thing that stirs his passion is tax cuts. But nearly half of American households don’t pay any income tax at all, so Boehner’s crusade doesn’t affect them. And a decade of aggressive tax-cutting has done nothing to reverse the woes of everyday working people.

Boehner voted for the major trade agreements that make it easier to ship jobs overseas, while voting against assistance to workers who lose jobs to globalization. He voted no on expanding health care for poor children, no on raising the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, and no on a bill to allow people to purchase F.D.A.-certified prescription drugs at a cheaper price from certain countries.

So: he wants to deny health care to poor children, let millionaires hold onto more of their money while blocking a small raise for the lowest earners and prevent people on fixed incomes from getting a break on the costliest item in their personal budget — their meds.

Boehner got a zero rating from Citizens for Tax Justice, a nonprofit founded in 1979 to give average people a greater voice on tax policy amidst a stadium full of lobbyists for the rich.

More recently, he voted against modifying bankruptcy rules — rebuffing an effort to help people avoid mortgage foreclosures. He said no to the federal rescue of General Motors, which saved the American auto industry, countless jobs in Boehner’s Midwest, and did it all without a long-lasting hit on the Treasury. And he gave a thumbs down to regulation of the subprime mortgage industry.

Like Boehner’s father, my grandmother in Chicago owned a small bar that catered to a working-class clientele. She lived above the bar, a widowed single mother, working seven days a week. What saved her in her old age was a great, expansive government program that allowed so many Americans to live out the last decades of their lives in dignity — Medicare. Yes, that single-payer, socialized medical system that Boehner would surely vote against if it came up today.


And Tom Lutz in the LA Times:
Crying is often the sign of excruciatingly mixed emotion. Take the mother who cries at her daughter's wedding: She may be happy about the marriage and flooded with positive emotions — feelings of role fulfillment, of accomplishment, of pride, of happiness for her daughter. At the same time, she feels a sense of loss: A part of her life is over; she is losing not only a daughter but a purpose, a role.

Even our moments of extreme grief are complicated. The stages of grief do not follow each other in a neat therapeutic procession; instead, they are often a jumble. Loss is complicated by rage, by denial, by guilt. We weep and we wail, and we do so not because we know, without a doubt, exactly what we are feeling. We cry, in fact, because we don't.

Boehner's tears aren't hard to read. After analyzing hundreds of psychological experiments and sociological studies of weeping, hundreds of accounts of crying in different cultures and different historical periods, thousands of tearful moments in film and fiction and art, I have come to see that, like the mother of the bride, many of us weep because we are overwhelmed by contradictions.

[snip]

The America that gave Boehner a shot at his dream had a minimum wage that, adjusted for inflation, topped $10 an hour. In 2006, he voted against letting the minimum rise from $5.15 to its current $7.25. It took Boehner seven years to finish college while working minimum-wage jobs; how long would it have taken if the minimum wage had purchased as little as it does today?

Boehner put himself through school, he said on election night, unsuccessfully trying to stem the flow of tears, "working every rotten job there was." He mopped floors, waited tables and tended bar. One could feel both his horror at once having done that sort of work and his exuberance at having left it behind to become the golfing, jet-setting, deeply tanned man weeping before the cameras.

Would he agree with this assessment? Does he know that, despite his assertions to the contrary, cutting taxes for the rich won't do anything to produce those jobs he keeps promising? Does he feel conflicted knowing that his golf bill (reported at $83,000 last year) is six or seven times the take-home pay of someone working 40 hours a week at minimum wage, and several times the median income in many of our communities?

I suspect he does, and that when he thinks about the America of his youth, he knows it will never return if his party gets its way in Washington. It is all too much. He weeps.


I think Lutz gives Boehner too much credit. Boehner's tears shouldn't fool anyone, unless it's to convince people that they are the tears not of a sensitive new-age guy, but of a crying drunk, which is what his tears actually look like. Because Boehner is no sensitive guy. He's a prime example of the "I Got Mine And Fuck You" Republican.

And the American people will soon find that out. The question will be what they do with it. I have little faith that they will do anything, because a new season of American Idol is coming soon.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, August 04, 2010

My head just exploded. I hate when that happens.
Posted by Jill | 10:04 PM
Newt Gingrich's statement on the decision today declaring California's anti-gay marriage statute unconstitutional (emphases mine):
"Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife. In every state of the union from California to Maine to Georgia, where the people have had a chance to vote they've affirmed that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy. Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society.”


Newt Gingrich's glass house:

1962: Newt married Jackie Battley on June 19, 1962.
1963: Newt's daughter Kathy was born.
1966: Newt's daughter Jackie Sue was born.
1980: Newt met Marianne Ginther in January 1980.
1980: Jackie and Newt separated in April 1980.
1981: Jackie Battley and Newt Gingrich's divorce was finalized in February 1981.
1981: Six months later Newt married Marianne Ginther on August 8, 1981.
1987: Marianne and Newt separated in June 1987.
1993: Newt and Callista Bisek began their affair in November 1993.
1993: Marianne and Newt reconciled in late 1993/early 1994.
1999: Newt and Marianne separated in May 1999 and filed for divorce in July.
1999: Marianne and Newt reached a settlement in their divorce case.
2000: Marianne and Newt's divorce was finalized in April 2000.
2000: Callista Bisek and Newt announced their engagement.
2000: Newt married Callista Bisek on August 18, 2000.

Now I'd like to tell you about the shop where I get my hair done. It's a funky shop, in a struggling downtown in suburban New Jersey. It's owned and operated by two gay men, who have run this shop as business AND life partners for probably about 40 years. They live in an apartment over the shop. One is now seventy, the other is fifty-nine. They live AND work together. And they still take care of each other, as well as the many octe- and nonegenarians who comprise much of their clientele (with a few middle-agers like me thrown in). Their relationship is healthier and more affectionate than most marriages I know.

So tell me again why ANYONE should listen to Newt Gingrich on the subject of marriage?

Labels: , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, June 05, 2010

I'm sorry, but South Carolina really IS the stupidest fucking place on the entire planet
Posted by Jill | 8:27 AM
As if Mark Sanford hiking the Appalachian Trail wasn't bad enough, now we have this:
With a bead of sweat rolling down the side of his face outside a Columbia bar, Republican S.C. Sen. Jake Knotts called Lexington Rep. Nikki Haley, an Indian-American Republican woman running for governor, a “raghead” several times while explaining how he believed she was hiding her true religion from voters.

“She’s a f#!king raghead,” Knotts said.

He later clarified his statement. He did not mean to use the F-word.

Knotts says he believed Haley has been set up by a network of Sikhs and was programmed to run for governor of South Carolina by outside influences in foreign countries. He claims she is hiding her religion and he wants the voters to know about it.

“We got a raghead in Washington; we don’t need one in South Carolina,” Knotts said more than once. “She’s a raghead that’s ashamed of her religion trying to hide it behind being Methodist for political reasons.”

President Obama’s father is from Africa. His mother is a white woman from Kansas.

On her website, Haley says, “Being a Christian is not about words, but about living for Christ every day.”

Knotts, a former boxer and cop from West Columbia, said he wasn’t worried about being called a racist for the remarks he made. He says he was elected to the Senate to represent his constituents which he says he does well. He says many of his supporters are black.

“This is Jakie Knotts trying to let the people know,” he said about his motivations for leveling the inflammatory charges against a minority Republican frontrunner for governor just days before the June 8 primary elections. He says he’s called her a raghead before.

Knotts is backing Republican Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer for governor.

Bauer this week fired one of his lead consultants, Columbia lobbyist Larry Marchant, for what he called “inappropriate conduct.” Marchant told the media shortly after that he’d had sex with Haley at a conference in Utah while they were both married. The claim comes after blogger Will Folks said he’d also had a relationship with Haley in early 2007.

Knotts showed up unexpectedly at the Flying Saucer bar in Columbia’s Vista for a live taping of the online political talk show Pub Politics, which is co-hosted by Senate Republican Caucus political director Wesley Donehue and his Democratic counterpart, Phil Bailey. Democratic S.C. Rep Boyd Brown of Fairfield County was a guest.

Knotts initially made the racial slur on the show.

Neither Donehue, Bailey nor Brown challenged Knotts on his remark during or after the broadcast.

“I was floored,” Donehue said after the cameras were off.

“Senator Knotts took it a step too far,” Bailey said afterward. “I don’t agree with it … [but] it’s not my job to question Jakie Knotts.”

After the broadcast, Knotts stood in a corner on the deck of the bar and defended his remarks.

“This isn’t the first time I’ve said it,” Knotts said. “I’m not on a crusade to downgrade her, but if someone asks me I’ll tell ‘em. And look here, someone wants to vote for her knowing the truth, vote for her.”

Knotts said that South Carolina is a religious community.

“We need a good Christian to be our governor,” he said. “She’s hiding her religion. She ought to be proud of it. I’m proud of my god.”

Sorry, Jakie, but your God thinks you are a shandeh.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, March 08, 2010

Shorter Ross Douthat: Bring Back Self-Flagellation!!
Posted by Jill | 5:23 AM
Funny how a columnist who comes from the side of the fence that rails against elites, longs for the days when profound spiritual experience was the exclusive province against them:
By making mysticism more democratic, we’ve also made it more bourgeois, more comfortable, and more dilettantish. It’s become something we pursue as a complement to an upwardly mobile existence, rather than a radical alternative to the ladder of success. Going to yoga classes isn’t the same thing as becoming a yogi; spending a week in a retreat center doesn’t make me Thomas Merton or Thérèse of Lisieux. Our kind of mysticism is more likely to be a pleasant hobby than a transformative vocation.

What’s more, it’s possible that our horizons have become too broad, and that real spiritual breakthroughs require a kind of narrowing — the decision to pick a path and stick with it, rather than hopscotching around in search of a synthesis that “works for me.” The great mystics of the past were often committed to a particular tradition and community, and bound by the rules (and often the physical confines) of a specific religious institution. Without these kind of strictures and commitments, Johnson argues, mysticism drifts easily into a kind of solipsism: “Kabbalism apart from Torah-observance is playacting; Sufism disconnected from Shariah is vague theosophy; and Christian mysticism that finds no center in the Eucharist or the Passion of Christ drifts into a form of self-grooming.”

Most religious believers will never be great mystics, of course, and the American way of faith is kinder than many earlier eras to those of us who won’t. But maybe it’s become too kind, and too accommodating. Even ordinary belief — the kind that seeks epiphanies between deadlines, and struggles even with the meager self-discipline required to get through Lent — depends on extraordinary examples, whether they’re embedded in our communities or cloistered in the great silence of a monastery. Without them, faith can become just another form of worldliness, therapeutic rather than transcendent, and shorn of any claim to stand in judgment over our everyday choices and concerns.

Maybe getting through Lent is a struggle because deep down, people don't see giving up Hershey bars as ultimately meaning anything. As for a faith that stands in judgment, I have to wonder about someone who requires the supernatural in order to take the moral fork in the road when such choices come up. I always use the pepper-in-the-shopping-cart analogy: When you get into the parking lot at the supermarket, and you see a bell pepper wedged between the top basked and the rest of the cart that both you and the cashier missed, do you just take it, leave it in the cart, or go in and pay for it? I'm not a Christian, I don't really practice any religion, and I always go in and pay for it. BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

Why is that so difficult that people need to create a punitive imaginary figure in order to do it?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, February 17, 2010

OK, so it took about 24 hours
Posted by Jill | 5:05 AM
Here at Casa la Brilliant, we are fairly regular viewers of Family Guy. Mr. Brilliant likes it more than I do, since the show features a fair amount of "guy humor" -- fart and sex jokes. I like it for the Brian/Stewie dynamic. Brian is one of the great cartoon characters of all time -- the erudite family dog who's smarter than the people he lives with, behaves more like a human than a dog, but then will for no reason at all chase a ball or lick his own privates. Brian is Cleo from the 1950's show The People's Choice updated for a more ironic time. And then there's Stewie, the bratty gay aspiring song-and-dance baby of the Griffin family, who used to be homicidal towards his mother, but now is mostly just your standard id-driven baby on steroids. In fact he WAS on steroids in one show. The pair is also prone to bursting into song for no particular reason, and the songs, written for the show, are finely-crafted Broadway-style showstoppers.

The show is definitely twisted. It pushes the envelope so far that it often makes me angry, with its relentless abuse of Meg, the teenage daughter, and jokes about the libidinous Quagmire putting date rape drugs into women's drinks. But I understand what the show is trying to do, and it is some really nasty, wicked social satire.

So when the story line on Sunday involved Chris, the dim-witted Griffin son falling for the mentally-challenged girl at school, and on their first date the girl announced that "my father is an accountant and my mother used to be governor of Alaska", I said to Mr. Brilliant, "So how long do you think it's going to take?"

Now, Fox is ferocous about making sure that none of its properties shows up on YouTube, so I can't show you the clip in question, or indeed any sample clips from the show. But you have to be able to visualize Seth McFarlane sitting at home, watching Sunday night's show, and the minute that line was uttered, looking at his watch and starting to count: "One....two....three....four....", etc. Because if you watch the show, you know that's exactly what he was doing. So for the uninitiated, some Seth McFarlane snark. Here he introduces a censored episode on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim:



And like clockwork, Sarah Palin did not disappoint:
In recent weeks, Fox News analyst Sarah Palin has waged a high-profile war on the “r-word,” calling for White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s resignation after he called liberal activists “f-ing retarded.” Her latest target is the Fox cartoon Family Guy. In a recent episode, the character Chris Griffin dated a girl with Down Syndrome. “My mom’s the former governor of Alaska,” she told Chris. Calling it “another kick in the gut,” Palin and her daughter Bristrol took to Facebook to attack the show:



People are asking me to comment on yesterday’s Fox show that felt like another kick in the gut. Bristol was one who asked what I thought of the show that mocked her baby brother, Trig (and/or others with special needs), in an episode yesterday. Instead of answering, I asked her what she thought. Here is her conscientious reply, which is a much more restrained and gracious statement than I want to make about an issue that begs the question, “when is enough, enough?”:


When hate radio host Rush Limbaugh used the word “retarded” over 40 times on a recent show, Palin gave Limbaugh a pass because “he was using satire.” “I agree with Rush Limbaugh,” Palin told Fox News host Chris Wallace, referring to Limbaugh’s belief that he was just joking. Family Guy is “best known for combining controversial topics with off-color jokes



I can't imagine that the Roberts court would vote the same way, but John Roberts was not on the Supreme Court when Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell was decided in 1988:
Held: In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice," i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. Here, respondent is clearly a "public figure" for First Amendment purposes, and the lower courts' finding that the ad parody was not reasonably believable must be accepted. "Outrageousness" [p47] in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression, and cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages for conduct such as that involved here. Pp. 50-57.


And for the record, anyone who watches the show on a regular basis recognized that while the character in question was clearly mentally-challenged, and certainly bossy and obnoxious, her mental disability was not even the butt of standard Family Guy targeting. Sarah Palin's outrage is even more disingenuous because she has a daughter around the age of Meg, the show's teenage daughter who gets so much crap shoveled on her by the show's other characters that it's often painful. But there's not as much political hay to be made among Palin's frothing, drooling minions in defending teenaged girls from being portrayed as the butt of "ugly jokes."

Meanwhile, Seth MacFarlane, who's undoubtedly going to be invited onto every late-night talk show this week, is sitting there with that Cheshire-Cat grin. Because you can't BUY this kind of publicity. And his employers, who also employ Sarah Palin, know it.

Bread, circuses, etc.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share