Janeane Garofalo Starring In... Far-Left Racism-Obsessed Virtual Reality Moonbattery

When a would-be media figure is as marginal as Janeane Garofalo, they certainly face continual pressure to stay relevant.

For her own part, Garofalo has no idea how to do that. So when appearing on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, she decided to re-hash her greatest hits: accusing conservatives of racism.

It's something she tried before, when she accused the Tea Party of opposing the policies of US President Barack Obama out of "racism, straight-up". Her most recent dip into her arsenal of weaponized racism is a little more confusing. They support Republcian Presidential hopeful Herman Cain out of racism.

Get it? If they oppose a black man politically, they're racist. If they support a black man politically, they're racist. Garofalo's argument basically amounts to "they're racist, no matter what."

"Herman Cain is probably well liked by some of the Republicans because it hides the racist elements of the Republican party. Conservative movement and tea party movement, one in the same," Garofalo declared. "People like Karl Rove liked to keep the racism very covert. And so Herman Cain provides this great opportunity say you can say 'Look, this is not a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement. Look we have a black man.'"

Olbermann being Olbermann, he declines to offer any critical comment or question of Garofalo's comments, even the one that seems entirely elementary to any rational human being.

(Considering that Olbermann began the segment by noting that Palin didn't focus on what GOP hopefuls were doing wrong in the debates, it's pretty clear that Olbermann is allowing his personal bias to absolutely overwhelm ration.)

To describe Garofalo's argument as childish is beyond understatement. But examining it logically for any more than two seconds immediately reveals something abotu Garofalo that rathional people... already knew.

As an argument, this is intellectually lazy. It's exceedingly intellectually lazy. It essentially amounts to virtual reality reasoning.

Originally posited by Norman Mailer, virtual reality reasoning describes a closed system of thought. The virtual reality thinker locks themselves into a narrow, compact realm of possibilities. Not only may no answer to any question be found that is not already programmed within the system, but no question may be asked that isn't already programmed into that system.

For Garofalo, the question is "why are conservatives racist?" The answer is "because conservatives are racist, no matter what."

In a previous outing on Olbermann's show, Garofalo suggests that someone may even be paying Cain to run for President. She offers absolutely no evidence other than her own demand that any visible minority give her their undying political allegiance.

It seems necessary to wonder whether Garofalo herself is the nut or the dolt in the "nuts and dolts"-themed segment until one realizes that she's both.

Any information that Garofalo is presented with -- including an impressive level of support for Cain's ideas within the Tea Party -- will, in her mind, immediately be warped and twisted to reach one conclusion: the Tea Party, Republicans and conservatives are all racist. No matter what.

And yet Janeane Garofalo wants to be the absolute arbiter of who does and does not have credibility. It will be a sad day for American politics if she ever actually achieves that level of influence.

Who Weaponized Racism? Thredux

It's still worth repeating: the far left did.

And they aren't even ashamed of it.

Worth revisiting is the sad, sad story of Janeane Garofalo. Following the smoking gun provided by Spencer Ackerman -- who has yet to stand up and account for his ruthless and ideologically selfish exploitation of the subject of racism -- it becomes clear what it was Garofalo was doing when she appeared on Keith Olbermann's MSNBC program in 2009.

She was deploying weaponized racism. Like Ackerman, not only has she yet to show any remorse for her actions, but she was rather shameless about them when later confronted.



"Let's be very honest about what this is about," Garofalo began -- a rather ironic remark coming from someone who was being as dishonest as she was at the time, and has continued to be. "This is not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about. They don't know their history at all."

"This is about hating a black man in the White House," she asserted. "This is racism straight-up."

"That is nothing but a bunch of tea bagging rednecks and there is no way around it," she added, before going on to wax incoherently about the limbic brain.

The fact that the Tea Party's central message has nothing to do with race, and has never had anything to do with race, seems to mean nothing at all to Garofalo.

When later confronted about her comments, and called upon to defend them, the best Garofalo could offer up was the example of a sign featuring a pop culture reference, and would simply refuse to defend herself any further:



Perversely, Garofalo, being unable to produce any evidence for her claims, simply chose to question the motivation of Tea Party protesters, and self-indulgently allowed her suspicions to stand as evidence.

As Griff Jenkins -- the individual who confronted her -- noted, Garofalo does indeed seem bitter to be asked to defend her remarks. This is largely because they were never meant to be questioned. Aired on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Garofalo made her accusations in a forum where they were most likely to be found to be ideologically soothing.

Olbermann -- who never offered anything more than an agreeing nod -- clearly found Garofalo's remarks to be rather soothing.

People like Olbermann and Garofalo have taken a certain amount of delight in calling for the Tea Party to account for any racism -- whatsoever, on any scale -- that one may find within its ranks.

But given the consequences of sewing cynicism on the topic of racism, perhaps it's time for the far left -- from the race-baiting demagogues at MSNBC to the NAACP -- to account for the weaponization of racism.

It's time for individuals like Keith Olbermanns and Ben Jelous to start denouncing the disingenous, irresponsible and ideologically selfish weaponization of racism wherever they may find it. Olbermann can feel free to begin with Janeane Garofalo's comments on the April 16, 2009 edition of his program -- then follow that up with a denunciation of Spencer Ackerman.

Of course, no one familiar with the brand of invective typically spewed on Olbermann's program should really expect Olbermann to do the responsible thing -- although one can always hold out hope.

The Art of the Unfair Criticism

Frequent readers of the Nexus must almost certainly by now know your not-so-humble scribe's opinion of Keith Olbermann: normally, Olbermann is just intelligent enough to sound intelligent, but simultaneously enough of a lunatic to frequently make himself sound like a lunatic.

But there are legitimate reasons to criticize someone, and there are illegitimate reasons.

The recent criticisms offered by PJTV's Alfonzo Rachel squarely slide into the latter category.

Complaining that Olbermann didn't accept an invitation to attend a Tea Party rally in Texas, Rachel accused Olbermann of "hiding behind his daddy". As it turns out, Olbermann's father is in intensive care, preventing Olbermann from leaving New York City.

A great number of negative things could be said about Olbermann's commentary. He is unquestionably bombastic. He thrives on sensational hyperbole, and his recent performance on Jon Stewart's Daily Show seems to acknowledge that he knows it.

But it simply isn't fair to criticize Olbermann for taking care of his sick father -- nor should he feel obligated to hold his tongue on his criticisms of the Tea Party movement (no matter how wild they may often be) until his father is (hopefully) better; nor could he be expected to anticipate any challenge offered by his political rivals.

As far as being a political commentator goes, Alfonzo Rachel excels in the same manner as Keith Olbermann -- that of being an infotainer. He often excels in this particular role, particularly when he works with Steven Crowder. But as far as insightful commentary goes, he could hardly be considered to excel.

Olbermann can at least effectively disguise his infotainment as inspired and informed commentary. Rachel does this far less effectively, and when he targets Keith Olbermann despite the illness of his father, he falls far short of reasonable or responsible.

Alfonzo Rachel would serve himself -- and his viewers -- far better by restricting himself to the art of the fair criticism.

What Is It With These People and Racism?

If there's anything many left-wingers have realized over the last few years, it seems to be that they can make race an issue about anything. Ever.

In a recent segment on MSNBC, Contessa Brewer, Dylan Ratigan and Toure attempted to write off protesters showing up to Barack Obama's Town Hall meetings with guns as white racists out to harm a black President.

There was, sadly, only one detail that didn't add up -- the man featured in the newscast wasn't everything its hosts claimed he was.

"There are questions about whether this has racial overtones," Brewer said, as the image of a man wearing a white shirt with an AR-15 assault rifle appeared on screen. "Here you have a man of colour in the Presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists or to their legs."

"It sounds simplistic when you put it that way, but it is real that there is tremendous anger in this country about government, the way government seems to be taking over the country, anger about a black person being president," Toure added. "Just several upheavals in the country over the last ten years from 9/11, to the economic tsunami, to the black man becoming president and, you know, we see these hate groups rising up and this is definitely part of that."

"Angry at government and racism, you put those two together," later added Ratigan.

Fortunately, MSNBC's cameras weren't the only ones on hand at the Arizona rally.

CNN's cameras were also present, and interviewed this "white man with a gun". Who, unfortunately for Brewer, Ratigan, Toure and MSNBC, wasn't actually white.

Oops.

But portraying conservative activists as racists has recently proven to be the bread and butter of MSNBC. When Janeane Garofalo insisted that protesters at Tea Bag rallies were "about hating a black man in the White House. This is about racism straight-up," host Keith Olbermann could do nothing but nod his head in agreement.

Garofalo has since remained unrepentant about her foray onto the political low road. Olbermann himself has also had remarkably little to say about his participation in a blatant bastardization of racial politics.

So many of those paying attention to the American left-wing media must surely be beginning to wonder more frequently: what is it with these people and racism? If they so desperately need to edit their footage so as to obscure the race of the subject of a newscast, perhaps their fixation has become an evidently unhealthy one.

The What the Fuck!? Files Vol. 7: Keith Olbermann Rips Me Off

Keith Olbermann recently debuted a regular segment on his show that seems to suggest that Olbermann may be a Nexus reader.

In a segment entitled the WTF!?! Moment -- which seems very similar to the Nexus' What the Fuck!? Files -- Olbermann takes some time out to complain about Carrie Prejean's recent complaints that her freedom of speech had been violated.

Olbermann rightly notes that the United States Bill of Rights, as entrenched in the United States Constitution via Ten Amendments, only provides decisive protection from governmental oppression of free speech.

Olbermann continues to argue that her employer could deny her the right to freedom of speech, noting that his own employer, CNBC, could deny him freedom of speech. As such, nothing Prejean said about same-sex marriage is actually subject to protection.

But Olbermann's argument fails on two key tenets.

First, Prejean made her comments in the course of a question asked by Perez Hilton, a question she was obligated to answer as part of the contest she was participating in. Olbermann's employer may be justified in taking him off the air if, indeed, he made comments that were deemed outside the realm of professionalism.

But the matter would be very different if Olbermann's producer asked him a question about a political issue and was given a question they decided they didn't like.

Second, Constitutional convention has treated the First Amendment very differently from the manner in which Olbermann describes it. There are countless cases of individuals suing for retaliation against them after the exercise of their free speech.

Amusingly, if asked, Olbermann would likely describe himself as a progressive, or at least as a liberal.

Yet Olbermann's depiction of freedom of expression as applicable to Prejean puts him distinctly at odds with the kind of free environment that is needed for liberal pluralism to survive. Robert B Talisse has noted that in order for liberalism to be truly viable, more is needed than simply legal protection of free speech. Rather, a culture of free speech -- in which public deliberation on matters of import, such as same-sex marriage -- is actively encouraged of people regardless of whatever opinion they may hold on the topic.

If Prejean were someone being censured for supporting same-sex marriage one can fully expect that Olbermann would react very differently to her plight. This is the base hypocrisy at the core of Olbermann's stance on this particular matter.

One should expect better from someone who is supposed to be a respected journalist, but Olbermann strays from the ill-conceived directly to the comical.

In addressing the recent "scandalous" photos of Prejean, Olbermann insists that the photos couldn't have been taken without Prejean's authorization because she's looking at the camera in each photo. Except, she isn't. In one of the photos -- the one with the clearly visible pre-implant breast -- Prejean is very clearly looking away from the camera.

She even has her hands up as if she's been adjusting her hair, for fuck's sake! For fuck's sake, Keith!

In the other photo, the exposure of the nipple is actually so slight that it's clearly more attributable to a Janet Jackson-esque "wardrobe malfunction" than to any willingness on Prejean's behalf to submit to a risque photo.

The utterly comical thing about that aspect of the entire affair is that very few people honestly consider the finished product of these photo shoots to be scandalous or risque. Aside from those milking these photos out of political motivations, one would have to travel to the most conservative depths of the Bible belt in order to find someone who would find them scandalous.

But it's amazing the extent to which Olbermann is willing to mortgage his journalistic credibility -- then default -- in order to contribute to the personal destruction of Carrie Prejean.

It's really the kind of thing that makes a person scratch their head and say "what the fuck" -- and we were doing that here first.

Opportunism Defined

American left out to crucify someone -- and they've chosen Carrie Prejean

For anyone who ever bought the myth that only the right-wing in America delights in destroying people who provoke their ire, the events that continue to swirl around Carrie Prejean prove differently. In this event the bloodthirstiness of the American left is on full display, and it seems very much equal to the non-mythical bloodthirstiness of the American right.

The Huffington Post rather gleefully jumped on a recent revelation that Prejean has had breast implants.

These people have slipped so deeply into folly that they've even managed to make one of America's perrenial wrong clocks, Laura Ingraham, right about something.

Substituting for Bill O'Reilly on the O'Reilly Factor, Ingraham contronted feminist Gloria Feldt over the body image-oriented attacks on Prejean.

At issue was a segment of Keith Olbermann's Countdown in which a gay writer launched into a long tirade of personal and body-oriented attacks on Prejean.

"I am thinking to myself, where are the feminists?" Ingraham asked. "Are feminists not going to say, wait a second. You do not go there with a young woman."

"I think now she is fair game. She is now fair game because she is a national spokesperson for a group that opposes marriage equality," Feldt replied. She evidently failed to perceive the irony.

But Ingraham did.

"This is great!" Ingraham said. "A feminist is attacking a woman for how she looks. This is great. You guys have come full circle here in the United States of America. Now it is OK for feminists to ridicule women for the way they look."

Just as many American feminists threw thousands of pregnant teenagers under the bus in order to get at Sarah Palin through her daughter, many American feminists -- certainly not all and hopefully not even a majority of them -- are now throwing the thousands of women who are insecure enough about their body image to get breast implants under the bus.

But an even deeper irony seems to rest on the Miss California organization's inability to properly define "opportunism".

In an April 30 press release, Miss California spokespeople wrote: "We are deeply saddened Carrie Prejean has forgotten her platform of the Special Olympics, her commitment to all Californians, and solidified her legacy as one that goes beyond the right to voice her beliefs and instead reveals her opportunistic agenda."

They may want to double-check the meaning of opportunism.

Levelling charges of opportunism against Prejean suggests that she went looking for this controversy. Yet those familiar with the overall story know the truth is very different. Prejean didn't go out of her way to find an opportunity to voice her opinion on same-sex marriage.

Rather, she was asked that question by Perez Hilton, who was looking for an opportunity to politicize the Miss USA proceedings.

While no one is obligated to agree with Prejean's opinion -- this author has previously expressed his disagreement -- one at the very least has to respect the fact that Prejean chose to answer the question honestly. She gave her true opinion, and has since been unflinching and unrepentant about that.

Certainly, one could raise the argument that Prejean could have offered the same "no comment" answer as she has used to respond to questions about her breast implants. Then again, one also has to keep in mind that one of Hilton's complaints is that Prejean allegedly didn't answer the question.

As soon as Hilton asked that question, there was no way that Prejean could escape the onslaught of public attack she's been subject to ever since with her integrity intact. She could either lie about her opinion and escape unattacked, or tell the truth and endure it.

She chose to do the former, and history has since largely spoken for itself.

Now that their elected representatives are firmly in control of the country, the American left is out to absolutely destroy someone. They've chosen Carrie Prejean.

Janene Garofalo's Limbic Brain

Is oversized

The recent "Tax Day" protests in the United States have received an incredible surplus of coverage based on their comparative size. Clearly tailored for vulgar sensationalism, the "tea bag the White House" demonstrations were a perfect example of South Park conservatism.

But many people clearly didn't appreciate the calculated nature of these protests. Among them were CNBC's Keith Olbermann and a recent guest on his show, Janeane Garofalo. On a recent Countdown segment, Garofalo insisted that the tea bag protests were about nothing but racism.

"Let's be very honest about what this is about," Garofalo mused. "It's not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about, they don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is about racism straight-up."

Certainly, some people have managed to find some examples of signs at these protests that are either overly racist, arguably racist, or at least can be conflated into being racist.

But interestingly enough, the Ku Klux Klan -- the American cultural leader in racism -- doesn't seem like they've had anything to do with or say about these tea bag protests. Ever.

If these protests were really just about "racism straight-up", it's interesting that a group that is all about "racism straight-up" seem to have no interest in these protests.

Certainly, it couldn't possibly occur to either Olberman or Garofalo that even if most of those people participating in those protests are due for a tax cut, that this couldn't possibly be about government debt and the future taxes that would be necessary to pay back that debt.

No, like many left-wing ideologues, Garofalo and Olberman seem to have only one angle to play here -- the racism angle, even it is an incredibly ill-fitting frame.

Well, OK. Maybe not quite. Garofalo also took some time out of her interview to play amateur neurologist, and indulge herself in the intellectual folly of trying to write off fiscal conservatism -- even as poorly-conceived as these particular examples of fiscal conservatism are -- as a mental illness.

"The Limbic brain inside a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist, the limbic brain in much larger in their headspace (Gee, does anyone think that's the technical term for that? -ed) than in a reasonable person and it's pushing against the frontal lobe so their synapses are misfiring," Garofalo muses. "It is a neurological problem we're dealing with."

In the end, Garofalo's conclusion seems to be based on the crowds being mostly- or all white. By almost any standard of evidence this is extremely thin gruel, particularly when these protests are taking place in so many communities that are predominantly caucasian.

It's amusing to witness Olbermann's toadyism in the course of the interview, not stopping once to question or challenge Garofalo on her inflammatory rhetoric. This is nothing new to anyone who's paid so much as passing attention to the American media -- one sees this kind of Toadyism on Fox News quite frequently, especially on shows hosted by arch-conservatives like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.

It's just ironic to see this on a CNBC program complaining about the alleged media malpractice of Fox News.

But it's hard to hold this against Keith Olbermann or Janeane Garofalo. Their limbic brains must be oversized.