By request... Examining the wit and genius of Taylor Marsh... There isn't much of either...

This one's by request.

I wrote a miniature biography of "talk radio host" (cue uproarious laughter) Taylor Marsh. Later, I resonded to her bullshit implications that I'm a "hate diarist" and a "gnat" who's "plumbing" her past as part of anti-Hillary McCarthyism. I suffered through Taylor Marsh's self-published vanity project of a "book" and offered a review. I became an illustrator after receiving veiled threats of future litigation because I appropriated her Glamour Shot-like photos.

I advised people to counteract her attempt to break out of the vanity radio box when she begged her zombie nation of commenters to contact Air America and XM Radio on her behalf. I've mentioned the fact that her blog and her childlike analysis are symptomatic of the worst kind of disease riddling our body politic.

Every time I discuss former Queen of the Personal Ads, at least a handful of her readers complain that I'm just hatin'. They say that my criticisms of the beauty-queen-turned-podcaster are nothing more than ad hominen attacks. Well, they don't really say that because the closest they get to Latin is when one of them identifies the local GED testing center as an alma mater. In any case, they claim I'm all insult and no substance.

Guess what? They're almost right. I haven't spent a lot of time pinpointing justifications for my position that Taylor Marsh is a substandard punditry. I sort of assumed it was obvious, I guess. Apparently, though, it isn't clear to everyone just how hackerific her ramblings really are. So, I'm going to take one recent post from Marsh and comment on it.

I doubt any of the Marshzombies will suddenly change their minds about Taylor after reading this. And I do understand the whole "why waste your time?" thing. Marsh backers sometimes seem more like followers of Marshall Applewhite than the former Michelle Marshall. I'm no Seneca, but "optimum est pati quod emendare non possis" is reasonably persuasive. Nonetheless, they did ask for it. It's the least I can do. Who knows, it might be fun, too. Oh, and I did the Latin thing just to be obnoxious.

I didn't feel a need to cherry pick the most idiotic possible post to review. I wanted to keep it fair. I picked a number between 1 and 10 and then cruised on over to Taylor Marsh's site. I designated the top post as "1" and counted along until I hit my magic number, "3". Red meat, kids. Red meat.

Headline: Obama Blows Democratic Party's McSame Strategy

This is rich. In case you haven't read this Marshit, I'll give you a handy dandy summary before working through it in greater detail:

Democrats should be pissed off at Barry Obama because he said that each of the three remaining candidates would be a better option than George W. Bush. Taylor believes that the big Democratic strategy for November hinges upon painting McCain as a Bush clone. Thus, mentioning that McCain may be a little less fucked in the head than George W. is a strategic error of the highest order.

No, seriously. That's the argument. Wow! I knew this would be easy, but this is almost TOO easy, don't you think? Let's take a closer look at the wit and wisdom of the blogosphere's favorite vanity author and purchaser of AM radio time, shall we?

Originally, I thought about doing a line-by-line dissection. I realized that was going to be a little too time-consuming. Plus, I'd hate to have Marsh get all worked up about having the full text of her goofery republished elsewhere. So, I invite you to read her whole crazy post on your own. Here are a few of the many reasons her post is weaker than 3.2 beer at the ballpark:

ONE: SHE PRETENDS AS IF HER UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION IN GOSPEL TRUTH

Marsh's argument relies on the presupposition that the "McSame" strategy is a good one. If you don't first accept the premise that comparing Bush to McCain is a winning plan, there's absolutely no reason to get hacked at Barry for saying that McCain might not be quite as bad as W.

As it turns out, there is reason to doubt that linking McCain to Bush might not be the most ingenious vote-gathering ploy in history.

First, it's going to be a tougher sell than people might think. Although the video from the DNC does a cute job of painting John and George as lovers, there are substantive disagreements between the two guys. McCain has made a point of reminding people of this differences, too. Now, you could argue that McCain's distancing efforts aren't compelling, but it isn't too hard to imagine him avoiding the Bush albatross around his neck--especially when Bushies are constantly criticizing him as being out of lockstep with the conservative march.

Second, it's not clear that linking Bush and McCain will actually result in a win. No matter how much we all might believe that W. is a complete failure of a President, the guy has demonstrated an ability to hang in there. He wasn't all that hip when he personally beat Kerry. It's not a certainty that Bush would be an anchor if tied to McCain. It might even help him get a little bit of that currently up-in-the-air conservative support.

Third, it's not really all that honest. McCain and Bush do hold similar perspectives on some very important issues. They are not long last fraternal twin brothers, though. Yes, McCain has flipped a little toward the Bush side on a handful of popular conservative issues. However, I don't think it's intellectually honest to argue that a McCain White House would be a twin of a Bush White House.

Fourth, even if it is a winning plan, it isn't the only winning plan. There's no reason to assume that undermining the McSame strategy spells inevitable Democratic doom.

That's the first error in Marsh's post. She assumes the "paint 'em with the same brush" is a sure thing winner. It isn't. Even IF you believe it is, however, her argument is still faulty.

TWO: OBAMA'S COMMENTS DON'T DECIMATE THE MCSAME APPROACH, ANYWAY

If you DO think that pairing McCain and Bush is a fine plan, there's no reason to go nutty over the fact that Obama said McCain would do a better job as POTUS than GWB. Saying someone would do a better job than George Bush sets the bar very low. My dead uncle would probably do a better job than George BUsh, even though he's been buried for ten years. Your dog has a 50/50 chance of fucking up things less than George Bush. We could elect a former porn site editor with delusions of grandeur into the White House and she'd poll with higher approval numbers than GWB.

Saying that McCain is better than bush is like saying it might be marginally better to have someone kick the shit out of you for an hour than it would be to have them stab you seven times in the midsection with a rusty chef's knife. It isn't a compliment of great significance. "Hey, John McCain, I think you'd be a better President than randomly selected drunken hobo with a schizophrenic disorder." Wow, I'm sure he'll take that compliment with a smile, right?

It's not necessary to completely demonize John McCain to criticize him effectively. There are plenty of things not to like about John McCain. If you believe that Bush and McCain are political twins, you can still make that argument without refusing to recognize that Johnny Mac might be a little better than George W.

Those, like Marsh, who get indignant and offended by a willingness on Obama's part to admit that McCain is not the bastard son of Hitler and Ilse Koch, bother me. It's as if they fear any insertion of reason and perspective into politics will somehow render their candidates and messages impotent. I don't think that's the case and I tend to believe that the instinctive desire to portray political rivals as the embodiment of pure evil is one reason why voter apathy is so high. Instead of turning down the bullshit heat as a way of inviting people back to the political table, the kneejerks believe that cranking the burner up to "high" will somehow attract a crowd.

THREE: MARSH IS BASICALLY ADVOCATING DISHONESTY

According to Taylor Marsh, we need Obama mentioning that anyone would do better than George Bush as much as we do a "whole [sic] in the head". Apparently, we should avoid the truth if it might hurt a little bit. Anything to win, right Monster fans?

Look, McCain would be a better President than George Bush. A LOLCat would be a better President than George Bush. It's okay to know that. It's okay to say that.

There is a reason why McCain draws a relatively high level of Independent support compared to most Republicans. There is a reason McCain is often considered a moderate Republican. It's because he's not as fucked up as Gorgeous George. No, I'm not campaigning for Johnny Mac here. I'm just willing to admit that he is less of a buffoon that Bush. Why am I comfortable saying that? Uh, because it's true.

And even if you don't think there's a beam of daylight between Dubya and John, it seems very unlikely that McCain could duplicate the fuckuppery of the Bush Administration even if he tried. Assembling a cast of dimwits (Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al.) requires a perfect storm of bad luck and weak decision making. It's a one-of-a-kind freakshow of idiocy.

Marsh is basically arguing that it's more important to keep a questionable strategy intact for November than it is to let a little honesty slip into our political discourse. That's a reprehensible position to take. Even those who do see two peas in a pod when they look at Bush and McCain know, deep in their hearts, that Johnny is a slightly better guy than John.

Don't believe me? Ask Taylor's fan club. Her commenters are always jabbering about how they'll vote McCain if things don't break their way. Unless these "Democrats" are willing to sign up for a so-called Bush third term, they recognize that McCain isn't THAT bad. Either that, or they are just so anti-Obama that they've lost all control over their faculties. I suppose it's probably the second option, so I'll just leave it at that.

I simply can't understand why someone would argue that it's better to tell a lie or to commit a lie of omission than it is to be honest. I can't understand why anyone would value ends over means in that way when our current messes can so often be traced back to an unwillingness to confront issues, people and ideas in a way that keeps our intellectual credibility intact. That's the Marsh argument, though. Demonize McCain like crazy, even if you have to sidestep the truth, because it's a "winning strategy". Who else feels nauseated by this Monster-like thinking?

FOUR: MARSH'S HYPOCRISY WITH RESPECT TO PARTY LOYALTY

There's another reason Marsh's goofball missive is startling. It is wildly hypocritical. Follow along with me here, kids...

Marsh is willing to roast Barry O. because he won't play along with what she perceives as being the DNC's plan. You gotta be on the same page with the party to keep McCain out of the White House. Yet Marsh has no problem whatsoever with Clinton's past intimations that McCain would be a better President (or at least a more qualified President) than Barack Obama. In Taylor's world, it's okey dokey to slice the neck of one of your own party's most significant figures but it's not okay to deviate from the DNC anti-Republican plan.

You can fuck each other over with hot pokers, Barry and Hillary. That's consistent with party loyalty standards. Just don't admit that McCain might not be as bad as Bush. THAT is unacceptable. That seems to be the wildly hypocritical loyalty argument she's making.

FIVE: MARSH'S BABBLE IGNORES PAST CLINTON STATEMENTS

Coming down on Obama for saying that McCain isn't as putrid as Bush completely ignores past statements made by Hillary Clinton, who comes out smelling like a rose in the Marsh post. Taylor arguest that Clinton's past comments about McCain only say that he'd be a formidable opponent--not that he'd be better than George Bush. That's enough of a difference for her to attack Barack and to lovingly caress the snakes that make up Monster's hair. It's also bullshit.

Clinton has told the world that McCain has crossed the Commander in Chief threshhold. She's consistently tried to portray herself and John McCain as the two legitimate contenders while Barack is, in her view, a guy who once gave a speech. The combined weight of Hillary's comments about John McCain indicate that she knows he's not a complete fuck up ala George W. Bush.

To pretend as though her past remarks and Bill's infamous "two people who love this country" crap, and assorted other examples of her campaign indicating that John McCain is not a slobbering piece of shit are somehow less at odds with the McSame strategy is the worst kind of bullshit cherry picking.

Hillary Clinton has had some halfway decent things to say about McCain while, sometimes in the same speeches, lambasting Bush. There's a reason why that happens. McCain isn't as bad as Bush. He might be bad, but he's not as bad. Everyone with a brain knows that. Too pretend as though it must be kept a secret is silliness. Pretending as if Hillary has somehow worked diligently to protect the party strategy by not clearly stating "McCain may be slightly less damaging than our current putz" is ignorant in the truest sense of the word.

SIX: ELEVEN FUCKING WORDS, PEOPLE.

The McSame post is all about the way Obama is hosing the Dems by not hating on McCain strongly enough. Although Marsh lays out this childlike argument with her usual level of acumen (not a compliment), she glosses over Obama's actual remarks. Oh, she provides them, but she only plays with the part she likes. Here's what Barry said:

"You have a real choice in this election. Either Democrat would be better than John McCain," Obama said to cheers from a rowdy crowd in central Pennsylvania. Then he said: "And all three of us would be better than George Bush."

She's obsessed with those last eleven words. Oh, by the way, those eleven words were just about the only part of Obama's presentation that had anything to do with drawing a comparison between McCain and Bush. He didn't expound upon this notion that McCain was better than Dubya for hours and hours. We're talking about eleven words. Oh, and those eleven words came right after eight words that actually DO put the comment into perspective.

"Either Democrat would be better than John McCain."

Yeah, it really sounds like Barry wants a job on the Straight Talk Express, doesn't it? He didn't give a pro-McCain speech. He gave a pro-Obama speech, which is what you'd expect from a guy who's campaigning. He was nice enough, however, to give Hillary a little thumbs up, though. I think that's sort of nice to him considering that Hillary's fucked up rant about the dreaded eleven words were nothing more than a double-barrelled attack on Barack and John McCain.

Obama: "Either Democrat would be better than John McCain."

Monster (after criticizing McCain): "We need a nominee who will take on John McCain, not cheer on John McCain, and I will be that nominee."

Who's "on the same page" with the Democratic party again, Taylor?

And who really thinks it's a good idea to get so worked up over a single sentence in a longer speech that isn't inaccurate or dishonest? Is that really the kind of politics we want?

It is in Taylor's marsh, I guess.

Me? I'm looking for something a little better. And something that makes a little more sense.




Technorati Tags: marsh, taylor marsh, politics, election, obama, barack obama, hillary, monster, hillary monster, hillary clinton, john mccain, mccain, bullshit, stupidity Del.icio.us Tags: marsh, taylor marsh, politics, election, obama, barack obama, hillary, monster, hillary monster, hillary clinton, john mccain, mccain, bullshit, stupidity Furl Tags: marsh, taylor marsh, politics, election,obama, barack obama, hillary, monster, hillary monster, hillary clinton, john mccain, mccain,bullshit, stupidity

Barack Obama flips the monster off, they say... The bird is the word... An illustrated lesson in flipping people off...

This is what it looks like when a kid flips you off.

















This is what it might look like if Jesus flipped you the bird.
















This is what it looked like when Johnny Cash gave the finger.





















Girls know how to flip you off.
















This crazy fucker dressed up like Burger King and showed the world at least 50 different ways to give the finger.





This is what a flip off looks like.












This is what George Bush looks like when flipping someone off.












Sexy finger.



















Evangeline Lily finger.
























Flaming finger.

















An artist's interpretation of Taylor Marsh giving someone the bird.















Again, it's so easy a baby can do it.



















Jerry Lee Lewis flipping the bird... In stereo!
















A drawing.
















This is what flipping someone off looks like, just in case you still don't get it.













This is NOT someone flipping the bird.













No, no, no. I don't care if you're so batshit crazyblind that you still think that was Barack Obama flipping Hillary Clinton off, it didn't really happen. Look again. Not a flip off.























Two fingers. Unless you're doing a two-hander, the flip off has one finger extended.

Having an itch is not the same as calling out Monster for being a bitch. Yes, that rhymes. Again, just in case you're half as delusional as the Taylor Marsh fan club who has been pissing their Depends over this, it is not the bird. Let's compare to a real flip off one more time so you can see the difference.















Here are a list of people who are so far gone that they still don't get it. These are the freaky goofs who think Barack Obama flipped off Hillary Clinton. Sweet Baby Jesus flipping off the wise man who brought him myrrh, these people are beyond help. Know the stupid so that you don't accidentally take them seriously at some point in the future.

Garlin Guage wonders if Obama "overplayed his hand". I wonder if Garlin knows he's a dipshit?

The Tribunal Blog says it was "intentional" and draws a parallel with Obama's perspective on small town hicks. I say The Tribunal Blog is not rad, hip, cool or awsome [sic].

Strategic Geography thinks Barry was giving the bird because "it is such an amorphous, non-committal, unmanly flip off, just like everything else in his campaign". StratGeo not only opines about that which is manly, he also writes a lot about Andrew Sullivan. Just sayin'...

Radical Left is disturbed by Obama's fingers(s), citing it as "another example of his demeaning attitude toward Clinton and women in general". Me? I'm disturbed at the idea that blind Max Blunt might have a driver's license.

NoQuarter jumped to attack Obama, saying that flip off "is undeniable — I have asked several people to confirm — that he indeed did give Hillary the finger, and it’s clear from the audience reaction that he did so." That's what happens when you seek confirmation from the mentally ill, though.

Theodore's World studied Obama's hand movements and concluded that "he uses his index finger constantly not his middle finger , so this made it even more obvious when he did this". Bonus points for Teddy Whiz Kid, who also busted out the tried and true "B. Hussein Obama" in his asshattish little blogospheric contribution.

There are many others, but I want to mention just one more... The inimitable Ms. Taylor Marsh. She says it was "unmistakable". Unmistakable. God have mercy on her fucked up soul.

This is for all of them...













Technorati Tags: middle finger, bird, flipping off, flip off, taylor marsh, noquarter, barack obama,obama, clinton, hillary clinton, election, campaign, politics, stupidity Del.icio.us Tags: middle finger, bird, flipping off, flip off, taylor marsh, noquarter, barack obama, obama, clinton, hillary clinton, election, campaign, politics, stupidity Furl Tags: middle finger, bird, flipping off, flip off, taylor marsh, noquarter, barack obama, obama, clinton, hillary clinton, election, campaign, politics, stupidity

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.

JOHN BROWN IS JUST JEALOUS OF TAYLOR MARSH

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.

JOHN BROWN HATES TAYLOR BECAUSE SHE LIKES HILLARY CLINTON

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.

JOHN BROWN IS A WAR CRIMINAL OR SOMETHING EQUALLY EVIL

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.

JOHN BROWN IS A RIGHT-WING NUTJOB WHO HATES PROGRESSIVES

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.

JOHN BROWN IS A NOBODY, WHY SHOULD PEOPLE EVEN CARE

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.

JOHN BROWN IS MEAN AND HIS POSTS ABOUT TAYLOR MARSH ARE A HIT JOB

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.

JOHN BROWN DIDN'T UNCOVER ANYTHING NEW ABOUT TAYLOR MARSH

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.

A FEW QUESTIONS OF MY OWN...

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.

OH, AND THE ILLUSTRATIONS...

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.

YOUR BEST FRIEND FOREVER,

JOHN BROWN





Technorati Tags: taylor marsh, marsh, marshans, stupidity, blogging, bloggers, identity politics, monster clinton, controversy, train wreck, fucked up Del.icio.us Tags: taylor marsh, marsh, marshans, stupidity, blogging, bloggers, identity politics, monster clinton, controversy, train wreck, fucked up Furl Tags: taylor marsh, marsh, marshans, stupidity, blogging, bloggers, identity politics, monster clinton, controversy, train wreck, fucked up

Why Geraldine Ferraro should go away...

Go away, Geraldine. Not because you're a racist or anything. Go away because you've gone sour and are bad for everyone.

I know you watched it and have probably read it again, too. Play along with me, though. I want you to read an excerpt from Barack Obama's "race" speech. You don't have to study every word carefully. Just read it and pay a little attention, okay? Great. Thanks. Here we go:

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

See? I told you it wasn't complicated! Very easy to understand, actually.

For those who need extra help with interpretation, allow me:

It is wrong to simply dismiss everyone who says something controversial about race as a crazed racist. That kind of simplification is silly and its not very helpful.

Just in case you need even more extra help, I'll simplify again:

We shouldn't call people racists every time they say something about race. That is bad.

Still having problems? Okay:

No call everyone racist. Bad.

That last "level of help" was written with Geraldine Ferraro in mind. I used to think of Ferraro as a relatively harmless relic from the Democratic party's bygone days. She had a landmark moment, served her constituency, and moved on. The end. I didn't dislike her and I certainly admired her willingness to be the first woman VP candidate. Beyond that, I didn't really think too much about Geraldine Ferraro.

I now realize that Geraldine Ferraro is a fucking moron of the first order. She is stupid. She lacks reading comprehension skills. She is a fool. I think you get the idea.

Wait! How can it be that this woman, a former vice presidential candidate, can be a complete dumb-ass? It seems impossible! How could an elected official with a long track record in Washington, DC be functionally illiterate?

I don't know. I really don't. But that's exactly what's going on with Geraldine Ferraro. Well, either that or she really isn't stupid and she's just saying stupid things for the sake of some political objective. I'd rather believe she's a Grade-A dummy than to think she's a conniving piece of shit, though. Wouldn't you?

Any way, she's either stupid or full of crap. We know that because she recently reacted to Obama's speech.

Just in case you've lost track, revisit the comment he made that referenced Geraldine. He said it was wrong for people to simply dismiss Ferraro as a bigot. He said that throwing people overboard on the basis of comments about race was short-sighted and foolish. He basically told the people who called Geraldine Ferraro a racist to stick it up their asses. Barack Obama stuck up for Geraldine Ferraro and cautioned those who'd call her a racist because of her "Barack is lucky to be a black dude" comments.

So, how do you think Geraldine Ferraro reacted? Do you think she thanked Obama for recognizing that she wasn't a racist? Do you think she applauded his willingness to explore what her comments and motivations really meant, instead of painting her as a crazed bigot?

Hell no. Geraldine Ferraro did exactly what you'd expect an idiot who can't understand simple sentences would do. Or, you could say she did exactly what you'd expect a sick, twisted political manipulator would do.

She became indignant!

To equate what I said with what this racist bigot has said from the pulpit is unbelievable...


It also didn't happen. Nonetheless, that's what Geraldine told the now-halfway-famous Daily Breeze. She was pissed off that he somehow equated her remarks with Wright's yammerings. So what if he didn't actually do that. So what if he did something approximating the opposite of what seemed to piss her off. She's either too stupid to understand Barack Obama or she's intentionally faking rage to serve some other end.

Either way, she sucks. Big time. She's pure evil and her reaction to the speech is far more sinister and malignant than her earlier fool-talk about Obama's luck at being a black guy running for president.

Geraldine Ferraro mind has rotted. Or her political soul has gone rancid. You pick. I don't give a shit. Either way, she's bad.

The funny thing is that I sort of stuck up for Geraldine after her controversial remarks made headlines. I reasoned that her comments were less a product of racism than of her own involvement in women's issues and the context-built prism through which she might view the world. I thought she was wrong, but I didn't think she was a racist.

Well, no more sticking up for Ferraro. She is infected with either the stupid bug or the most dangerous political disease imaginable.

The latest round of Ferraro vs. Obama is sickening. Geraldine is pissed off at Obama for doing the opposite of what he did. That's bad enough. She's also hacked that he failed to criticize Jeremiah Wright.

Yeah, you read that right. She's all hacked off that Barack didn't come down on the pastor. Here's an example of her fucked up (non)insight:

(Obama) gave a very good speech on race relations, but he did not address the fact that this man is up there spewing hatred...

WTF Gerry? Does this ring a bell?

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Apparently, Barack Obama must kill Jeremiah Wright, urinate on his corpse and then go on SNL and tear up a photo of him after singing a capella in order to "address" the matter to Geraldine's satisfaction. Fight the real enemy, Barack! What a load of shit. She's either beyond stupid or she's faking. We all know it.


And it really comes as no surprise. The "lucky black guy" stuff was followed by Geraldine making these weird accusations that they Obama campaign was calling her a racist. Of course, that never happened. They called her remarks "divisive" and "polarizing" but they never categorized the comments as "racist". They certainly didn't call Gerry a racist. That reality didn't phase her, though. She claimed it was true anyway. Then, Obama says that those who did call her a racist were wrong. That pisses her off even more, apparently. Idiot or liar. Your pick.

I guess there's a third choice--psychopath. I don't know which of the three options best fits Geraldine Ferraro, but I do know one thing. America better damn well be done with folks like her. Otherwise, we deserve every bad thing that comes our way.

If you want to know what a new politics should look like... If you're really interested in bettering the USA and its governance... If you want to know why people seem to love the idea of "change" and why hope is an increasingly popular antidote to the status quo... If you want to do any of those things, you can figure it all out by studying Geraldine Ferraro's behavior over the course of the past month.

She is bad. End of story.

Go away, Geraldine. Not because you're a racist or anything. Go away because you've gone sour and are bad for everyone.





Technorati Tags: ferraro, geraldine ferraro, barack obama, barack obama, Racism, race, identity politics, elections, campaigns, lies, stupidity, Del.icio.us Tags: ferraro, geraldine ferraro, barack obama, barack obama, Racism, race, identity politics, elections, campaigns, lies, stupidity, Furl Tags: ferraro, geraldine ferraro, barack obama, barack obama, Racism, race, identity politics, elections, campaigns, lies, stupidity

Dummies and Eggheads... Why Obama is winning...

Are you puzzled about Barack Obama's popularity? Are you scratching your head, befuddled about his rock star status? Do you find yourself seeing the massive gatherings of supporters and wondering "why, why why?"

This post will explain exactly why Barack Obama is riding a wave of unprecedented (in my lifetime, anyway) political popularity. Maybe not. I could be very wrong.

Why is it happening? Simple. Barack Obama has a message that appeals to most of the voters. How so? Dumb people love him. So do smart folk.

Here's why it's perfect: It appeals to the two most important groups of people in the electorate. Barack Obama is loved by the idiots and the intellectuals--for two very different reasons. The Obama campaign may have a reasonable level of support in the middle of the bell curve, but the outliers represent his rabid fan base.

DUMB PEOPLE LOVE OBAMA

Dumb people love Barack Obama. The simple version of his message and dominant theme of his campaign appeals to them. Hope and Change. Those are nice, warm, fuzzy concepts and people love them. Those ideas work really well with dumb people who are incapable of considering how one goes from concept to implementation. People who don't understand the difference between the legislative branch and the executive branch of government adore these messages.

They want change because things could and/or should be better. They want hope because it gives them a reason to get up in the morning. The actual dirty work of getting creating change and fulfilling hope, however, is too complicated for them. They don't want to dissect the pros and cons of mortgage freezes. They don't want to spend a lot of time discussing the proper role of diplomacy in the conduct of foreign policy.

They want to kick the bums out and get the good guys in. They want change and they want a reason to believe things will get better. If you serve up a dish based on those two ingredients, you're halfway home with the dumb.

And don't be fooled, the dumb vote. They vote in droves. The other night, I was watching that annoying pollster Frank Luntz. You know the guy. He has these little focus groups that he babysits during the debates. He gives them all paddles from old Atari 2600's and records their reactions to what the candidates say, giving us an idea of what "works" and what "fails".

Luntz is an aggravation for 200 different reasons and may be the subject of a later post. That isn't important with regard to this conversation, however. The actual members of his focus group are. These are undecided voters. They may lean toward one candidate, but they haven't expressed outright support for either. They watch the debates and Luntz is then given an opportunity to quiz the shit out of them on a series of cable networks after the top-level spinners do their things.

These focus group members are dumb. Plain old stupid. I'm not talking about "I can't read and I speak like a character from some hillbilly-bashing movie" dumb. I'm talking about "I look like a normal person and I am, which means I'm also stupid as shit" dumb.

You see, most people are sort of dim-witted when it comes the whole governance thing. They spent civics and government classes checking out the ass on the girl sitting in front of them. They worried about the prom committee. They sketched pictures of hot rods or wrote notes to friends during class.

Their intellectual curiosity may have been sufficient for them to limp through college in a similar fashion. Now, if they do any investigation of anything, it's usually because their stuck in a doctor's waiting room with nothing but an old Golf Digest and a 1998 Newsweek at their disposal. If they read, they read horrible Mitch Albom shit or mystery novels. If they watch the news, they go local in hopes of finding out how lousy the weather is going to be be or they seek out the more "exciting" form of television news--shows where people yell at each other in a constant partisan circle jerk. They're dumb.

OK, they might not be clinically stupid. In terms of selecting quality leadership, however, they are dunces. They are stupid, naive, and easily swayed by Hope and Change.

Luntz's focus group participants--people who are sufficiently engaged to participate in a debate-watching and analysis session--are evidence of this. These morons inevitably reference whatever has been the prevailing headline of the last 96 hours and/or incredibly easy-to-understand but amazingly trivial arguments about the not-so-important when they're quizzed. They can get downright heated about the Obama "plagiarism" bullshit, but they're completely baffled by the difference in Barack's and Hillary's health insurance schemes.

They WANT to be involved and they WANT to "get it", but they're unequipped. They don't have the background. They don't do the reading. They haven't been bit by the policy or politics bugs like the people who are probably reading this blog. They can't. They fall into the diversionary traps of campaigns and they fall in love with the simplistic and positive.

Dumb people are a core constituency for Barack Obama right now.

Don't read that as a criticism of Barack. That's not my intent. The winner of a Presidential election probably always gets the stupid vote majority. I'm sure Bill Clinton cleaned up with the dummies. GW Bush probably did, too. The stupid outnumber the bright, and if you can get the not-so-with-it crowd on your side, you're in damn good shape.

Note that I'm exaggerating a bit for effect. I'm not really saying that these folks are "dumb" in a traditional sense. They're just, shall we say, political ignorant? You know what I mean, wink-wink.

SMART PEOPLE LOVE OBAMA

Smart people adore Barack Obama. That's because the sentiments and analyses underlying his simple Hope/Change message form an a priori critique of American politics. Obama's articles about the nature of political discourse, the divisiveness of standard partisan politics and the need to redefine both technique and goal in order to better govern the USA are just what the PhD in poli sci ordered.

Have you ever actually read the kind of stuff really smart people tend to write? I'm not talking about run-of-the-mill smarties. I'm talking about PhD candidates and those who make a living out of intellectualism. They're writing and reading articles that apply history to theory, that test core concepts of democracy and governance, and that question things the rest of the world takes for granted.

In the rarified air of the ivory tower, the day-to-day stuff doesn't matter all that much. An academic may be interested in what a grocery bagger's motivations are and whether her job in a supermarket represents a multi-level subjugation of woman via simultaneous commodification of the the Goddess Earth and the gum-chewing teenager. An academic probably isn't that interested in how the bagger pulls the paper sacks out of the rack or figures out how many cans of vegetables to put in a single sack.

The academic is interested in concept and theory, not in the purely pragmatic. The technocratic concerns of actual operation and policy take a backseat to the critique and the construction of intriguing meta-arguments.

The intellectual Obama supporter is enamored with his meta-critique of the process and doesn't have a really good idea of what difference the presence or absence of mandates in a healthcare policy will make.

Like the dummy, the scholar will fall in love with Hope/Change. Oh, some of it is a matter of the concepts tugging the right heartstrings, but it's mainly about the theoretical aspects of those ideas. "The power of ideas". You hear phrases like that from smart people all the time. They believe it and they think about it--a lot. The nuts and bolts, however, aren't all that interesting.

WHAT ABOUT THE MIDDLE

In Democratic circles, it seems like the middle is voting for Hillary. We're talking about people who aren't necessarily dummies but who don't spend hour upon hour reflecting on the meaning of liberal democracy. Nuts and bolts people. Technocrats and their ilk. The hands-on folk who have some understanding of the machine called government are probably leaning toward Hillary.

Hillary speaks to them. She codes her campaign in vague-as-hope notions like "Solutions" and talks about "readiness", but those keywords are a wink to those who put political nuts and bolts above ruminations on the theoretical.

Hillary fans like to talk about policy differences more than do Obama buffs. Clinton's backers have concerns about experience, just like a prospective employer might prefer and experienced machine operator over a novice.

The middle understands Clinton and her concerns with the question of "how" while the intellectuals ruminate on "why". The dumb? They're still back in the world of simple appeals.

DOING THE MATH

Dumb + Smart > In the Middle

Thus, Obama wins.

That's simple. If you look at in those terms, you'll also find a theory that fits the overall narrative of this campaign. Hillary's supporters grow increasingly frustrated at their inability to win over voters even though they believe they are winning policy debates. Obama isn't having a policy debate. He's having a mindset debate. He's talking about paradigm shifts while Clinton talks about policy construction. The intellectuals chuckle at her for not understanding that you can't answer the Obama critique with discussions of policy mechanics. The eyes of the dumb glaze over and they reach for the positive antidote to boring old political arguments they think they've heard a million times. Hillary loses.

FULL DISCLOSURE

I fall into the intellectual crowd. My (somewhat reluctant) support of Obama is based less upon my assessment of his abilities as an administrator and is premised on the ideas he represents and his apparent dedication to altering the perspective and priority of governance on a "higher" level than that of "mere" policy.

You'll notice I'm sort of hard on the smarty-pants crowd in this post, even though I'm in the club. That's because I recognize the tendency among those who think my way to be self-important and wrapped up in the abstract instead of rolling up our sleeves and actual DOING something. At the same time, I thoroughly believe that smart critique and a recognition of its message are essential to creating paradigmatic changes that are a prerequisite to serious positive change.

(LIMITED) SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL

As this campaign pushes forward, I'm beginning to have a little sympathy for Clinton supporters. Not for the weak-ass "let's say he plagiarized and that's why Hillary should win" bullshitters, but for the ones who think she really is the better candidate in terms of getting things done. I see them struggling to understand why others aren't getting their message. I can sense their frustration. They just aren't keying into the idea that many of the smarter folks believe there are prerequisite issues at play that prevent any real policy success until they are addressed. They don't understand how powerful simple, positive concepts are with those who don't spend all day reflecting upon the theoretical.

Clinton is winning her arguments, on some level. The problem is that the debate itself has already been redefined and she didn't get the memo. HOW you do it is of secondary importance to WHY you are doing it right now. The debate is more about IF anything big can happen if monsters far larger than any policy proposal aren't first slain.

Hillary isn't talking to me right now. She's not talking to the disaffected and frustrated, either. They're with me. They might be with me for different reasons, but they're here. That leaves Hillary with the "pretty smart but not academic/intellectually-oriented" crowd of can-do action people. They're a minority.

My sympathy for Hillary is limited, however. Instead of debating on the more theoretical level and engaging the reservations of those who believe that more than clever policy is necessary, she's decided to take the low road way too often. Her campaign seems to live and die by one-day mini-issues that do little more than distract from the meta AND from her own more policy-oriented positions. She's running a down and dirty old school campaign in a setting where that doesn't resonate with ANYONE. Whoops. That's why March 4 is looking more and more like her Alamo.






Technorati Tags: stupidity, intelligence, smart, luntz, frank luntz, barack obama, hillary clinton, Clinton, Obama, Election, campaigns, primaries, democracts, critique, voting Del.icio.us Tags: stupidity, intelligence, smart, luntz, frank luntz, barack obama, hillary clinton, Clinton, Obama, Election, campaigns, primaries, democracts, critique, voting Furl Tags: stupidity, intelligence, smart, luntz, frank luntz, barack obama, hillary clinton, Clinton, Obama, Election, campaigns, primaries, democracts, critique, voting