Somewhere, in the United States, hard-core leftists are branding Seth MacFarlane a traitor.
In the most recent episode of Family Guy, MacFarlane teams up with Rush Limbaugh to ridicule the extreme stereotypes the far left holds of conservatives.
Afer learning that Limbaugh is visiting Quahog, Brian first degenerates into sputtering nonsensical epithets (at one point even prompting Stewie to offer him a do-over). However, after reading one of Limbaugh's books, Brian becomes a full-out dittohead... at least for a time.
With Limbaugh's full support, Brian stops thinking for himself, and promptly believes everything that Limbaugh tells him to.
Naturally, in the end Brian returns to being what Lois describes as a "hard-core liberal". He was never a conservative at all, mostly because he never understood how to be.
Regardless of what some would-be conservatives have to say about it, torture is not a conservative value. Rather, quite the contrary. Conservatives believe in rule of law, and torture is contrary to the rule of law.
Having never been a conservative himself, all Brian can offer is the left-wing cariacture of conservatives.
If not for the participation of Limbaugh himself, many conservatives would likely be outraged. But with Limbaugh's cooperation, the episode instead becomes a parody of everything that the far left thinks about conservatives -- including about Fox News.
For example, Lois declares everything on Fox News to be lies. And even things previously true become a lie once mentioned on Fox. Sounds like the basic knee-jerk reaction that many leftists offer to anything appearing on Fox News.
The Limbaugh episode of Family Guy should offer clarity to the terms of the debate between left and right in the United States. Unfortunately, it probably won't. It will probably just leave the left branding Seth MacFarlane as a tratior.
As featured on last night's episode of the Daily Show, US congressional candidate Ieshuh Griffin attempted to make unique use the "five words of principle" independent candidates can place on the ballot next to their name in the state of Wisconsin.
When voters cast their ballot, "NOT the white man's bitch" will not appear next to Griffin's name.
No, this is not a joke.
Griffin had to get the statement past Wisconsin's Government Accountability Board, who initially ruled that it would appear on the ballot. That decision was later reversed.
Griffin even managed to attract the attention of Rush Limbaugh.
In politics, as in anything else, controversy sells. Ieshuh Griffin managed to parlay her clearly-militant racial views ever-so-briefly to the top. The Daily Show has now granted her a few more minutes of fame.
This author, as a white man, is quite comfortable with Ieshuh Griffin not being his bitch. That job's already been taken.
In its most virulent forms, weaponized racism relies on rhetorical self-indulgences by the far left wherein they entitle themselves to various sophistic means by which they never need provide any actual evidence.
Instead of offering actual evidence of racism, Dyson instead proposes that he can identify "code words" -- coded racism.
Moreover, when Breitbart points out that Limbaugh was a staunch defender of Justice Clarence Thomas, Maher insists that Thomas doesn't represtent "95%" of black people. Dyson objects to Breitbart envoking the "black studies crowd" by referring to it as coded racism.
Dyson seems rather desperate to cut off Breitbart's point at the knees, and with reason: in order to make his argument, Dyson relies on a collectivized notion of race, with a political agenda attached to it.
Dyson further suggests that white supremacy can inhabit black skin -- further inferring that Thomas is such a case.
In other words, because Thomas doesn't share the political agenda championed by the far left -- including, frankly, many X-studies professors of various sorts (black studies, women's studies, etc) -- it's inferred that he, as a black man, is a white supremacist.
Of course, what Dyson is all but outwardly accusing Thomas of is perhaps the most damaging breed of racism -- racism against one's own race. And, just as with his "coded racism", Dyson need not offer any actual evidence outside of Thomas' disagreement with a specific political agenda.
Which, conveniently, will always be their political agenda.
In fact, Dyson's allegations of "coded racism" actually allows him to take any statement he believes he can twist into inferring a racist statement and use it as de facto evidence of racism.
For example, Dyson has entitled himself to the privilege to twist any criticism of President Barack Obama -- an individual black man -- into a broader racist meme in which one criticizes Obama not because there's anything wrong with his policies, but rather because they can't stand to see a black man in charge.
Where Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas -- clearly "running things" as a black male -- falls into this is anyone's guess.
Then, quite comically, as Breitbart gets set to rebut, it's Michael Eric Dyson -- a guest on the show, not a producer, or even its host -- who says "we're out of time".
There's a reasonw why Dyson wouldn't want such facts to see the light of day: as a black man with a specific far-left-wing political agenda, Dyson has learned as well as anyone that racism is an extremely convenient political accusation. As such, it's individuals like Dyson who have participated in the weaponization of racism -- all in the name of advancing said specific agenda.
The cynicism people like Dyson are breeding on the topic of racism is dangerous and socially irresponsible.
It's to the great credit of western society that we have come to understand the civic threat posed by racism, even if we have yet to fully conquer it. It's to the great discredit of people like Bill Maher, Michael Eric Dyson and Spencer Ackerman that they have decided to risk undermining the western public's understanding of racism by sewing such cynicism.
If they legitimately cared about the topic of racism at all, they would be ashamed of themselves. Of course, that brings one back to a very, very big "if" -- and all the available evidence demonstrates that they really don't care about it at all: they only care about racism so far as they can ideoligically benefit from it.
Limbaugh is such an incredible ass that he all too often fails to understand who is on his side, who isn't, and generally what's really going on.
Such must have been his shock when he learned that former Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin has officially joined efforts to re-brand the Republican party, mere hours after Limbaugh insisted that the GOP leadership is afraid of her.
Oops.
"Something else you have to understand is these people hate Palin too," Limbaugh had mused. "They despise Sarah Palin, they fear Sarah Palin, they don't like her either. She's, according to them she's embarrassing. McCain said, 'I was there with Ronald Reagan'…. No Reagan voter ever believed McCain was a Reaganite."
"And I think… a lot of this is aimed at Sarah Palin," he continued. "When you strip all the talk — It's 'the Reagan era is over, stop all this nostalgia and stuff.' Clearly, in last year's campaign, the most prominent, articulate voice for standard run-of the mill good old fashioned American conservatism was Sarah Palin. Now, everybody on this [NCNA] Speak to America tour has presidential perspirations [sic]. Mitt Romney there, he wants to be president again. Jeb may someday. Eric Cantor, some of the others, McCain — I don't think he does, but you never know. So this is an early campaign event, 2012 presidential campaign, primary campaign, with everybody there but Sarah Palin."
Now, the National Committee for a New America -- a committee name that seems to oddly ring of Preston Manning's The New Canada -- has contradicted Limbaugh in delicious fashion, and added some level of intrigue to the affair.
Palin, after all, is held up by many as an example of the antiquated social conservative policies the Republican party has become so closely associated with. Even though her stances on most of these issues aren't nearly as extreme as many of her opponents insist -- for example, her views on abortion actually promote the kind of alternatives to an abortion that pro-abortion activists often insist they would support -- Palin's participation in the NCNA will allow the party's detractors to denounce the process as putting a new shade of lipstick on a pig.
But if a rebranded, rejuvinated Republican party is to be successful it will have to find a place in it for those who hold socially conservative values. While that place shouldn't grant these individuals the dominant position over policy making that they've previously enjoyed, their ongoing participation in the Republican party will remain important.
Certainly many social conservatives -- especially proponents of the religious right -- would reject a Republican party that didn't grant them an extraordinary amount of influence over party policy.
Moving away from these particular social conservatives is one of the most important things the new Republican party could do for itself.
For those social conservatives who are willing to collaborate with those who don't share their views in order to establish a consensus that more effectively reflects the modern-day values of the American people, Sarah Palin's influence on the Republican party will be important in terms of maintaining the Republican party as a party they, too, can call home.
It will be a party that Rush Limbaugh probably won't like very much anymore. Then again, that alone will be of immense value to the new GOP.
Limbaugh's words underscore what has become an increasingly-hostile environment toward moderate conservatives in the Republican party -- a trend that began in the 1990s as the Republican party increasingly courted the religious right. Demagogues more interested in ideological purity than the pragmatic nuts-and-bolts of politics have increasingly led the Republican party astray.
John and Meghan McCain want to lead it back to the centre -- a task increasingly difficult with individuals like Limbaugh and Ann Coulter trying to drag the party even further to the right, and insisting that anyone unwilling to collaborate to that end be cast out of the party.
"I just wish that moderates like myself — more moderate Republicans and more socially liberal Republicans — weren’t looked at as, ‘Get rid of the dirty moderates. Get rid of them,’" Meghan recently complained, pointing to the Democrats' success in moderating itself.
“We need to be an inclusive party," she continued. "We need to be an umbrella party. We need to inspire 20-somethings, which is something the Obama campaign did very well.”
“And it’s not that I think that our message is neither good nor bad — I just think it’s that the Democrats package their message better, and I think if we could be able to communicate with my generation, the Republican Party can really rebuild itself,” she concluded.
The elder McCain, who seems to have accepted that his time to lead the Republican party is passing, impressed upon the need to embrace both youth and newer technologies. “By Twitter, by Internet, by all the things that frankly, the Obama campaign did a very good job at," he added. "That’s why we need lots of young people involved. If you are young, give us a call.”
McCain continued on the importance of mixing older conservative principles with these newer technological communication means. “I think we go back to old principles — and that’s less government, lower taxes, national security, etc, but we have to also have a new set of ideas and policies to implement and bring our principles into the 21st century.”
In order to find those ideas and principles the Republican party desperately needs to embrace moderate conservatives.
The Republican party's inability to accomodate moderates within its ranks have already cost it dearly. Once Al Franken is seated in the Senate -- and as the inconsistencies surrounding the Minnesota Senate election are cleared up it appears that he very much will win -- the Republicans will be seated across from a filibuster-proof Senate.
While all of this takes place, fools like Rush Limbaugh continue to sneer in the face of political reality. Faced with the fact that the world refuses to conform to their fantasies of ideological purity, individuals like Limbaugh have been revealed for the dinosaurs they really are.
Unfortunately they seem intent on leading the Republican party into extinction alongside them. Fortuantely, individuals like the McCains refuse to let them.
As one continues to assess the current state of the American Republican Party, one can't help but think that some honest, heart-felt criticism is certainly in order.
The Republicans have lost the White House and lost control of both Congressional houses. To make matters worse, far-right ideologue Rush Limbaugh seems to have seized control of the party's public image.
At a time like this, when times are so dark for the Republican party, Justified Right's Tommy de Seno wants to drive some of the party's most concerned supporters out.
John and Meghan McCain are in de Seno's sights. Their unforgivable sin is purported to be criticizing the American conservative movement and working with the enemy.
"I grew tired of McCain fighting our agenda, voting against tax cuts, bowing to global warming loons, insulting Christian leaders, ganging against us with his liberal 'Gang of 14' and passing useless laws with liberals like Senator Russ Feingold. — Not to mention snubbing CPAC," de Seno writes.
"The press rewarded McCain’s behavior by labelling him a “maverick” for bashing the Republican Party (if a Democrat bucks his party, like Lieberman, the press paints him as a traitor, not a maverick)," he continues.
De Seno then goes on to address Meghan McCain, who recently took on Ann Coulter in the press.
"Now comes his daughter Meghan McCain, proving the old adage that the poop doesn’t fall far from the pig’s rear end, Meghan has joined her father in the Republican bashing business," de Seno writes.
"Writing on The Daily Beast, an Internet blog, she takes on author Ann Coulter," he continues. "She says she 'straight up doesn’t understand' Coulter (probably all those big words Ann uses). She labels Ann’s followers part of a 'cult' (Meghan must be reading the papers — that’s how media refers to our whole party!). She takes a swing at CPAC, too (chip off the old block, that Meghan)."
"It’s painfully clear she has crossed the threshold of her half life," Moore writes. "Her mantra that liberals are pitiable, conniving, traitorous losers and that conservatives are valorous, patriotic administrative geniuses plays poorly against the backdrop of the hand-over from George W Bush to Barack Obama. Imagine penning a panegyric to dirigible travel while crossing the Atlantic on the Hindenburg."
Yet de Seno seems to think that criticizing Coulter -- who, along with Limbaugh, currently remains one of the best reasons not to support the GOP -- should be considered off-limits for Republicans.
Quite the contrary. What the Republican party needs more than anything is a critical voice from within the party to remind it that people such as Limbaugh, Coulter and de Seno are leading the Republican party too far into the political fringes for it to even possibly remain viable.
In the world of politics, some times one's worst critic is their best friend. Sadly, individuals like Tommy de Seno are all to eager to push any critical voice out of the Republican party.
Shooting the messengers will not solve the Republican party's problems. Unfortunately, individuals such as de Seno are afflicted with itchy trigger fingers.
In a recent post on his blog, Warren Kinsella outlines his "top ten jerks in the known universe". It turned out to be a very predictably partisan list.
Well, we at the Nexus (of Assholery) would probably be remiss if we didn't compile our own list of the top ten jerks in the universe. After all, considering the blog's name, we should know a thing or two about that topic.
Unsurprisingly, Kinsella makes the list (he's number five). More interestingly, positions one through three proved to be very closely packed. Who managed to take #1? Read on and find out.
10. John Rocker - Just when you thought this washed-up former Major League Baseball pitcher had disappeared off the face of the earth, he drags his racist, homophobic, sexist carcass out of the grave just long enough to savour some sour grapes by helping to bring down Major League Baseball as we know it.
Well, OK. So maybe that wouldn't be such a bad idea. And maybe Bud Selig himself only barely dodged making this particular list himself. But Rocker apparently isn't content to have ruined his own career with his public embarrassment of his sport and mediocre play. He just might bring his sport down with him.
9. Gordon Laird - So far as Canadian political analysis goes, Gordon Laird tends to writes really good fiction.
Laird actually makes this list almost exclusively for his 1998 book Slumming It At the Rodeo, in which he takes various swings at former Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, former Ontario Premier Mike Harris, and former Leader of the Opposition Preston Manning, and the rather astounding lengths which he goes to invest practically any issue with undertones of racism.
In perhaps the most amusing section of his book, Laird relates the story of a Reform party barbecue held during the Calgary Stampede. While himself clearly being an individual who would not be in attendance at the event, Laird suggests that Rahim Jaffer was the subject of various racial jokes which suddenly stopped when he showed up.
Except that Laird wasn't there. And that's a story that would be considered unlikely to be told by those in attendance at that event even if it did happen in the first place. So how is one to treat this alleged episode other than as complete fiction?
The idea that Laird would try to pass it off as fact, despite the episode remaining largely unsubstantiated, speaks volumes about him.
Alberta Politics Uncovered author Marc Lisac would duplicate that very same feat in what basically amounted to an ad hominem attack on former Alberta premier Ralph Klein in the course of his book. Not only is Laird easily dismissed as a jerk for perpetuating that fiction in the first place, but he clearly set a very bad example for other would-be authors.
8. Scott Reid - Mr "beer and popcorn" himself. When he isn't demonstrating his complete contempt for the Canadian electorate or musing about nefarious Conservative party conspiracies while sparring with Tim Powers on Mike Duffy Live, one can imagine he's hunkering somewhere in the basement of the Toronto Star trying to figure out how to do these things even better.
Perhaps what really solidifies his status as one of the top ten jerks in the known universe is the fact that Reid represents everything that is wrong with the federal Liberal party -- he's obnoxious enough to say absolutely anything he thinks his party will get a quick political charge out of, and arrogant enough to think he can do so and be entitled to a free pass.
Why the Liberal party continues to put this guy on TV is anyone's guess, but this guy's more a boon to the Conservative party than an asset to the Liberals.
7. Robert Spencer - Robert Spencer's website, Jihad Watch, has one overwhelming theme: "be afraid of Islam. Very afraid. Oh, and by the way, buy my book."
Of course, Spencer isn't alone in the post-9/11-booming industry of Islamophobia profiteering. But he is the industry leader in cherry-picked examples of the violence he alleges to be inherent in Islam, and in offhandedly dismissing any evidence that suggests otherwise.
He promotes himself as one of the world's top experts on Islam, and that certainly must help to inflate his book sales. However, he's never studied Islam -- his Master's Degree is in the study of early Christianity.
Last but certainly not least, Spencer's work is parroted by thousands of those leading the Islamophobic post-9/11 charge. Not only is he a massive jerk in his own right, but he also enables other jerks to be even jerkier.
Just what the world needs.
6. Sean Avery - Considered by many in the hockey world to be a synonym for "creep", Sean Avery has refined being a jerk to a fine art.
Whether it's cracking racial slurs at Georges Laraque, mocking Jason Blake for his leukemia, or generally running his mouth while refusing to drop the gloves -- unless he holds a serious advantage over his opponent -- Avery is a hockey pest that gives all hockey pests a bad name.
5. Warren Kinsella - It should be far from surprising that the man who inspired this list should make it. While he's been at the forefront of one particular very important social battle -- the fight against racism -- he's also proven to be one of the anti-racist movement's biggest liabilities, as he constantly bends over backward to find any excuse to label his political opponents as racist.
Kinsella is a leading factor in the ficklization of racism as a social issue. While his book Web of Hate reminds us all who the enemy is in terms of the battle against racial extremists, he's proven to be extremely content to undermine that entire battle whenever it might benefit him politically.
But where Kinsella really takes a turn for the irredeemably obnoxious is in the closing pages of Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics wherein he grades the Canadian media of the day -- and indulges his inner political warhorse by giving passing grades to those who support his beloved Liberal party, and failing grades to those who oppose them.
When Alan Fotheringham -- the "wicked wit of the west" and a political journalist whose boots Kinsella is unfit to so much as lick -- rates a mere "is he still alive?", it becomes immediately apparent that Kinsella is barking up the wrong tree.
4. Anonymous - If you were to believe Anonymous in its recently-declared War on Scientology, they're merely a band of would-be online superheroes trying to balance the scales in the name of justice and truth.
But Anonymous has been on the proverbial radar screen far before their recent crusade against Scientology. One particular news story proved to be particularly damning:
Long before Anonymous turned its online sights against Scientology, at the very least, various members were making asses of themselves harassing people who were more or less innocent, and doing it just for kicks.
Meanwhile, their war on Scientology has, even not purposefully, stirred up some predictable religious bigotry against the church. While some members of Anonymous probably legitimately feel very strongly about some of the church's practices, sometimes even the most well-intentioned campaigns can gather some flies.
3. Rush Limbaugh - Rush Limbaugh is only barely not #1 on this list. Limbaugh is an individual who has proven to be so despicable that even those who had decided that they maybe -- just maybe -- like him enough to marry him have changed their minds and thought "hmmmm. Maybe I don't like this guy very much."
His most recent episode suggesting that Michael J Fox was exaggerating his Parkinson's symptoms has provided more than enough impetus to write this guy off as one of the most reprehensible people on the planet today.
He's an individual who will do or say almost anything to benefit his political allies. Unlike Canadian blowhard Scott Reid, however, Limbaugh has never been blessed with the good sense to apologize when he crosses the line -- or even admit he was wrong.
2. Canadian Cynic - By all accounts, this guy could also very well have been number one. He's only barely number two. Like the Nexus' #1 biggest jerk in the known universe, he's a hateful demagogue propped up by an equally vicious and hateful flock of sheep (but more on this later).
Cynic has, under the guise of being "progressive", plied his trade as a blogger by viciously attacking his political opponents, often resorting to ad hominem attacks in order to do so. His blogmates, Lulu and Lindsay Stewart (aka Pretty Shaved Ape) are disturbing in their own right in that they share his hatred of anyone who disagrees with them and his inability to contribute anything of any value to any kind of debate. But they're really just small potatoes.
The seemingly endless ability of Cynic's coterie of fellow hateful demagogues to defend him no mater how many lines he crosses only serves to underscore precisely how powerful a gospel hate can be -- and, sadly, Canadian Cynic preaches it well.
1. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church - There really is only one person in all existence who could justify pulling down number one on this list. While Canadian Cynic may find himself a little disappointed that he didn't manage to pull in that ignominious honour, at least he can take comfort that it was claimed by someone with whom he shares a lot in common.
Like Cynic, Fred Phelps hates virtually anyone and everyone. And like Cynic, Phelps does absolutely everything he can to convince anyone he can reach out and touch (so to speak) to hate them as well.
In particular, there's each individuals' stance on dead soldiers. Cynic's Wanda Watkins episode has been well-documented across the blogosphere (and within this very post). Phelps, on the other hand, protests at the funerals of dead soldiers. Both encourage hatred of soldiers and their families, but Cynic settles for doing it for political reasons. Sadly, this is what we've come to expect from the most hateful political actors. Phelps, meanwhile, does it for religious reasons, and perverts the meaning of his very own religion in order to do it.
For that, he edges Cynic out (if only slightly).
Then, there's Phelps' congregation. Like Cynic's merry band of sycophants, these are some of the sickest people one could ever encounter. At least Phelps' congregation has a decent excuse should they ever decide to make use of it: most of them are related to Phelps, and as such, their hatefulness and craziness could at least be argued to be genetic.
They're the group of people responsible for this particular artistic "masterpiece":
(On a personal note, I much prefer this:)
Of course, giving Phelps and his flock any attention whatsoever is almost certainly affording them more credibility than they deserve. By the same token, it is important to remind people that: yes, there are people in the world who are so hateful that virtually everyone should be more than a little bit concerned.
He also tends to be one of the most divisive figures in America when it comes down to fickle politics.
Limbaugh insists he's a mouthpiece for American conservatism, so many American conservatives feel obligated to defend him even if he says things that any proper-thinking individual can clearly tell crosses the line. (Of course, we have our own equivalents north of the border, from both the right and left.)
So, if one were to find oneself in the position of being a Republican presidential candidate who needs to woo significant numbers of soft Democrat voters, an endorsement from Rush Limbaugh may well be the last thing one would want.
At least, Limbaugh himself seems to think so.
"If I really wanted to torpedo [John] McCain, I would endorse him," Limbaugh recently announced on his radio show. "Because that would send the independents and liberals who are going to vote for him running away faster than anything."
And with good reason.
Whether this is Limbaugh being unusually sincere or merely trying to justify raging against the best chance the Republican machine has to win the 2008 presidential election is entirely uncertain. The one thing that is certain is that Limbaugh -- shudder to say -- just may be right.
"What people don't realize is that I am doing McCain the biggest favor that can be done for him by staying out of this," he continued. "If I endorsed him thoroughly and with passion, that would end the independents and moderates, because they so despise me and they so hate me."
"Couldn't it be said, if somebody wanted to…that I am secretly supporting McCain, because I secretly do want him to win, but I know full well that if I come out and endorse him, he's cooked?" Limbaugh asked. "Who may be in this whole kit and caboodle, this who shebang, the most valuable asset McCain has?"
"Me."
Well, maybe. Maybe not. Maybe McCain's most valuable asset is Limbaugh's silence. If not McCain's most valuable asset, then it is certainly so for the rest of us.
Seed Newsvine
