The Great Slut Controversy
In “Fluke, Flake, Fraud–or All Three?” I laid out the case that 30 year old Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke was, by definition, both a slut and a prostitute as Rush Limbaugh alleged last week.
Limbaugh’s scathing terminology was unfortunate and he later apologized but Ms. Fluke, revelling in the limelight she purposefully created, rejected his mea culpa.
Ms. Fluke’s admission that birth control is costing her an exorbitant thousand dollars annually testifies to her sluttish promiscuity. Her demands that others pay for her to have sex without consequences satisfy the definition of a prostitute, although that description is more tenuous.
In contemporary parlance and in view of today’s loose sexual mores, Ms. Fluke may not technically be a slut and Limbaugh was clearly wrong in applying the word to her since the slut word would then be applicable to at least half the population of college and university students, and we can’t have that!
Rush’s gross indiscretion doesn’t seem to have bothered Sandra very much.
She has expressed righteous indignation in various venues and wasn’t harmed in a legal sense by the epithet. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer wants her to sue Limbaugh: “I’d like to see her take him to court. She is not a public figure and, for that reason, she should be able to sue for slander, libel or whatever else might be involved.”
There are two problems with that line of thinking. First, the 30 year old law student defamed herself by going public about her personal life and her obviously voracious sexual drive and, second, she is indeed an activist “public figure” who has served as a former president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice and vice president of the Women’s Legal Alliance.
In any lawsuit, Ms. Fluke would have to prove both that she is not slutty and that she sustained damages as a result of Limbaugh’s invective. If anything, she has gained worshipful notoriety over the last week and the trial would devolve into a media circus.
In any event, Ms. Fluke has already won the battle of the Great Slut Controversy. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=15983.)
Showing posts with label limbaugh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label limbaugh. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Sunday, May 8, 2011
The "I" Man, "The Man Who Shot Osama bin Laden"
The "I" Man, "The Man Who Shot Osama bin Laden"
As the bastard who now swims with the fishes proves he was not a total waste of human protoplasm by providing sustenance for his new aquatic friends, it’s time to take a break from all the misleading and contradictory propaganda emanating from Washington following the untimely passing of Osama bin Laden.
Let us just stipulate that, indeed, America’s president, Barack Hussein Obama, was indeed virtually singlehandedly responsible for OBL’s death, arguably with some minimal assistance by the United States’ Navy’s corps–or is it corpse, as Obama says?–of elite SEALs.
True, those brave men did, technically, carry out the raid on Abbottbad but only under the adept direction, skilled guidance, and, ultimately, the heroic decision of our Commander in Chief, even if some vile Obama critics contend that Leon Panetta had to order the attack in lieu of the indecisiveness of the chief executive who had to sleep on it rendering his heroic decision.
Let us, however, dispense with all those ignorant critics and give our leader his just due. His affection for the personal pronouns “I,” and “my,” as used so often in last Sunday’s speech to the nation which he replicated this Sunday on “60 Minutes” should not in any way be misinterpreted as spiking any personal footballs. As Obama said to Steve Kroft, “It was the longest 40 minutes of my life:” http://huff.to/j1h6uR
(As a little divertissement, count the “I’s” and “my’s” in just that “60 Minute” excerpt and, for an additional challenge count The “I” Man’s collective “we’s” which incorporate the minimal SEAL contribution to the operation.)
That pronoun overuse should not simply be attributable to egotism, or self-obsession and must be taken at face value. In sum, as Rush Limbaugh has perspicaciously observed, it was not America but rather Barack Hussein Obama who killed Osama bin Laden, and more power to him!
Islamic millitants . . .
(Read more and listen to Paul Shanklin's "The Man Who Shot Osama bin Laden" here: http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4391)
As the bastard who now swims with the fishes proves he was not a total waste of human protoplasm by providing sustenance for his new aquatic friends, it’s time to take a break from all the misleading and contradictory propaganda emanating from Washington following the untimely passing of Osama bin Laden.
Let us just stipulate that, indeed, America’s president, Barack Hussein Obama, was indeed virtually singlehandedly responsible for OBL’s death, arguably with some minimal assistance by the United States’ Navy’s corps–or is it corpse, as Obama says?–of elite SEALs.
True, those brave men did, technically, carry out the raid on Abbottbad but only under the adept direction, skilled guidance, and, ultimately, the heroic decision of our Commander in Chief, even if some vile Obama critics contend that Leon Panetta had to order the attack in lieu of the indecisiveness of the chief executive who had to sleep on it rendering his heroic decision.
Let us, however, dispense with all those ignorant critics and give our leader his just due. His affection for the personal pronouns “I,” and “my,” as used so often in last Sunday’s speech to the nation which he replicated this Sunday on “60 Minutes” should not in any way be misinterpreted as spiking any personal footballs. As Obama said to Steve Kroft, “It was the longest 40 minutes of my life:” http://huff.to/j1h6uR
(As a little divertissement, count the “I’s” and “my’s” in just that “60 Minute” excerpt and, for an additional challenge count The “I” Man’s collective “we’s” which incorporate the minimal SEAL contribution to the operation.)
That pronoun overuse should not simply be attributable to egotism, or self-obsession and must be taken at face value. In sum, as Rush Limbaugh has perspicaciously observed, it was not America but rather Barack Hussein Obama who killed Osama bin Laden, and more power to him!
Islamic millitants . . .
(Read more and listen to Paul Shanklin's "The Man Who Shot Osama bin Laden" here: http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4391)
Monday, March 28, 2011
Attempted Media Murder
Attempted Media Murder
You’re known as much by the enemies you keep as you are by your friends.
America’s liberal mainstream media, long accustomed to virtually absolute dominance of both print and the airwaves, was initially unperturbed when Rush Limbaugh arrived on the scene in 1984 and it ho-hummed the inauguration of the Fox News Channel on cable barely 14 years ago since it had a steel grip on what ideas and news were disseminated for public consumption.
No more.
Since Limbaugh’s amazing success and the growth of conservative talk radio in general and, especially since Fox has galloped so far ahead of CNN, MSNBC and other leftist cable channels that the MSM can barely see its haunches in the distance, mainstreamers have grown, in turn, wary, concerned and recently apoplectic over the loss of its previous monopolistic control over what people hear, see, and think.
Of course, they still have a lock on televised news via ABC, CBS, and NBC and public radio with NPR but those networks are in rapid decline much like the New York Times. Unlike the Times, they may survive as minimalist news sources with their little niche of viewers who don’t have or want cable and listeners who prefer to be force-fed pap by NPR.
However, leftwingers aren’t about to surrender to Fox, yet.
In fact, at least one influential member of that media has now declared war, an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against the Fox News Network which has morphed into an enemy rather than a competitor. Even worse, it’s an alleged arm of the Republican Party and that can no longer be tolerated nor will contentions the Democrats have owned the MSM for decades.
You’re known by the enemies you keep. You also know those enemies are being driven frantic by your success and influence when they declare all-out war. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4002)
You’re known as much by the enemies you keep as you are by your friends.
America’s liberal mainstream media, long accustomed to virtually absolute dominance of both print and the airwaves, was initially unperturbed when Rush Limbaugh arrived on the scene in 1984 and it ho-hummed the inauguration of the Fox News Channel on cable barely 14 years ago since it had a steel grip on what ideas and news were disseminated for public consumption.
No more.
Since Limbaugh’s amazing success and the growth of conservative talk radio in general and, especially since Fox has galloped so far ahead of CNN, MSNBC and other leftist cable channels that the MSM can barely see its haunches in the distance, mainstreamers have grown, in turn, wary, concerned and recently apoplectic over the loss of its previous monopolistic control over what people hear, see, and think.
Of course, they still have a lock on televised news via ABC, CBS, and NBC and public radio with NPR but those networks are in rapid decline much like the New York Times. Unlike the Times, they may survive as minimalist news sources with their little niche of viewers who don’t have or want cable and listeners who prefer to be force-fed pap by NPR.
However, leftwingers aren’t about to surrender to Fox, yet.
In fact, at least one influential member of that media has now declared war, an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against the Fox News Network which has morphed into an enemy rather than a competitor. Even worse, it’s an alleged arm of the Republican Party and that can no longer be tolerated nor will contentions the Democrats have owned the MSM for decades.
You’re known by the enemies you keep. You also know those enemies are being driven frantic by your success and influence when they declare all-out war. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4002)
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Masters of Unemployment Prestidigitation
Masters of Unemployment Prestidigitation
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics,” said Mark Twain. Less memorable and catchy is the line that “Statistics are the products of propagandists.”
Both apply to the government’s announcement that the nation’s unemployment rate dropped minimally to 8.9% and a piddling 192,000 new jobs were added nationwide in February, which still left 13,700,000 people out of work. Still, the numbers do represent an improvement in the job market since the November rate of 9.8%.
Then we get to other bad news: The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that black unemployment stands at 15.3%, hispanic at 11.6%, teenagers at 23.9%, with 2.7 million “marginally attached,” part-timers and workers who had given up looking for jobs, a number up 200,000 in a year: http://tiny.cc/c6yo6
Now comes the realy bad news: The BLS numbers are baloney. As CNBC’s Rick Santelli pointed out on Friday in “Good Jobs Report Has a Dark Side,” things are not always what they appear to be.
Government stats fall short of reality by not factoring into the good news the bad news of America’s incredible shrinking work force.
As Santelli explained, “The government’s definition of the labor force is all individuals 16 years of age and older, who are employed or seeking employment. It does not include students; retirees; anyone with unreported income, or ‘discouraged’ workers. . . meaning the percentage of Americans not working or even trying to join the work force is at a near three-decade high.”
For the non-economists out there, a layman’s translation . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3816)
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics,” said Mark Twain. Less memorable and catchy is the line that “Statistics are the products of propagandists.”
Both apply to the government’s announcement that the nation’s unemployment rate dropped minimally to 8.9% and a piddling 192,000 new jobs were added nationwide in February, which still left 13,700,000 people out of work. Still, the numbers do represent an improvement in the job market since the November rate of 9.8%.
Then we get to other bad news: The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that black unemployment stands at 15.3%, hispanic at 11.6%, teenagers at 23.9%, with 2.7 million “marginally attached,” part-timers and workers who had given up looking for jobs, a number up 200,000 in a year: http://tiny.cc/c6yo6
Now comes the realy bad news: The BLS numbers are baloney. As CNBC’s Rick Santelli pointed out on Friday in “Good Jobs Report Has a Dark Side,” things are not always what they appear to be.
Government stats fall short of reality by not factoring into the good news the bad news of America’s incredible shrinking work force.
As Santelli explained, “The government’s definition of the labor force is all individuals 16 years of age and older, who are employed or seeking employment. It does not include students; retirees; anyone with unreported income, or ‘discouraged’ workers. . . meaning the percentage of Americans not working or even trying to join the work force is at a near three-decade high.”
For the non-economists out there, a layman’s translation . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3816)
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
The Obamas Are What They Eat, Say, and Do
The Obamas Are What They Eat, Say, and Do
“You are what you eat” is one of those maxims we like to think sprang from the minds of modernists whereas, like most truths, it is virtually eternal dating back thousands of years to the era when Ayurveda, “the complete knowledge for long life,” was first conceived in India.
That trivia tidbit directly relates to America’s First Lady, Michelle Obama, an anti-obesity proponent currently working off excess calories on the ski trails of Vail–and setting a poor example for America’s present and future fatties. No piker when it comes to indulging at taxpayer expense, Michelle has been preaching healthy eating as her first lady legacy but doesn’t always, if ever, practice what she preaches.
Evidently no slouch either when it comes to food, Rush Limbaugh has criticized Mrs. Obama for an après-ski trip to the exclusive Restaurant Kelly Liken in Vail Village where she and her girls indulged in a pickled pumpkin salad with arugula and a braised ancho-chile short rib with hominy wild mushrooms and sauteed kale. The salad and kale didn’t bother Limbaugh nearly as much as the rib.
As the conservative commentator said, “The problem is, and I dare say this, it doesn’t look like Michelle Obama follows her own nutritionary, dietary advice. And then we hear that she’s out eating ribs at 1,500 calories a serving and 141 grams of fat per serving,” an indulgence Limbaugh calls hypocrisy: http://tiny.cc/7oeec
Needless to say, Kelly Liken, owner of the eponymous restaurant, sprang to Michelle’s defense as did the president’s mainstream media. “A braised short rib is a relatively lean cut of beef, braised with most of the fat cooked off. The 5-ounce serving runs about 600 calories, Liken said– a far cry from the 1,500 calories and 141 grams of fat it’s accused of. A proper 5-ounce portion of protein is what nutritionists say we should have.” And, don’t forget that yummy kale and Limbaugh’s waistline: http://tiny.cc/xk38q
LiveStrong.com begs to differ. In its “Foods With Lots of Fat,” that website says, “Braised short ribs are a decadent meal to enjoy at a restaurant or at home. Unfortunately, a main dish of braised short ribs packs in 1,250 calories,” a view seconded by Susan Yara on Forbes.com: http://tiny.cc/m3eg6
Making matters even worse, Limbaugh . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3709)
“You are what you eat” is one of those maxims we like to think sprang from the minds of modernists whereas, like most truths, it is virtually eternal dating back thousands of years to the era when Ayurveda, “the complete knowledge for long life,” was first conceived in India.
That trivia tidbit directly relates to America’s First Lady, Michelle Obama, an anti-obesity proponent currently working off excess calories on the ski trails of Vail–and setting a poor example for America’s present and future fatties. No piker when it comes to indulging at taxpayer expense, Michelle has been preaching healthy eating as her first lady legacy but doesn’t always, if ever, practice what she preaches.
Evidently no slouch either when it comes to food, Rush Limbaugh has criticized Mrs. Obama for an après-ski trip to the exclusive Restaurant Kelly Liken in Vail Village where she and her girls indulged in a pickled pumpkin salad with arugula and a braised ancho-chile short rib with hominy wild mushrooms and sauteed kale. The salad and kale didn’t bother Limbaugh nearly as much as the rib.
As the conservative commentator said, “The problem is, and I dare say this, it doesn’t look like Michelle Obama follows her own nutritionary, dietary advice. And then we hear that she’s out eating ribs at 1,500 calories a serving and 141 grams of fat per serving,” an indulgence Limbaugh calls hypocrisy: http://tiny.cc/7oeec
Needless to say, Kelly Liken, owner of the eponymous restaurant, sprang to Michelle’s defense as did the president’s mainstream media. “A braised short rib is a relatively lean cut of beef, braised with most of the fat cooked off. The 5-ounce serving runs about 600 calories, Liken said– a far cry from the 1,500 calories and 141 grams of fat it’s accused of. A proper 5-ounce portion of protein is what nutritionists say we should have.” And, don’t forget that yummy kale and Limbaugh’s waistline: http://tiny.cc/xk38q
LiveStrong.com begs to differ. In its “Foods With Lots of Fat,” that website says, “Braised short ribs are a decadent meal to enjoy at a restaurant or at home. Unfortunately, a main dish of braised short ribs packs in 1,250 calories,” a view seconded by Susan Yara on Forbes.com: http://tiny.cc/m3eg6
Making matters even worse, Limbaugh . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3709)
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Limbaugh Demonizes Obama
Limbaugh Demonizes Obama
Rush Limbaugh has never been known for his subtlety nor for his reticence--and certainly not for his monogamy. As I've often said, he's an insufferable blowhard but he happens to be our insufferable blowhard, that is, a dedicated and highly influential conservative even if he engages in bombast and flame-throwing once in a while.
The bombast is always anticipated but a major flame emanated from Rush's EIB studio, his Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies on Monday which will surely ignite the bubbling venom in the bowels of his countless liberal critics when he said--sort of--that the president of the United States was a devil.
Later,in an article posted on RushLimbaugh.com titled, "Helpless Liberals Watch as Obama Switches from Messiah to Demon." those broadcast comments were published for all to see.
Limbaugh cites pictures on DrudgeReport.com and ominously says, "Folks, these pictures, they look demonic. And I don't say this lightly. There are a couple pictures, and the eyes, I'm not saying anything here, but just look. It is strange that these pictures would be released. . . It's very, very, very strange. An American president has never had facial expressions like this."
When Limbaugh says, "I'm not saying anything here," he's being grossly disingenuous because he's obviously saying a great deal there. To see where there is, to see various recent pictures of Barack Obama as demon and read Limbaugh's analysis of the Democrat Party days before the election that could change America's political landscape, click here: http://bit.ly/db91lV
If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, can evil also be detected by beholders? It is said that pictures never lie, no? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2276)
Rush Limbaugh has never been known for his subtlety nor for his reticence--and certainly not for his monogamy. As I've often said, he's an insufferable blowhard but he happens to be our insufferable blowhard, that is, a dedicated and highly influential conservative even if he engages in bombast and flame-throwing once in a while.
The bombast is always anticipated but a major flame emanated from Rush's EIB studio, his Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies on Monday which will surely ignite the bubbling venom in the bowels of his countless liberal critics when he said--sort of--that the president of the United States was a devil.
Later,in an article posted on RushLimbaugh.com titled, "Helpless Liberals Watch as Obama Switches from Messiah to Demon." those broadcast comments were published for all to see.
Limbaugh cites pictures on DrudgeReport.com and ominously says, "Folks, these pictures, they look demonic. And I don't say this lightly. There are a couple pictures, and the eyes, I'm not saying anything here, but just look. It is strange that these pictures would be released. . . It's very, very, very strange. An American president has never had facial expressions like this."
When Limbaugh says, "I'm not saying anything here," he's being grossly disingenuous because he's obviously saying a great deal there. To see where there is, to see various recent pictures of Barack Obama as demon and read Limbaugh's analysis of the Democrat Party days before the election that could change America's political landscape, click here: http://bit.ly/db91lV
If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, can evil also be detected by beholders? It is said that pictures never lie, no? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2276)
Monday, April 5, 2010
The Last, Best Hope for America: General David Petraeus
The Last Best Hope for America: General David Petraeus
. . . It’s time for General David H. Petraeus to lead this country.
Thirty-six year veteran of the United States Army, West Point grad, four-star general, commander of the U.S. Central Command, former commanding general of the multinational force in Iraq, Ph.D in international relations, if Hollywood tried to cast the perfect president, it couldn’t do any better than with General Petraeus.
Infamously labelled, “General Betrayus” by Moveon.org as he masterfully conducted Bush’s Iraq surge to victory in that beleagured country, Petraeus has expressed as much interest in the presidency as Gen. Sherman after the Civil War.
Nevertheless, David Petraeus is a patriot and his nation is in dire need of his leadership. If he agrees with Rush Limbaugh that the future of the country is at stake, he will step up and take charge.
If he doesn’t do that, he will be complicit in the decline and fall of our great nation.
(Read mre at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1614)
. . . It’s time for General David H. Petraeus to lead this country.
Thirty-six year veteran of the United States Army, West Point grad, four-star general, commander of the U.S. Central Command, former commanding general of the multinational force in Iraq, Ph.D in international relations, if Hollywood tried to cast the perfect president, it couldn’t do any better than with General Petraeus.
Infamously labelled, “General Betrayus” by Moveon.org as he masterfully conducted Bush’s Iraq surge to victory in that beleagured country, Petraeus has expressed as much interest in the presidency as Gen. Sherman after the Civil War.
Nevertheless, David Petraeus is a patriot and his nation is in dire need of his leadership. If he agrees with Rush Limbaugh that the future of the country is at stake, he will step up and take charge.
If he doesn’t do that, he will be complicit in the decline and fall of our great nation.
(Read mre at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1614)
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Get a Whitey!
Get a Whitey!
Get a Whitey Conservative! If that derogatory racist slur came from a Caucasian, it would be chalked up to yet another effort of White people to stoke racial tensions in America.
However, the charge emanates from none other than Deneen Borelli of Project 21, the rare bird, conservative national Black leadership network.
In an article published on AmericanConservativeDaily.com referring to the hatchet job perpetrated on Rush Limbaugh and his quest to become part owner of the St. Louis Rams, the statement included the bodacious accusation: “The left-wing jihad against Rush Limbaugh is un-fair and un-American. Rush is being targeted simply because he is a conservative and a leading critic of President Obama’s wealth redistribution policies.”
Borelli specifically cited the “race card duo,” the two reverends, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson: “Whipping up unjustified black anger is their specialty. Frankly, I see their effort as ‘get whitie’–an inherent racist act:” http://bit.ly/2TcXRv
Touche’, halleluja, and amen!
Needless to say, defenders of the race-card dynamic duo leapt to their defense, calling Borelli a “Creole Princess” trotted out to dump on Blacks.
That makes as much sense as accusing Limbaugh of racism.
After 20+ years of listening to Rush off and on I can attest that the man is indeed a sometimes obnoxious, conservative dogmatist and a super-rich conservative blowhard.
Despite his many personal faults, he’s a generous, patriotic American who is about as racist as Billy and Franklin Graham.
Borelli’s daring to speak the truth is less a testimonial to Rush than to the validity and hope of nascent Black conservatism.
See Deneen’s dynamic, rockin’ speech at the September 12th taxpayer revolt march on Washington here: http://bit.ly/mqgtu.
Get a Whitey Queen!: Chosen Homecoming queen against all odds at traditionally Black Hampton University in Virginia, Miss Nikole Churchill discovered that diversity is a one-way street.
Churchill immediately encountered “closed minds” who opposed her win and in a letter to President Obama asked him to intervene to open those minds.
Said one of the disgruntled, ”Black or white, this young lady is not qualified to be the face of Hampton University as she is not in tune with the wants, needs, and desires of the student body at large.”
Another opined, “She is a transfer student who attends an HU satellite campus. She has never lived in a dorm, eaten in the cafe, or spent time in the Student Center.”
I’m so dumb that I wasn’t even aware that not living in a dorm and not eating in a student cafeteria were disqualifications for homecoming queen.
Stupid me! I always thought that it was how foxy a queen nominee looked but maybe that “face of Hampton University” comment was a reference to the melanin in that face?
Oh, by the way, Ms. Churchill is a White girl.
The poor thing . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)
Get a Whitey Conservative! If that derogatory racist slur came from a Caucasian, it would be chalked up to yet another effort of White people to stoke racial tensions in America.
However, the charge emanates from none other than Deneen Borelli of Project 21, the rare bird, conservative national Black leadership network.
In an article published on AmericanConservativeDaily.com referring to the hatchet job perpetrated on Rush Limbaugh and his quest to become part owner of the St. Louis Rams, the statement included the bodacious accusation: “The left-wing jihad against Rush Limbaugh is un-fair and un-American. Rush is being targeted simply because he is a conservative and a leading critic of President Obama’s wealth redistribution policies.”
Borelli specifically cited the “race card duo,” the two reverends, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson: “Whipping up unjustified black anger is their specialty. Frankly, I see their effort as ‘get whitie’–an inherent racist act:” http://bit.ly/2TcXRv
Touche’, halleluja, and amen!
Needless to say, defenders of the race-card dynamic duo leapt to their defense, calling Borelli a “Creole Princess” trotted out to dump on Blacks.
That makes as much sense as accusing Limbaugh of racism.
After 20+ years of listening to Rush off and on I can attest that the man is indeed a sometimes obnoxious, conservative dogmatist and a super-rich conservative blowhard.
Despite his many personal faults, he’s a generous, patriotic American who is about as racist as Billy and Franklin Graham.
Borelli’s daring to speak the truth is less a testimonial to Rush than to the validity and hope of nascent Black conservatism.
See Deneen’s dynamic, rockin’ speech at the September 12th taxpayer revolt march on Washington here: http://bit.ly/mqgtu.
Get a Whitey Queen!: Chosen Homecoming queen against all odds at traditionally Black Hampton University in Virginia, Miss Nikole Churchill discovered that diversity is a one-way street.
Churchill immediately encountered “closed minds” who opposed her win and in a letter to President Obama asked him to intervene to open those minds.
Said one of the disgruntled, ”Black or white, this young lady is not qualified to be the face of Hampton University as she is not in tune with the wants, needs, and desires of the student body at large.”
Another opined, “She is a transfer student who attends an HU satellite campus. She has never lived in a dorm, eaten in the cafe, or spent time in the Student Center.”
I’m so dumb that I wasn’t even aware that not living in a dorm and not eating in a student cafeteria were disqualifications for homecoming queen.
Stupid me! I always thought that it was how foxy a queen nominee looked but maybe that “face of Hampton University” comment was a reference to the melanin in that face?
Oh, by the way, Ms. Churchill is a White girl.
The poor thing . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Limbaugh on Race and Gays
Limbaugh on Race and Gays
Rush Limbaugh drew an interesting analogy the other week, to wit: If homosexuals are homosexuals because they are born that way, genetically wired beyond their control or desire to be gay, and racists are racists for the same reason, that they are born racist, should not racism be accepted and condoned if we are expected to accept and condone homosexuality?
There are obvious flaws in that argument including the existence of no verifiable, scientific substantiation of the genetic component in either homosexuality or racism but it’s still a provocative theory.
In a snarky critique of the issue on TheHollywoodGossip.com entitled, “Rush Limbaugh: Pro Segreation [sic], Anti-Gay,” the gay-sympathizing writer ridicules Limbaugh for what are transparently tongue-in-cheek remarks about the recent, bloody school bus assault on a White kid by Black kids in St. Louis: http://bit.ly/3EwpsT.
See “Just Don’t Call Them Racial Hate Crimes” for the full story and video, http://bit.ly/1mPFSo.
The article writer seized on a belated, Belleville, MO. police statement that the school bus attack wasn’t really racially inspired after initially saying the opposite.
A cursory viewing of the video of the assault strongly suggests that it was hardly inspired by a simple dispute over a seat on the bus.
The cops knew . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)
Rush Limbaugh drew an interesting analogy the other week, to wit: If homosexuals are homosexuals because they are born that way, genetically wired beyond their control or desire to be gay, and racists are racists for the same reason, that they are born racist, should not racism be accepted and condoned if we are expected to accept and condone homosexuality?
There are obvious flaws in that argument including the existence of no verifiable, scientific substantiation of the genetic component in either homosexuality or racism but it’s still a provocative theory.
In a snarky critique of the issue on TheHollywoodGossip.com entitled, “Rush Limbaugh: Pro Segreation [sic], Anti-Gay,” the gay-sympathizing writer ridicules Limbaugh for what are transparently tongue-in-cheek remarks about the recent, bloody school bus assault on a White kid by Black kids in St. Louis: http://bit.ly/3EwpsT.
See “Just Don’t Call Them Racial Hate Crimes” for the full story and video, http://bit.ly/1mPFSo.
The article writer seized on a belated, Belleville, MO. police statement that the school bus attack wasn’t really racially inspired after initially saying the opposite.
A cursory viewing of the video of the assault strongly suggests that it was hardly inspired by a simple dispute over a seat on the bus.
The cops knew . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Black Racism Vs Honest Critiques
Black Racism vs Honest Critiques: Canadians vs Rush Limbaugh
There are fair and honest opinions and then there are sick, vicious diatribes.
One that falls into the latter category was posted by AOL’s “Black Voices,” with which I rarely agree but in this instance I have to gingerly climb on board their Black racist bandwagon: http://www.blackvoices.com/blogs/2009/05/29/radio-canada-easier-to-shoot-a-black-president-in-the-white-hou/?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl6|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blackvoices.com%2Fblogs%2F2009%2F05%2F29%2Fradio-canada-easier-to-shoot-a-black-president-in-the-white-hou%2F.
The essence of that story relates to a French-Canadian who cracked a joke which so exceeded the boundaries of good taste that to call it merely incendiary is understatement.
The Radio-Canada network host said, almost six months ago: ”It will be good to have a Negro in the White House. It will be practical. Black on white, it will be easier to shoot him.” Said host, whose name does not deserve mention, no doubt considered his remark amusing which clearly demonstrates he is a nitwit and an historically-challenged twit as well.
Even allowing that the witless witticism was spoken by a French-Canadian, it was beyond tasteless and reflected a gross ignorance and insensitivity not only to Obama and his family but to the vast majority of Americans, even to those of us who didn’t vote for the man, and never would.
Fortunately and unfortunately, I lived through those November days of 1963 after Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated America’s president, after Jack Ruby in turn murdered Oswald, and as the nation sat stupefied by it all, that stupefication reaching its zenith and its nadir with the funeral and burial of John F. Kennedy, our 35th president.
I say fortunately because with that perspective I am able to understand perhaps a little better the gravity of Oswald’s cowardly, overtly seditious act and its effect on Americans. Conversely and unfortunately perhaps, I am more sensitive to any suggestion that it be repeated or that even an attempt be made at repetition.
I should add that at the tender age of 18 I did not support the candidacy of Jack Kennedy, despite his Irish heritage. But at the still-tender age of 21, I abhorred his murder.
I also strongly opposed the insanity of nominating and electing Barack Hussein Obama to the presidency. I much more strongly abhor ”assassination jokes” by foreign and domestic sickos which minimize the murder of any American president.
Then there is the other hand, not regarding presidential assassinations but regarding objective criticism and parody of our current, sitting chief executive.
George W. Bush was vilified, castigated, ridiculed, and parodied from the day he announced his candidacy, to his two elections, and throughout his 8 years as president. (For the record, I voted twice for Bush, by default.)
The demeaning of Bush began . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)
Monday, May 11, 2009
Barack the Magic Roaster
Our president is such a card! He had them rolling in the aisles at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner Saturday night. He ripped everyone from Rahm Emanuel to Hillary Clinton to Dick Cheney to Joe Biden to himself with jokes supplied by his most avid constituency, Hollywood, delivered to an audience comprised primarily of his “journalist” lapdogs.
It doesn’t get any better than that for a jokemeister.
Immanuel Kant defined laughter as “an effect that arises if a tense expectation is transformed into nothing.” Judging by the belly laughs evoked by the professional jokes Obama told with panache, any tension in the Washington Hilton ballroom dissipated into nothingness as soon as he told his first yuk.
The nature of jokes can say a great deal about the tellers and about the hearers.
Of course, this was an affair usually characterized by zingers from all sides of the political spectrum but this also was the Obama Show and how he zinged his subjects revealed a lot about him and about what’s on his mind these days.
Being able to pick and choose from all the best comic material Hollywood writers had to offer, he no doubt passed on some amusing anecdotes that were lamers and probably some that were politically over the top, even for the Left Coast crew. Off limits, for example, would be any innuendos that Helen Thomas and Hillary Clinton were closet lesbians as well as any comic references to Michelle’s overbite.
One of the better admissible digs took aim at Obama’s Chief of Staff and his background in the rough and tumble life of Chicago politics: “This [Mother’s Day Eve] is a tough holiday for Rahm. He’s not used to saying the word ‘day’ after ‘mother.’ “ Rahm’s mom would have been so proud with the suggestion that her son customarily followed the word ”mother” with “f****r.”
He quipped on the new closeness he now had with his primary opponent Hillary by saying, “The minute she got back from [swine flu-infested] Mexico, she pulled me into a hug and said I should go down there myself.” That crack probably wasn’t too far from the truth. However, the rumors that Hill still sticks pins into her Obama voodoo doll are absolutely unsubstantiated.
Playing on his messianic, god-like aura in some quarters, he delivered this ostensibly self-deprecating line, “My next 100 days will be so successful, I will complete them in 72 days. And on the 73rd day, I will rest,” after “building a library dedicated to my first 100 days.”
Actually, word is that his 100-day library is all but completed and that he has vowed to complete the next 100 by Thursday, providing his teleprompter agrees.
(Quotes but not the editorial comments were taken from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/09/AR2009050902802_pf.html.)
Obama’s recognized his media buddies in this deferential genuflection posed as a jibe: ”Most of you covered me; all of you voted for me. Apologies to the Fox table.”
That particular reference was less a joke than it was Obama’s expression of appreciation for the mass media idolatry and his gut antipathy toward the only network that sees him for what he is, reports what he says and does, and lets its viewers make a final determination of what it all means.
So, was Saturday night’s Correspondents’ Dinner all in good fun? Maybe in Obama’s mind, aware as he was of his appreciative audience who were virtually hysterical with laughter. Nothing less was expected from the White Press Corps and the invited non-correspondents.
The audience was overflowing with Tinseltown’s elites such as Glenn Close, Robert De Niro, Jennifer Garner, Ben Affleck, Natalie Portman, Stevie Wonder, Sting, John Cusack, Demi Moore, Alicia Keys, Eva Longoria Parker, Forest Whitaker, “Ludacris,” George Lucas, and Steven Spielberg.
All are said to be close observers of the political scene, even if their journalistic credentials are a tad incomplete. All would probably opt for a revified Leon Trotsky over any Republican should Leon ever be declared an American by birth.
Actors Gary Sinise, Sly Stallone, Kurt Russell, Clint Eastwood, Dennis Hopper, James Woods, Stephen Baldwin, and Jim Caviezal were conspicuous by their absence. Apparently they weren’t invited.
Hey, we all have missed out on invites, no? But have we missed out on an invite to a major dinner/roast in which a speaker has hilariously advocated for someone’s death and used the 9/11 attacks as a prop for humor?
President Obama was tickled pinkish by the witticisms of Wanda Sykes, a “quickwitted” nonentity and fellow black comic. He all but fell out of his chair guffawing at Sykes’ riotously funny routine in which she said Rush Limbaugh was the 20th highjacker on September 11th, 2001 and was guilty of treason for not being an Obama camp follower.
What really brought the house down was her hope that Limbaugh should die of kidney failure. . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)
It doesn’t get any better than that for a jokemeister.
Immanuel Kant defined laughter as “an effect that arises if a tense expectation is transformed into nothing.” Judging by the belly laughs evoked by the professional jokes Obama told with panache, any tension in the Washington Hilton ballroom dissipated into nothingness as soon as he told his first yuk.
The nature of jokes can say a great deal about the tellers and about the hearers.
Of course, this was an affair usually characterized by zingers from all sides of the political spectrum but this also was the Obama Show and how he zinged his subjects revealed a lot about him and about what’s on his mind these days.
Being able to pick and choose from all the best comic material Hollywood writers had to offer, he no doubt passed on some amusing anecdotes that were lamers and probably some that were politically over the top, even for the Left Coast crew. Off limits, for example, would be any innuendos that Helen Thomas and Hillary Clinton were closet lesbians as well as any comic references to Michelle’s overbite.
One of the better admissible digs took aim at Obama’s Chief of Staff and his background in the rough and tumble life of Chicago politics: “This [Mother’s Day Eve] is a tough holiday for Rahm. He’s not used to saying the word ‘day’ after ‘mother.’ “ Rahm’s mom would have been so proud with the suggestion that her son customarily followed the word ”mother” with “f****r.”
He quipped on the new closeness he now had with his primary opponent Hillary by saying, “The minute she got back from [swine flu-infested] Mexico, she pulled me into a hug and said I should go down there myself.” That crack probably wasn’t too far from the truth. However, the rumors that Hill still sticks pins into her Obama voodoo doll are absolutely unsubstantiated.
Playing on his messianic, god-like aura in some quarters, he delivered this ostensibly self-deprecating line, “My next 100 days will be so successful, I will complete them in 72 days. And on the 73rd day, I will rest,” after “building a library dedicated to my first 100 days.”
Actually, word is that his 100-day library is all but completed and that he has vowed to complete the next 100 by Thursday, providing his teleprompter agrees.
(Quotes but not the editorial comments were taken from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/09/AR2009050902802_pf.html.)
Obama’s recognized his media buddies in this deferential genuflection posed as a jibe: ”Most of you covered me; all of you voted for me. Apologies to the Fox table.”
That particular reference was less a joke than it was Obama’s expression of appreciation for the mass media idolatry and his gut antipathy toward the only network that sees him for what he is, reports what he says and does, and lets its viewers make a final determination of what it all means.
So, was Saturday night’s Correspondents’ Dinner all in good fun? Maybe in Obama’s mind, aware as he was of his appreciative audience who were virtually hysterical with laughter. Nothing less was expected from the White Press Corps and the invited non-correspondents.
The audience was overflowing with Tinseltown’s elites such as Glenn Close, Robert De Niro, Jennifer Garner, Ben Affleck, Natalie Portman, Stevie Wonder, Sting, John Cusack, Demi Moore, Alicia Keys, Eva Longoria Parker, Forest Whitaker, “Ludacris,” George Lucas, and Steven Spielberg.
All are said to be close observers of the political scene, even if their journalistic credentials are a tad incomplete. All would probably opt for a revified Leon Trotsky over any Republican should Leon ever be declared an American by birth.
Actors Gary Sinise, Sly Stallone, Kurt Russell, Clint Eastwood, Dennis Hopper, James Woods, Stephen Baldwin, and Jim Caviezal were conspicuous by their absence. Apparently they weren’t invited.
Hey, we all have missed out on invites, no? But have we missed out on an invite to a major dinner/roast in which a speaker has hilariously advocated for someone’s death and used the 9/11 attacks as a prop for humor?
President Obama was tickled pinkish by the witticisms of Wanda Sykes, a “quickwitted” nonentity and fellow black comic. He all but fell out of his chair guffawing at Sykes’ riotously funny routine in which she said Rush Limbaugh was the 20th highjacker on September 11th, 2001 and was guilty of treason for not being an Obama camp follower.
What really brought the house down was her hope that Limbaugh should die of kidney failure. . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)