Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Taylor Marsh revisited... Again... Complete pwnage, courtesy of John Brown, KS...

Just in case you haven't been following the curious case of John Brown vs. the Silliest Blogger in Town, here's a brief rundown...

I read a stupid entry at The Huffington Post by an author whose name I'd seen here and there several times before. I decided to find out who in the hell the anti-genius in question actually was. The HuffPo bio wasn't illuminating and the bio at her site seemed artificially glossy and a wee bit too self-serving. The poster in question? Taylor Marsh.

Although I think she consistently demonstrates a level of political acumen on par with that of my preschool-aged daughter, Marsh has a loyal following of goofs who have joined forces to create a batallion in The Monster's army. She's a recognizable figure online and is oft-quoted as source material by other bloggers. I had a little time and a little curiosity. I decided it would be worthwhile to uncover and share a little bit of info about Marsh with those who, like me, might be interested.

I posted the results of my little Taylor Marsh bio on this blog. A day or two later, someone emailed me some additional information about Marsh, which I also shared. As interest in her background and claims grew, I was sent a link to her self-published vanity book, which I read and reviewed here.

Somewhere along the line, this became a big deal. I've experienced a massive increase in traffic, a lot of attention, congratulations and attacks, and a three-pronged response from Taylor Marsh. She mentioned the "gnat" who was "plumbing" her bio in one of podcasts (she prefers to call it a radio show, meaning I can call the Brown family grocery lists epic poetry). She lumped me and those who linked to me into the category of "hate sites and diaries" who "attack" her because of her allegiance to Hillary. She held a special little chat session with her minions to clear the air about her past, which is "an open book". Oh, she also warned me (in an act of stunning hypocrisy and foolishness, that I might find myself on the receiving end of a lawsuit!

Many have asked questions. Many have made accusations. I'd like to speak to some of them.


Bullshit. Yes, I did mention the fact that her swampy-ass website outdraws my tiny little free blog. That's what we call fact, not envy. I also mentioned that it would be relatively easy for anyone with a little drive and a complete willingness to spin and exaggerate to do the same thing, but that I wasn't that interested in playing the bullshit game. The Brown family is doing just fine without extra blog income and I'm not jealous of Ms. Marsh for getting traffic anymore than she's jealous of the guy who posts the funny LOL cats pictures every day. Oh, wait, she probably DOES have an ax to grind with him. In any case, you can cross jealousy off of your list of motives.


This was the primary argument Taylor Marsh used her response to the hubbub surrounding her inflated credentials. It is make believe. I don't care for Taylor Marsh's analysis and blog posts because they are stupid. I am anti-mendacity and that makes dummies my natural enemy. The Monster does cause soul cancer, but that's not why I was critical of Taylor Marsh. Shit, Helen Thomas is pretty supportive of Hill these days and you don't see me griping about her.

And therein lies the difference. Taylor Marsh pretends to be something she isn't. She pretends to be a radio host and she pretends to be an author. In reality, she's merely someone who was willing to cough up the cash to buy radio time at a teeny-weeny AM vanity station in the Nevada dessert. In reality, she's a former porn site editor who decided to assemble her rambling account of why the job didn't work out into a "book" that she paid a vanity publisher to print up. Her allegedly relevant experience with an alt weekly paper was actually a gig helping people to write their personal ads. When she did try to write columns, the paper slapped ADVERTISEMENT on top of them.

The reason I took the time to recount Marsh's autobiographical inflation had nothing to do with her love of The Monster.

I disagree with Taylor Marsh about many things and many issues. I don't dislike her because I disagree with her. If I spent my time getting into it with everyone who didn't agree with me, I would be way too busy to bother with Taylor Marsh.

Hey, and I've been at least somewhat fair. I pointed out that Marsh was not a johnny-come-laterly and that she's been a prolific blogger for a long time. I expressed that I was impressed with her ability to self-promote. When someone sent me a link to her book that allowed me to read it free, I opted NOT to pass that along, because she is trying to peddle the damn thing. I might be mean to her, but I'm not THAT bad. And so what if I am?

I decided to look into who she was because I was curious about the freakshow postings' author. I learned that she was crutching on an exaggerated bio in order to create a sense of gravitas and credibility. I think that's goofy grapes, kids.


I've seen comments on other sites about my Marsh posts that claim I'm shilling for Obama for cash. I've seen one person claim I'm a sex offender and a former juvenile delinquent. One person claimed I was running teen cheerleader porn ads on my blog. I'm secretly a Republican operative, I'm in league with the darkest forces on the 'net and I may even enjoy deep-fried furry baby bunnies for dinner.

It's all bullshit. The truth, as is so often the case (see: Taylor Marsh bio) is much duller than fiction. I'm just a guy with a free blog and occasional bursts of free time on his hands who has opinions and interests. That's it.


Not true. I consider myself relatively independent, even though I am a registered Democrat. My views are varied and they're my own, but I'm certainly not a Republican hitman. If you tallied all of my votes and political contributions over the years, I would wager that 80% of the time I've gone with the people who have D's behind their names.


Well, all I can tell you is that I speak my mind. I try to support my arguments when it makes sense to do so. When I'm speculating, I say so. If I'm wrong and am corrected, I will admit my errors. I am just a guy with a blog and I think anyone who wants to read it should evaluate the quality of my entries based on their content and their quality. That's one big reason why I blog under a pseudonym.

"Aha!" exclaim the Marsh-backers, "didn't you say no one should pay attention to Taylor Marsh because you don't think she has a credible background?"

No. I didn't say that. Not even close. Get the wax out of your fucking ears and listen good:

Taylor Marsh is free to say whatever silly dumbassery enters her mind. You are free to read it. You are free to believe it or to reject it. I hope you do so based on the quality of her arguments and her reasoning, coupled with an adequate knowledge base and a respect for intellectual honesty.

You should not, however, buy into Marsh's goobery BECAUSE of her inflated bio.

Do you get the difference? Judge her by her works, not by her tall tale of self-importance. Don't give her bonus points because she has a glossy fib of a bio at HuffPo or because she hired someone to create a site for her that looks like it belongs to someone who actually has a real radio show. Don't take her seriously BECAUSE of the disingenuous bells and whistles.

As noted a 28,483 times, I think crutching on an exaggerated bio is a misleading way of building ethos. Marsh laughed those criticisms off, exclaiming on her podcast that she was good at PR, just like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Think about the implications of that perspective and choice of examples for a minute, okay?

It's EASY to create a mega-super-duper-bullshit bio. Unless you're a complete dreg, you can do it in less than five minutes. It's like amped up resume-pumping, but without the risk of losing a job because of it.


As I noted in my own little online bio, I can be a complete prick. Guilty as charged. However, I tend to be right. And I am intellectually honest. You can dislike me. You can think I'm mean. You might be right. However, dismissing the arguments about Marsh based on perceptions of my personality would be foolish.

In all of the hand-wringing over my "hit pieces", no one has pointed out factual errors. Even Ms. Marsh didn't call me out for lying. You can call me a prick, but you can't say I'm wrong about the facts. If the facts represent a "hit" on the self-proclaimed "antidote to right wing talk" (see: when the cure is just as bad as the disease), so be it.


Damn. There goes my chance to join the secret club of scoopers. I'm no Woodward or Bernstein. of course, I never claimed to be. I just took the time to figure out a few things and I put them all together in one place. I never claimed to have some sort of WWWEXCLUSIVE on Taylor Marsh.

The fact of the matter is that all of the crap I mentioned WAS pretty easy to find. It wasn't easy to find in one place and Marsh didn't necessarily provide all of the context to engender the information she does provide with meaning--at least not in one convenient read. So, if that makes me more of a news aggregator than an investigative reporter, I can accept that fate.


Why does it seem so difficult for people to combine a little common sense with their rage? I keep getting and reading all these comments about how mean I am, how I'm jealous, how I have penis envy (?), how wonderful Taylor Marsh is, etc. etc. NONE of them actually address the propriety of telling a tall tale to get attention and to build credibility. NONE of them provide a direct retort to my claims that Marsh inflated her bio. NONE of them actually defend her veiled threat of litigation relating to the use of her Glamour Shot-esque photos.

If you want to come down hard on me for not liking Marsh, for knowing that Hillary is The Monster, or for whatever else, please, please, please, please bring an argument to the table. Try to combine your attitude with a little substance. Just a little. Bring your A-game. Otherwise, it might get boring.


I hereby relinquish all copyright to my illustrations, created in response to Ms. Marsh's concern over the possibility I might be sued for using her image on my blog (Apparently, this strategy works better when you're a photographer than when you're Debbie Schlussel. Right, Taylor?).

I hereby grant permission to anyone to use the images as they see fit. You might even say I'm encouraging their use.

If you do use one of my illustrations, please leave a comment so I can keep track of where they're turning up.




Technorati Tags: Tags: Furl Tags:


  1. LOL! Keep it up, dude. I've appropriated one of your illustrations
    . I'm trusting you not to go all Marshy and Schlusselly on me and try to sue...

  2. If Taylor Marsh were an Obamabot like you, you'd never waste your time writing about her.

    See, you haven't attacked the substance of her arguments. Sometimes I find her arguments outright stupid and ignorant, as in almost braggin g she was a Reagan Democrat and trashing Carter's term in office as a "disaster." Sometimes her attempt to be evenhanded is equally stupid, as in her trying to claim Obama is a "gifted" politician. He isn't. But the fact she supports Hillary Clinton is just too much for you and those of you who drank the Kool-aid.

    Most of us in the real world haven't. And if he gets the nomination and gets destroyed in a 50-state blowout by John McCain, it is going to be funny to watch the mindless Obama supporters cry about it.

    I'm old enough to remember McGovern, and this campaign is so much like 1972.

  3. If you old enough to remember 72 your old enough to remember 68. However, in this economy it's more like 1932.

  4. Susan-

    I could, and perhaps will, take a Marsh post and dissect it. Maybe that will satisfy you.

    The argument I DID make was substantive--that she trades on a bullshit resume.

    I'm young enough not to remember 72--only by a little, though. Nonetheless, much has changed over the last 35 years. Maybe not enough, though. I guess we'll see. I won't be too ripped up over it, either way.

    John Brown
    Still Under 40

  5. Betty-

    I would sue, but I can't afford the filing fee.

    I have to keep all my cash set aside in case I need to defend myself from the pouncing agents of Ms. Marsh's photographer.


    John Brown
    Founder, Popeye's Fried Chicken

  6. uhhhhm Susan, Mr. Brown didn't raid Taylors Ferry because it is inhabited by a is because it is a mansion built on a foundation of sand.

  7. John, you are so mean....ROTFL!!!!

    You're a somebody now, man. :-)

  8. John Brown, thank you for this awesome site, your excellent work exposing Marsh's inflated bio.

    It's about time that the supporters of The Monster were exposed as the mendacious sycophants that they are.

    Obama supporters, (who are after all more highly educated than the ignorant mouth breathers who support Hillary) are people devoted to facts, truth, reason, and logical study of issues. Yet, oddly, the Hil-bots smear Obama backers as being in a "cult". Yet, Taylor Marsh, and other such pro-monster blogs and the commenters there, prove they are the cultists. They don't have reasoned thoughts. They have screeds, and emotional outbursts. Polls show far more Hillary backers say they will vote for McCain, than Obama backers would if Monster is the nom. Obama supporters actually believe in Democratic victory and say they will support whom ever is the nominee. Backers of Hillary are cultists, who if they don't get their way, pledge to destroy the party by going for McCain.

    That's cult thinking. That's emotional dysfunction. Just like the emotional instability we've been hearing about going on inside Camp Hillary's inner circle.

    Thankfully the end is near, and the Clinton carnival freak show is coming to an end. Clintonites aren't good at math. (And when they don't like the rules, they try to change the rules as well.) But, the math, is clear. It's over for Hillary. All that's left is the long sad meltdown of her and her tiny little cadre of shrill message board backers.

  9. You missed a reason.

    JB is a slacker with a gift for snark looking to pick some low hanging fruit.
    Taylor Marsh is a podcast "star" for gawds sake.
    It'd take more energy and skill to beat small children with an ice axe.

    If you must go for easy target you might as well go after someone with a higher profile than a chia pet.

    Heck try Marc Cooper. He has every detriment that Marsh has, a "big media" profile, and he's a lying belt way bozo.


  10. logan-

    You're intense.

    You make me look like Mr. Rogers--without the cardigan, though.

    Thanks for reading and I'm glad you're enjoying my posts.


    John Brown
    Hater of Cardigans

  11. Buzzcook-

    I'm sorry my idle curiosity didn't match up with your preferred targets. Maybe next time.

    I'm glad you think I have "the gift". Maybe as I continue this blog I'll stumble onto some issues you'll find more interesting and challenging.

    Speaking of challenging... I can't imagine that brutally ice-picking little kids to death would be easy. There is a massive issue of conscious in that. Plus, the little fuckers are really fast and they squirm like crazy.

    Your acquaintance,

    John Brown
    Plasma Donation Veteran

  12. Taylor as easy pickings is kind of like saying you shouldn't say anything debunking of GWB, he is soooooo easy. Stupidity is always an easy target, but defying it is an honorable passtime.

    Now since there is little possibility of Taylor being able to 'disappear' me I'm a bit more at risk using George II as my target, but Buzzcook offering up Cooper as a worthy target scarcely offers a real challenge either.

  13. chuck-

    You might be too smart to hang around the comments.


    John Brown
    Star of Stage and Screen

  14. Dear John Brown of Kansas,

    I adore the way that you regularly refer to yourself in the third person - hilarious! Count me in as a new regular reader.

    I don't know what was more enjoyable yesterday - reading your latest post, or watching Zack Greinke sodomize the Yankees (speaking of New Yorkers with a spurious claim of entitlement...)

    your pal,

  15. ignorant mouth breathers who support Hillary

    Logan, I can't stand the Monster as much as any bona-fide Obamabot (which I am not) but there's no need to refer to Clinton's supporters as mouth-breathers. My grandma voted for Clinton in the Missouri primary, and I have always seen her breathing through her nose.

    In the extremely unlikely event that the Monster is nominated, I will vote for the Monster.

    if he gets the nomination and gets destroyed in a 50-state blowout by John McCain, it is going to be funny to watch the mindless Obama supporters cry about it.

    If Obama gets destroyed in a "50-state blowout" I think many of us will be checking around to see if that CERN particle accelerator accidentally shifted us into another dimension where's that's actually possible, and not just another stupid thing recklessly tossed around by Hillary supporters who are saying just about anything to obscure the fact that their candidate ran a really shitty campaign.

    At the beginning of the campaign, I was an Edwards supporter. When he dropped out, I was open-minded. I would have loved to have pulled the lever for Hillary, but her and her supporter's attitude that the primary was just a technicality on the way to the coronation really turned me off, and I'm sorry, but I really do not think this country should be run by an apologist for the plutocracy named Bush or Clinton for 28 years.

  16. ww-

    I, too, started with a different favorite. Of course, Joe Biden never had a chance in hell so I was forced to find a new preferred candidate in short order. I landed in the Obama camp, with reservations.

    I, too, have issues with plutocracy.

    I, too, believe that a 50-state blowout is impossible. Barry has Hawaii locked up. 1 down, 49 to go. Actually, I think he's got a better than 50% chance of winning--just in case that Hawaii thing looked like a serious comment.

    I won't vote Monster '08 unless two very unlikely things happen. 1) Hillary gets the nod and 2) John McCain sneaks into my home and attempts to murder my family.

    Your granny does breathe through her mouth, by the way. It's just very subtle.

    Your friend,

    John Brown
    "There's nothin' wrong 'bout mouth breathin'"

  17. anon anti-yankee-

    ZG did look good again. And what was up with Girardi's reverse bullpen strategy?

    There was no chance of that game suffering a long delay and all he managed to do was deplete his bullpen and short his starter innings. It was the kind of thing kids do when playing video games.

    John Brown only refers to himself in the third person when he needs to punch up boring parts of posts with a little extra "something".

    Thanks for reading. I am an attention whore and appreciate your eyeballs.

    Your BFF,

    John Brown
    President, Tom Poquette Fan Club

  18. Tom Poquette couldn't carry Joe Zdeb's jockstrap... but I digress.

    (would that have been funnier if I'd said 'Pete LaCock'? I thought it might sound too misogynistic)

    I think Taylor Marsh should try referring to herself in the third person whenever she slips into one of those quasi-magnanimous
    'Barry may hate vaginas, but man is he smoov!' riffs (the ones that are invariably followed by a sentence making use of the word 'Wright' as noun, verb AND adjective) - why, I bet she could get a PAYING radio gig if she learned to pull that off.

  19. anon-

    LaCock, Zdeb and Poquette together would fall short of the glory that was Jim Wohlford.

    I don't know if you read Cardboard Gods, but if you do... Josh recently did a post on Wohlford.

    Have you ever listened to a Marsh podcast? It's amazing. She is the Queen of "uh's".

    When I was on the radio we sorta tried to avoid stuttering like a dumbass.

    Tu Amigo,

    John Brown
    I Never Made Fun of Eisenreich

  20. Since you (sorta) went there first*, JB of KS, I gotta ask the question re: Greinke and Eisenreich... are there perhaps a few too many civil war-era minie balls in the drinking water supply in your part of the world?

    Perhaps we could test that theory by awarding Derek Jeter to the Royals** - if he suddenly starts reaching ground balls further than a yard to his left or right, we'll know there's Something Up.

    * ok, so you didn't really - but this IS an election year, and it goes without saying that 'truth' becomes an awfully BIG tent whenever people like James Carville are encouraged to publicly vibrate their vocal cords.

    ** now that Tony Pena has lost his job, there's at least a fighting chance that Jeter would actually play occasionally for the Royals - without even having to disguise himself as Ken Harvey.

  21. anon-

    problems with the water could explain my appreciation for re-runs of "good times", too.

    we would we want jeter when we have tony pena, jr? oh, yeah, because defense and hitting are important. almost forgot.

    ken harvey, for all of his morbidly obese failures, did give me one of the great in-person baseball thrills of my life in 2003. the royals were winning like crazy early, and he kept the streak alive with an extra-inning walkoff against detroit on a beautiful friday night, capped off by a fireworks display. i have a spot in my heart for ken that is as soft as his belly.

    i am always surprised when i see pena, sr. come to town with the yankees. i don't know if the rumors made it to all, but one of the reasons he apparently quit during a roadie in toronto and disappeared to the DR was said to be a sort of messy situation with some guys wife up in the northern suburbs of KC.

    i'm sad about hideo nomo getting knocked around last night. i'm hoping he sticks, but that's unlikely to happen if he keeps hanging split-fingers to guys like a-rod.

    your friend,

    john brown
    better than carlos febles