Now Playing on JYB Films

Anatomy of the Comic Jihad


Movie File Host
YouTube YouTube
Putfile Putfile


Movie File Host
YouTube

The Meaning of Taqiyya







button02b
fpawbn
July 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        
$1 Shipping for 4 days, only at Overstock.com!
button
Archives

Content Staff
Technical Staff
credit where due
This site is still alive and kicking thanks to the generosity and talents of Alan M. Carroll (aka Annoying Old Guy). Without him, the JYB would still be suffering with Blogger's bad code and long-term archive loss.
Powered by
Hosted By
Anti-Junk: 7719 sources banned.

LYING LIARS OF THE LEFT

It's a three-fer Fisking smackdown! World Magazine's Max Goss plants boots in the keisters of Molly Ivins, Al Franken and Michael Moore (in whose keister Goss probably lost one or more of his boots, and maybe his leg up to the knee).

AL FRANKEN CALLS KARL ROVE "human filth," Ari Fleischer a "chimp," and John Ashcroft "something of a nutcase." Michael Moore calls President Bush a "nitwit" and (in the voice of God, no less) a "devil." Molly Ivins manages to insult millions at once when she approvingly quotes William Brann's crack that "the trouble with our Texas Baptists is that we do not hold them under water long enough." Mean-spirited, you say? No, it's all in good fun, the authors say.

That's their technique: spewing hatred but saying it's funny. Or as Mr. Franken likes to say, "kidding on the square," purporting to tell a joke but really meaning it. Though he might not admit it, Mr. Franken, along with fellow humor writers Molly Ivins and Michael Moore, specializes in kidding on the square. You don't care for their reliance on ad hominem, innuendo, guilt, and distortion? Why, you must have missed the joke. As Mr. Moore once remarked, "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?"

And there you have Moore et all summed up neatly--it's only a lie if I mean it, and since I don't really mean it (wink wink), it's not really a lie.

Soooo...Moore doesn't really mean what he's saying, when he calls Americans dumb and ignorant? When he lamely ties defense contractors to the killers of Columbine, it's just all in good fun? Well pardon me if I'm not ROFLOL.

It's a clever tactic, really. Mr. Franken and company can assert anything they want, no matter how ludicrous, to prove that President Bush and his cohorts are bent on destroying America—and anyone who complains is branded a sourpuss. Nor are these writers above poisoning the well with innuendo and gossip. Convinced that Mr. Bush has been corrupted by money and religion, they never tire of pointing out his supposedly incriminating associations with business and religious leaders.

Yup. That's how they work all right. Well, occassionally Franken will challenge Rich Lowry to a fight. All in good fun, of course.

Goss divides to conquer, taking on the axis of idiotarians one at a time. Franken gets it first:

Mr. Franken's preferred strategy is guilt-mongering. He writes a darkly comic chapter from the perspective of a fictional teenager working under miserable conditions in a Bangladesh shoe factory. The moral of the story? "Free trade may not be good for everybody. It may not be good for you, my reader, or for the Kharap Jutas of the world, of which there are three or four billion." There is no excuse for hazardous working conditions or forced labor, as almost any conservative will grant, but what Mr. Franken doesn't mention is what life would have been like for Kharap Juta had the factory not been built. Why work in such a factory in the first place if it didn't promise a better life? Mr. Franken never answers this question. Once he's pushed our buttons, he moves on, apparently uninterested in discussing any merits of global free trade. Devious, you say? You must have missed the joke.

Then he goes after Chunkybutt:

Michael Moore specializes in outrageously cynical rumor-mongering, and devotes the first chapter of his book to entertaining paranoid theories about the president's supposed protection of Saudi dignitaries in the wake of Sept. 11. Mr. Moore suggests that "certain factions within the Saudi royal family" masterminded the attacks, and that Mr. Bush helped many Saudis evade prosecution, obstructing justice to protect his family's financial interests.

These allegations would be disturbing indeed if they weren't utterly groundless. In a recent article for spinsanity.com, a nonpartisan media watchdog, Bryan Keefer points out that Mr. Moore ignores "mountains of evidence connecting the hijackers to al-Qaeda." Although there is some evidence that the hijackers received funding from the Saudis, Mr. Keefer notes, "there is no evidence that the Saudi government or Saudi officials helped plan the Sept. 11 attacks." It appears Mr. Moore's imagination got the better of him. As he said himself in his Oscar acceptance speech, "We live in fictitious times."


Maybe you live in fictitious times, Mikey, whatever that means. The rest of us live in the real world, where lies and liars are bad things. Evidence is, you're a liar:

Mr. Moore also criticizes the Patriot Act, citing eight shocking examples of what he calls "FBI abuse." But as Mr. Keefer points out, "None of the incidents he lists ... happened as a result of the Patriot Act, nor did any of them involve the FBI." Mr. Keefer learned this in many cases from Mr. Moore's own sources.

Finally, professional Texan Molly Ivins gets her bigoted lies laundered:

Molly Ivins lives by cynical innuendo, especially concerning the president's Christian faith. Of course she's not alone. Mr. Moore calls him a "nitwit" for believing in Providence, and Mr. Franken, after noting Mr. Bush's belief that Christian faith is necessary for salvation, counts him among those who "like to exclude others from heaven." But Ms. Ivins seems to harbor a special animus toward Christians, at least those Christians with the gall to believe Christianity is true. She scoffs at Franklin Graham's prayer "in Jesus' name" at the president's inauguration, and records with evident horror the president's claim that he could never have stopped drinking without the grace of God. How retrograde!

Ms. Ivins is convinced that the president's foreign policy is dictated by apocalyptic theology. She blames Pastor James Hagee of San Antonio, to whom (she fails to note) Mr. Bush has no direct connection. Pastor Hagee is from Texas; he has apparently said that the United States should help Israel destroy Yasser Arafat's regime and seize full control of Jerusalem and the West Bank; he pushed for the removal of Saddam Hussein; Mr. Bush has shown support for Israel and recently invaded Iraq. Conclusion? The Bush administration has decided to "fall in behind the likes of the Reverend James Hagee."

Yeah, that's about what you'd expect from the woman who says that the problem with Texas Baptists is they we don't hold them under water long enough. Is it a joke, or an invitation to genocide? Or both? By hiding it in humor, Ivins masks a serious tendency to advocate mass murder. A charming Texas rose, that one.

Goss ends solidly, noting the irony inherent in the rising popularity of the three lefty lunatics:

Ironically, the three authors attack the alleged dishonesty of the president and his supporters but apparently have very few scruples about their own practices. Each relies almost exclusively on insults, unsubstantiated allegations, and misrepresentation of the facts to "prove" that conservatives are liars. Why not? This is satire, after all—the more outrageous, the better. Strangely, for all his talk of "kidding on the square," Mr. Franken never mentions what is most obvious: It's an essentially deceptive strategy. Kidding on the square lets us say whatever we want without having to own up to it. If someone takes offense, we don't have to give an answer. We can just wink and ask, "Can't you take a joke?"

I've given away the ending here, but you should check out the whole thing.

Post to del.icio.us

Posted by B. Preston on December 1, 2003 1:10 PM
Trackbacks: View (1)Ping
Comments

Some jokes - they could be the 3 Stooges, but that would be giving the 3 Stooges a bad name.

Fairly easy to sell books and make $$ on the lecture circuit when you’re spewing this junk with big media backing. Seems like I remember a Democratic presidential candidate referring to conservatives as the “extra chromosome” group and not having to pay much of a price for that remark.

I guess all this is kind of like Tim Robbins “satire” about the reopening of the Guld War, where he depicts American soldiers as rabidly and intentionally murdering women and children. Geez I laugh myself sick just thinking about it.

Hey, here’s my own bit of satire. People like Moore, Franken and Robbins detest America and Bush so intensely that they actually WANT Islamic Terrorists to murder more Americans and they’d happily support any of America’s enemies is it meant they could regain the White House to work on destroying America from the inside out, just like Bubba. Isn’t that the most freakin’ hysterical thing you’ve ever heard?

If you make me think of Michael Moore’s butt one more time I’m going to get really upset. Stop it!

Here’s my quick take on Moore’s comments before last month’s protests in London.

[whisper]go EAGLES[/whisper]

Big game this Sunday. Scan the stands for me. I’ll be the guy with the Green and White JYB jersey on.

Dropping in again…we should talk as humans soon. Needed some advice on stellar imagery — a jpeg — the other night, but it was 2AM! So the opportunity was lost.

Anyway.

It’s a clever tactic, really. Mr. Franken and company can assert anything they want, no matter how ludicrous, to prove that President Bush and his cohorts are bent on destroying America—and anyone who complains is branded a sourpuss. Nor are these writers above poisoning the well with innuendo and gossip.

One question: were you and Gross even awake during the Clinton Administration?

The writing is well-reasoned, etc., but Max Boot is hardly original. It’d not be hard to find an articulate Democrat who wrote the exact same thing during the last administration. Time and again here I’m seeing this willful forgetting about the past, and even the present. Not only concerning this issue, but many others. “Wes Clark is liar?” “He’s inarticulate?” But the reasoning doesn’t include any comparisons to the present occupier of the White House — someone who DIDN’T serve his country; someone WHO HAS lied. (I am not referring to the WMD, etc.); someone who must qualify as one of the most inarticulate president of modern time. Yet that’s of no concern to you when it’s a Republican.

Then there’s the That’s their technique: spewing hatred but saying it’s funny.

Really? Don’t suppose you spent the ‘90s listening to that great, fair wit Rush Limbaugh? How about that gut-buster no-footnotes Ann Coulter? Isn’t she a tickle? Michael Savage — “get Aids and Die” — you could always depend on for his fair and balanced dealing with the issues, couldn’t you? Have you listened to much Right-Wing Radio?

Strange how you have no problem with that blitz of fairness.

Rather than Frankin and Ivins inventing this, I think they’re doing a poor job of catching up.

Posted by Webster on December 2, 2003 2:06 AM

Hey Webster,

Yeah, let’s definitely talk on an actual phone again soon. But I do appreciate not getting called at 2 am. Mrs. JYB would not have approved.

Re Clark—I’m not sure that I’ve accused him of lying. Maybe I have somewhere, but I don’t remember. I’ve accused him of being unprincipled, and his flips and flops on Iraq are pretty strong evidence that I’m right. I’ve accused him of apparent cluelessness, and having to be told what he thinks by a campaign handler is evidence of that. But I also looked into his possible role in Waco and pretty much concluded that there isn’t much to it. Now, do I like Clark, or think he’d be a good president? No, I don’t. He seems entirely too much of an opportunist and entirely too unprincipled for the job. I’d say much the same about Dean, except that he’s also too much of a demagogue for my tastes. And he’s just wrong about the war, from one end to the other, and is far too quick to excuse our enemies while accusing Bush of creating the war for partisan reasons. That’s a lie, and an awful one, and in normal times he’d be sunk for it. But these aren’t normal times.

Re Bush, when did he lie, and what did he lie about? I’ve demonstrated in several posts that he did not lie about Iraqi WMDs, or that if he lied, pretty much everyone in the Clinton admin lied about them too. That was the single gravest charge against Bush regarding the war and his administration generally, and I’ve knocked it down (not that that will stop lots of people from accusing him of lying about it anyway). So what did he lie about?

Re Coulter, et al. I’ve said on this blog many times that Coulter goes too far for my tastes. I’ll quote her here and there if she makes a good point, but for the most part I don’t follow her. And she simply isn’t in the same class as a Michael Moore or Al Franken when it comes to lying and vitriol. She at least attempts to stick to facts—those guys lie brazenly, then wink about it if you catch them. Rush isn’t in the same class as any of these folks. I wonder if you’ve actually listened to him—he’s not a hate-monger, not at all. He’s a jovial sort, mostly poking fun at your side where and when you deserve it.

Ivins has been doing this sort of thing for a very, very long time. I used to catch her bilge in the Texas papers years ago—she’s always been a hack without a conscience, and an elitist who used Texan sayings to sneer at her fellow citizens. She’s not playing catch-up to anyone in the lying game. She was doing it long before Rush showed up.

Posted by Bryan on December 2, 2003 9:34 AM
Post a comment