Match Point to Joan Walsh: Unfair and Unbalanced
I know I have drawn your attention to Joan Walsh, editor at Salon.com, multiple times before. I need to do so again. My own gender tends to be way too invested in nastiness, things that end life violently, and vituperation in general for me. It's tough for those running on testosterone to be properly and appropriately confrontational, given that from what I gather the old testes-crack tends towards aggression, with proper management seemingly only an afterthought. Certainly the world we live in today gives abundant evidence of that imbalance.
I'm here to boost non-testescrack-derived in-your-face. I possess but have not been able to start the recent bio of Molly Ivins, of whom I was a long-time fan, and she is yet another admirable model for me of the distaff side of in-your-face. "Molly Ivins Can't Say That, Can She" being a wonderful title all by itself.
Setting this up, Walsh was on-camera with the scurrilous slimy Scarborough and "Mika Brzezinski," whoever-the-hell she is and whatever crappola credentials she has been granted by the notoriously conservative-biased media (she's nobody to me - and now several ranks below that based on this "performance" - and a wonderful redemption that not every jackass is fired by testosterone).
Confronted with the concept that reasonable folks on the right and left should both be calling out their respective outrageous extremists, Joan could not come up with a whacko hateful sort like Beck and Limbaugh on the left. Imagine! And that's not to credit those two scumbags as actually marking the 95 UCL for right-wing-fascist-outrage. I would bet those two Fecal Specimens are at least at 95 for the populace though. The handling was truly disgraceful.
And where was the scolding of the right-wing demagogues? Never happened.
Olbermann at his most over-the-top is nowhere near the violence-invoking and racism of the aforementioned. I love Keith's showmanship, but he actually has gentlemanly qualities. Jon and Stephen are way too reasonable and sensible to fit this role. And Rachel Maddow, who I suspect is a real thorn-in-the-side for these clods, actually does not seem to have a mean bone in her body, alas. Yes, she is admirably liberal, and favors human rights over corporate rights, and does have a sharp tongue. She calls out the ridiculous hypocrisy on the right on a regular basis, something the formerly-admired print media do not do, instead uncritically parroting tripe from unidentified government sources.
Perhaps we need to nurture some truly left-wing zealots on the level of the idiot-beck and gonad-baugh? If we could get a few markers out there actually well beyond the 50-yard mark for once, it might make playing for even or working on bipartisan actually mean something for people rather than corporations. But to be comparable, it would have to be some hard-core marxists or something, I would speculate well beyond those that most sentient progressives want to be socializing with.
That's the only "fair and balanced" that would work here.
Here's Joan:
And here's the link to and excerpt of Crooks and Liars post Walsh alludes to later in her post:
I'm here to boost non-testescrack-derived in-your-face. I possess but have not been able to start the recent bio of Molly Ivins, of whom I was a long-time fan, and she is yet another admirable model for me of the distaff side of in-your-face. "Molly Ivins Can't Say That, Can She" being a wonderful title all by itself.
Setting this up, Walsh was on-camera with the scurrilous slimy Scarborough and "Mika Brzezinski," whoever-the-hell she is and whatever crappola credentials she has been granted by the notoriously conservative-biased media (she's nobody to me - and now several ranks below that based on this "performance" - and a wonderful redemption that not every jackass is fired by testosterone).
Confronted with the concept that reasonable folks on the right and left should both be calling out their respective outrageous extremists, Joan could not come up with a whacko hateful sort like Beck and Limbaugh on the left. Imagine! And that's not to credit those two scumbags as actually marking the 95 UCL for right-wing-fascist-outrage. I would bet those two Fecal Specimens are at least at 95 for the populace though. The handling was truly disgraceful.
And where was the scolding of the right-wing demagogues? Never happened.
Olbermann at his most over-the-top is nowhere near the violence-invoking and racism of the aforementioned. I love Keith's showmanship, but he actually has gentlemanly qualities. Jon and Stephen are way too reasonable and sensible to fit this role. And Rachel Maddow, who I suspect is a real thorn-in-the-side for these clods, actually does not seem to have a mean bone in her body, alas. Yes, she is admirably liberal, and favors human rights over corporate rights, and does have a sharp tongue. She calls out the ridiculous hypocrisy on the right on a regular basis, something the formerly-admired print media do not do, instead uncritically parroting tripe from unidentified government sources.
Perhaps we need to nurture some truly left-wing zealots on the level of the idiot-beck and gonad-baugh? If we could get a few markers out there actually well beyond the 50-yard mark for once, it might make playing for even or working on bipartisan actually mean something for people rather than corporations. But to be comparable, it would have to be some hard-core marxists or something, I would speculate well beyond those that most sentient progressives want to be socializing with.
That's the only "fair and balanced" that would work here.
Here's Joan:
I'm traveling this week so blogging is light. But I'm compelled to comment on the way the right is hyping my Tuesday appearance on "Morning Joe."
First, thanks to my friends at Newsbusters. It's nice when my videos go viral. But Newsbusters and its devotees drew an awfully weird conclusion about my conversation with Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough yesterday morning.
I'm the one who posed the question: Scarborough suggested that reasonable folks on the left (that's me) and the right (that's Joe) ought to denounce the extremists in their own camp. I asked him whom he thought I should denounce, because I don't think there's anyone on the left as consistently cruel, divisive and wrong as Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. But my question wasn't merely about media: The problem on the right includes extremists who've made death threats against Democrats like Patty Murray, Bart Stupak, Nancy Pelosi and, of course, President Obama. There's no one on the left posing the same threat to leaders on the right -- or if there is, I'd like to know about it. (The whack job who threatened the folks who made the movie "Babe," along with Obama and GOP whip Eric Cantor, doesn't count.)
Joe and Mika acted stunned that I couldn't name anyone equally extreme myself, and the goofballs on the right are interpreting it as they stumped me, kinda like Katie Couric stumped Sarah Palin when she was asked to name a newspaper she read, or Beck stumped Palin when asking her to name her favorite Founding Father ("all of them" wasn't the right answer).
Of course, that's stupid. I didn't name anyone not because I was stumped; it was because in my opinion, the violent rhetoric is coming from the right, not the left. It's not Nancy Pelosi who's telling her San Francisco constituents they need to be "armed and dangerous" to fight their political enemies; that's Michele Bachmann. There isn't anyone in liberal media as consistently vicious as Beck or Limbaugh. Now, the lads at Newsbusters are providing their own names, but I wouldn't compare anyone they mention to the two right-wing titans of hate.
-clip-
And here's the link to and excerpt of Crooks and Liars post Walsh alludes to later in her post:
Watch this video and tell me what Joan Walsh did to elicit an over the top, bizarro-world reaction from the right-wing blogosphere. Are they so desperate for anything that they'll eat the scraps off a toilet bowl?
posted by Sir Gumbo at 11:01 PM
0 comments
