Category Archives: Media

Hasselbeck’s Hassles

Celebrity, Conservatism, Feminism, Gender, Media, Republicans

To Socratic debate, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, I wrote, “has contributed the sob, the wide-eyed stare, and extravagant gesticulation. When words and wild gestures fail, she weeps.”

And weep she did once again, after being forced to apologize for one of the few witty observations she’s ever made concerning a female sports announcer (also known as a woman who spoils the sporting experience for men).

Watch Hasselbeck’s mea culpa. Watch George Stephanopoulos, now anchor of ABC’s “Good Morning America.” He takes the Fifth. (Stephanopoulos is one of the better lefties in the media.)

The rest of my description of this member of the Republican blond brigade:

Hasselbeck is the Republican’s brain trust on a show called ‘The View.’ Her conservative credentials include support for breast cancer prevention and research, the Amber Alert Initiative, the war, Our Leader, and, more generally, being blond and bubbly.

And don’t go accusing me of neglecting her contribution to liberty:

“Hasselbeck was a prime mover behind the persecution of Imus, for politically unpalatable speech, alongside race hustlers Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, neocon sister Amy Holmes, and other sundry sorts of the left (Whoopi Goldberg, Maya Angelou, Naomi Wolf).”

Sycophant’s Supper

Barack Obama, Celebrity, Hollywood, Journalism, Media

It’s a sickening specter: some of the most pretentious, worthless people in the country—in politics, journalism and entertainment—get together to revel in their ability to petition and curry favor with one another, usually to the detriment of the rest of us.

Those gathered at the annual White House correspondents’ dinner are not the country’s natural aristocracy; but a group of people who make their living pretending to be something they are not. Poseurs and parasites all.

Granted, actors do not coerce the citizenry to patronize their (mostly) lousy flicks. However, when they use their celebrity to push unconstitutional, naturally unlawful policies—then they are acting as enemies of the people.

Mostly, I find Hollywood disgusting. Every time I turn around a “celebrity” is preaching and propagandizing for the leftist cause du jour. Some of these tarts were using their tushes and other assets to tell their betters (YOU) to be good and do your “duty.” (Most of them are agitating against Arizona.)

Like nothing else, the annual White House correspondents’ dinner is a mark of corrupt politics. The un-watchful dogs of the media have no business frolicking with the president and his minions. This is co-optation. And when did the phonies of Hollywood become a fixture in this event?

The toxic “tradition” began in 1920, and, as far as I know, is sponsored by THE WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTS’ ASSOCIATION. “The White House Correspondents’ Association was formed in 1914 as a liaison between the press and the president.” The event and the invited tell a great deal about the Association and its ethics and code of conduct. ”

MSNBC presenters swore by the president’s routine and said he bested Jay Leno. I happen to think Obama can be a very funny guy; but better than Leno? I laughed at this Obama dig a lot:

“I happen to know that my approval ratings are still very high in the country of my birth.”

You have to love BHO a hell of a lot to think that anything he said could approximate JL’s “Cash for Flunkers” skit. Still Leno is getting bad reviews.

Sycophant's Supper

Barack Obama, Celebrity, Hollywood, Journalism, Media

It’s a sickening specter: some of the most pretentious, worthless people in the country—in politics, journalism and entertainment—get together to revel in their ability to petition and curry favor with one another, usually to the detriment of the rest of us.

Those gathered at the annual White House correspondents’ dinner are not the country’s natural aristocracy; but a group of people who make their living pretending to be something they are not. Poseurs and parasites all.

Granted, actors do not coerce the citizenry to patronize their (mostly) lousy flicks. However, when they use their celebrity to push unconstitutional, naturally unlawful policies—then they are acting as enemies of the people.

Mostly, I find Hollywood disgusting. Every time I turn around a “celebrity” is preaching and propagandizing for the leftist cause du jour. Some of these tarts were using their tushes and other assets to tell their betters (YOU) to be good and do your “duty.” (Most of them are agitating against Arizona.)

Like nothing else, the annual White House correspondents’ dinner is a mark of corrupt politics. The un-watchful dogs of the media have no business frolicking with the president and his minions. This is co-optation. And when did the phonies of Hollywood become a fixture in this event?

The toxic “tradition” began in 1920, and, as far as I know, is sponsored by THE WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTS’ ASSOCIATION. “The White House Correspondents’ Association was formed in 1914 as a liaison between the press and the president.” The event and the invited tell a great deal about the Association and its ethics and code of conduct. ”

MSNBC presenters swore by the president’s routine and said he bested Jay Leno. I happen to think Obama can be a very funny guy; but better than Leno? I laughed at this Obama dig a lot:

“I happen to know that my approval ratings are still very high in the country of my birth.”

You have to love BHO a hell of a lot to think that anything he said could approximate JL’s “Cash for Flunkers” skit. Still Leno is getting bad reviews.

Updated: Maddow, McVeigh And The Militia

Federalism, Homeland Security, Liberty, Media, Propaganda, Reason, Terrorism, WMD

The excerpt is from “Maddow, McVeigh And The Militia,” now on WND.COM:

“Rachel Maddow’s gayness (and goggles) is the most interesting thing about her. What I’m trying to say here is that the MSNBC TV host has a mundane mind, which, rest assured, will insert and assert itself during an upcoming special presentation, “The McVeigh Tapes: Confessions of an American Terrorist.” ….

A far more interesting choice for presenter of the forthcoming MSNBC feature on McVeigh would have been the brilliant belletrist Gore Vidal.

Like Maddow, Vidal (aged 83) is a gay leftist. Unlike Maddow, he manages to dazzle with his original insights. (Unfashionably, Vidal has also poked fun at assorted anal activists and at all manner of “vulgar fagism.”)

Vidal “became a supportive correspondent of Timothy McVeigh,” and considers McVeigh “a true patriot, a Constitution man.”

Gore Vidal is rare in recognizing the legitimate federal insults to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that motivated McVeigh to commit his crime. He is also unique, on the Left and Right, in acknowledging that McVeigh was not a rube, but a thoughtful man who had fought for his country and was familiar with its foundational principles and documents.

As the most able counsel for the defense (McVeigh’s), the iconoclastic octogenarian would have given his viewers something to mull over; mundane Maddow will not. …

The complete column is “Maddow, McVeigh And The Militia.” Read it on WND.COM.

Read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy (or copies) now!

Update (April 16): Inferring motivation, or psychologizing about the reason Vidal respected some of McVeigh’s arguments are species of ad hominem. I avoid them, for the most; I don’t take them seriously when others make them. In fact, that’s MSNBC’s stock-in-trade; impute motivation (“racism” always) to your foe and attack him based on assumptions about his inner workings, rather than deal with the facts and merits of his argument.

So, our (much-welcomed) commenter claims Vidal had a homoerotic fixation with McVeigh, and therefore everything he claimed to respect in McVeigh is not credible. That line of reasoning is illogical.

A quote from McVeigh:

I think it all has to do with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the misconception that the government is obliged to provide those things or has the jurisdiction to deny them. We’ve gotten away from the principle that they were only created to secure those rights. And that’s where, I believe, much of the trouble has surfaced.

I agree with that. And if a “stormtrooper” agrees with the above statement, then consider that a stormtrooper, McVeigh and I agree about the statement. Other than to argue in circles, so what?!