Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Seriously, Stanley Renshon?
Apparently, Stanley Renshon thinks it's more important to avoid controversy than confront the president about his - to repurpose Renshon's words - "egregiouly harsh, partisan, and tasteless" wars.
Political Psychology: Being Rude to the President and his Wife is no Joke Instead, the Bush material was egregiously harsh, partisan, and tasteless.
How dare someone take stabs at the disaster that is this president's leadership! How dare someone call the press out for being wimps, and beyond that, too cowardly to laugh at jokes about the president in front on him!
The only thing more pathetic than Stenley Renshon's analysis of this event is Powerline Blog's coverage of Renshon's analysis. How devoted to truthiness can these people be?
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Bruce Springsteen on New Orleans
Bruce on our President Bystander's reaction to New Orleans. Remember, it took a furious mayor's rants from a city without power to get President George W Bush to come off vacation during this crisis:
Newsvine - Springsteen Expresses New Orleans' Pain Perhaps the most pointed moment came as he prepared to sing an old song that he had rewritten lyrics to for New Orleans. Noting that he visited the city's ninth ward, perhaps the most devastated area in the city, Springsteen said: "I saw sights I never thought I'd see in an American city," and added: "The criminal ineptitude makes you furious."
With that, he launched into a song titled "How Can A Poor Man Stand Such Times and Live?" and dedicated the song to "President Bystander." Its lyrics included the lines: "There's bodies floatin' on Canal and the levees gone to hell ... them who's got out of town, and them who ain't got left to drown, tell me, how can a poor man stand such times and live?
How Many Lives Per Gallon, Mr Hinderaker?
John Hinderaker criticizes a war protestor's sign reading, "HOW MANY LIVES PER GALLON?" with the following response:
Power Line: Rogues' Gallery
Can anyone explain what that sign is supposed to mean? It's an article of faith among these ignoramus lefties that the Iraq war must have something to do with oil. But what, exactly? Have these people failed to notice that we haven't exactly seized the Iraqi oilfields? And that, whatever the war's rationale was, it pretty obviously wasn't bringing down the price of gasoline?
Notice that Hinderaker doesn't explain what the war's rationale was? Wouldn't that make for a stronger argument than the one he made? Of course, as a Bush apologist, it would be risky to try to make a definitive statement about what the rationale for the war was at a time like this since it's evolved so many times.
Was it WMDs we never found?
Removing a dictator that we used to like?
Dealing with someone who gassed his own citizens before Donald Rumsfeld shook his hand?
Dealing with terrorism in Iraq before we caugh Osama bin Laden. With no ties to the terrorists who acutally attacked us?
Seriously, only a complete idiot or Bush apoligist would be able to believe that the war in Iraq wasn't tied to oil. Have you looked at who's running this country? It's ALL about oil.
John Hinderaker is No Comedy Analyst
But he won't let that stop him. Heck, he's reviewed movies he hasn't seen, so what's going to stop him from reviewing comedy he didn't watch, right?
In typical Hinderaker fashion, he relies solely on the opinions of right-wing pundits to decide what he should regurgitate. This shows that he's too lazy to come up with an opinion of his own, or he doesn't trust his own judgement enough to go first? Hard to say. Regardless, the one thing you can surely count on is Hinderaker regurgitating talking points without bothering to a tad bit of research before posting:
Power Line: Comedy CriticismThe big news story was that the featured comedian, someone named Steve Colbert, apparently bombed. He did a virulently anti-Bush routine that got few laughs. Hot Air has good footage of both routines; you can judge for yourself who was funnier.
Why is Hinderaker reporting on the reporting when transcripts and video coverage of both performances are readily available online? What a putz. Especially considering that he likely watched the Hot Air coverage of the event before writing his post. Why, after watching at least some of the performances, would he report on the reporting rather than forming an opinion of his own? Lack of confidence in his own analytical skills?
My guess is Hinderaker, being a smart guy, was simply trying to avoid analyzing Colbert's humor based on brutal honesty, calling the administration out on lying about the war, outing a covert CIA operative, using race baiting tactics to defeat John McCain in the 2000 primary, etc. etc. etc. It's hard for a Bush apologist like John Hinderaker to laugh at the brutal honesty contained in Colbert's sharply worded humor.
