Didn’t the Turkmenistan guy die?
Yup, couple of months ago.
No way, Tina Fey is not a Republican. It can’t be true. Is Alec Baldwin the one who wrote the “Anne Coulter’s 60th birthday” joke on 30 Rock?
Ok, sorry to bring the stupid, but I can’t tell if I’m parsing that Limbaugh/ Coulter gag correctly. In his setup, RL is clearly addressing “[his] fellow Americans,” so AC’s punchline implies that they’d invade the U.S., kill themselves (“your leaders”), and then convert the U.S. to Christianity. Which is hi-larious since she’s satarizing her own image as a vituperative and vindictive harpy AND the lefty notion (or at least their impression of it) that the right wants to set up a theocratic fascist police state or something.
But. That’s a lot of layers of irony/ self-awareness that aren’t evident elsewhere in that sketch; more than one layer anyway, which is as deep as the other jokes go at best. Specifically that RL line about the U.S.‘s international reputation being a shambles after two years of a Democratic congress, cough cough. I almost think that the intent of the AC punchline was nothing more than “tweaking the left again with that great un-pc line about invading others people’s countries,”
without the understanding of what they were actually suggesting. Could be wrong, but she says “invade your countries” instead of “invade your country,” so it kinda looks like the latter case.
it’s that mix of self-perceived persecution, lazy anti-intellectualism/ahistoricism, and formless, undirected bile
Very strange with this book — Slate and the NY Times attack it for being too conservative and go on about how it’s indicative of this and that and Hannity and so forth. But the conservatives who are attacking it seem to have a better point: the guy is not a conservative thinker, he’s a bleedin’ Confederate thinker. Total wack job. Didn’t Slate of the Times read the book? There’s your lead right there.
I almost think that the intent of the AC punchline was nothing more than “tweaking the left again with that great un-pc line about invading others people’s countries,”
That’s right. A lot of conservative humor is based on the idea of offending liberal pc sensibilities, “throwing down the gauntlet.”
“I just raped a bunch of baby seals”
“Har. Har. That’ll really get ’em going.”
All they need is like one disproving review, and it’s “OMG, the liberal MSM went batshit crazy! Har har!”
That is, like, 80% of conservative humor.
he’s a bleedin’ Confederate thinker
To be fair, this distinction has been deliberately blurred for decades, from the segregation folks to the southern strategy to the “red state” thing.
Dude does tip his hand a bit much w/ the johnny reb officer on the cover.
disapproving
The book went too far for mainstream conservative reviewers. Read the reviews of Dinesh D’Souza’s new book for a similar response.
They released “Female Chauvinist Pigs” with a different cover in America, then.
All I know is that’s a great apron.
wtf with that outfit!
WOULD SMASH
I’m realizing that I don’t know as much about what conservatives believe as I thought I did. How many conservatives, apart from Mr. South Will Rise Again, still believe that nullification is a valid political tenet?
We were raised to think we could have it all. In college we were told that men weren’t necessary. Pop culture told us that career—not family—came first. The idea of being a stay-at-home mom was for losers. And yet are we happier than our mothers or grandmothers, who grew up before women were “liberated” by the sexual revolution? For many women, the answer is no. In The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Women, Sex, and Feminism, Carrie Lukas, a young career woman and new mother, sets the record straight: correcting the lies women have been told and slamming the door on the screaming harpies of NOW, feminist professors, and the rest of the bra-burners who have done so much to wreck women’s lives.
Bet your feminist teacher never told you:
* Women’s lib has “liberated” men from having to commit, “freed” women from marriage, and often “unshackled” women from having a family.
* More than ever, women in their twenties and thirties live alone, are discarded by boyfriends after “living together,” and are watching their biological clocks tick past the point of no return.
* Women still prefer men who are breadwinners and can protect them physically.
TICK TICK TICK.
Silly 21st-Century feminists, burning their expensive bras & all that.
xxpost I never cease to be amused/horrified at how these people seem to think that Feminism is all written out in some Bible that Feminists refer back to, and no further thought or discussion has happened since 1972.
xpost EXACTLY
conservatives railing against straw(wo)man shockah
actually, are there _any_ of those books that aren’t just disingeniousness and bilious railing against strawmen?
. In college we were told that men weren’t necessary.
See what LUGs and vibrators hath wrought?
x-post to Fluffy Bear:
In that case that’s gotta be the most OMGWTF-cosmically-insane thing ever, that Coulter and writers didn’t get that she inadvertantly threatened to invade the U.S., kill U.S. leaders, convert U.S. citizens to Christianity, and so on. Mind blown, etc..
I would attribute it more to good ol’ fashioned sloppy writing than anything else.
You are surprised that Joel Doofusmonger and Anne Coulter and etc, missed a nuance?
i would attribute it to being a joke
They released “Female Chauvinist Pigs” with a different cover in America, then.
Uh, wtf, Dom, that book is nothing like what Ariel Levy is arguing.
lookout, here comes Michael Medved, who opines that the horrible show will be “good for the cause”, and that the problem w/ a particularly bad sketch is that “the humor’s too subtle by half”. He also argues that they should have more “people of color” on there to do the really racial jokes.
But rightwingers on TV have a higher calling, you see, rather just really lazy and half-assed swipes at funnier people. They should get “get another shot at entertaining our own troops via TV and demonstrating that conservatives do, after all, possess a sense of humor.”
Unfortunately, his tips for improving the show don’t actually include “TAKE OUT THE RETARDED LAFFTRACK”.
To go along with that “conservatives attacking science” thing mentioned about, we have this.
Backtracking a bit, googling “Tina Fey Is a Republican” turned up this:
Tina Fey was a Republican.
She admited it in Life in October 15, 2004 — the free Life magazine that is stuck into most Sunday newspapers.
She isn’t a leftist wacko. Maybe she is now. But back then she wasn’t. Guess she is more an Indepedent.
posted by: on 10.17.04 at 07:22 PM [permalink]
And, uh, this...
what’s up with the scar...if Tina is so gosh darn funny why doesn’t she write a skit about that ax wound on her left cheek?
posted by: chris on 04.25.04 at 11:20 PM [permalink]
_____________________________________________________
Tina Fey is waiting for her Barbara Walter’s special to tell us about her rape scar. This will cement a reverential and protective attitude towards her to the american public, allowing her to bombard us with further mediocrity for years to come.
In her crazy biz, even a knife rape is used for marketing leverage.
Tina, why are you in a business like that? Look what you’ve turned into.
Pimping your own rape scar!
posted by: Caterwall on 06.04.04 at 06:35 PM [permalink]
That’s right. A lot of conservative humor is based on the idea of offending liberal pc sensibilities, “throwing down the gauntlet.”
“I just raped a bunch of baby seals”
“Har. Har. That’ll really get ’em going.”
All they need is like one disproving review, and it’s “OMG, the liberal MSM went batshit crazy! Har har!”
That is, like, 80% of conservative humor.
This mentality always reminded me of the stuff internet trolls say to convince themselves that they’re funny.
Tonight! Sunday night at 10 oclock!
Also, I’m pasting this here, since it fits in with the rest of what we’ve been talking about:
It takes a lot more integrity, character, and courage to be a conservative than it does to be a liberal. That’s because at its most basic level, liberalism is nothing more than childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues...
more hype:
JEd Babbin, who hasn’t actually seen anything yet:
But the best part is that Ann Coulter — yes, our Ann, HUMAN EVENTS legislative correspondent — is in it. Is it funny? One gent e-mailed me to say that, “Critics are already calling it ‘the funniest show ever produced by the FOX News Channel, not counting Geraldo.’”
Pop the corn, pour the wine, sit back and watch. Step aside, libs. It’s our turn.
I wish I was a Neilsen household so I could watch two minutes of it and then change the channel. That’s worse than not watching it at all.
Tina Fey is a Republican.
she is?
guys this has been obvious for YEARS
which is why some people always talk about wanting to fuck her
is that a shot at me
Why hasn’t Medved replaced Roger Ebert??
And then what does that audience get? A few laughs, a few telling jabs, a few comments that hit the mark so well that you’ll want to repeat them to your friends. For instance, in the “newscast” segment that dominates the shows, there’s a segment about that little rascal, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying (and I paraphrase from memory here): “And in other news, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke about the recent Holocaust Denial Conference in Teheran — and denied that it ever happened. And if it did take place, he said that the number of participants had been greatly exaggerated.”
HAR HAR HAR!
Tonight! Sunday night at 10 oclock!
Oh good, because you know there ain’t shit on TV Sunday night at that time.
hahaha i hadn’t thought of that. “We’ll show that leftist/insurgent-lovin’ sci fi show a thing or two!”
As one poster on The Orlando Sentinel’s blog wrote: “This just shows how comfortable conservatives are with torture”
some real gold in the comments section there.
I might be wrong, but I think that foxnews laugh-track thing was made well before the Half-Hour Comedy Hour show came out, which makes this even funnier.
except that it uses the opening titles of the new show
Oh yeah. DURR.
But I do think there was a laugh-tracked O’Reilly clip before. Maybe even this one.
some real gold in the comments section there.
I don’t understand. What do you mean? What are “comments”?
For instance, in the “newscast” segment that dominates the shows, there’s a segment about that little rascal, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying (and I paraphrase from memory here): “And in other news, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke about the recent Holocaust Denial Conference in Teheran — and denied that it ever happened. And if it did take place, he said that the number of participants had been greatly exaggerated.”
that joke could be on the daily show easy.
Well, parody of parody leads to redundancy.
haha eth i guess it is!
Among other glaring problems, the graphic design is the lowest of the low. Those t-shirts. Those children’s books. I am offended by the lack of thought that went into the look of these things.
I never thought of it before, but that kind of ugliness must be the result of some special effort. Is good design too egghead? I wouldn’t be surprised if that was part of the thinking.
Oh, and Ed Begley Jr? W. T. F. Even ignoring that the whole bit was cruel and dimwitted, they couldn’t pick someone that anyone has thought about in the last ten or 15 years?
I agree on the design thing.
Well thought out imagery=arty=gay. :(
This truly is how these people think.
that was awful
and now, to wash out the taste: Fresh Prince rerun. yay!
I watched Battlestar. :D
The minute or two I saw during commercials was beneath contempt.
I love the way the theme song spends a verse on the cabbie, contends that the cab is rare, and then is like, “Oh, nevermind.” That’s in the theme song. Every show has that.
apparently they don’t have any right wing graphic designers either?
— jw (jo...), February 12th, 2007. (later)
I never thought of it before, but that kind of ugliness must be the result of some special effort. Is good design too egghead? I wouldn’t be surprised if that was part of the thinking.
— teasing your poultry (fluxion2...), February 19th, 2007. (later)
The anchors getting all Basil Exposition about who was on the t-shirts and what they did.
Idi Amin: “i got you a political prisoner but i eated it.”
the design thing is really surprising consider how good most far right-wing design is (v. the nazis, fascism in general).
Im never going to justify this show with my eyes.
A couple of funny jokes slipped in by accident, despite the limp delivery of the anchors and the “guests.” In a totally non-partisan view, it was just stiff, over-rehearsed television at its worst, though. Do they actually have comedy writers on staff, or did they just burden the news division with extra tasks?
It’s the same reason Air America has never turned a profit. Revenge humor is rarely humorous.
It’s the same reason Air America has never turned a profit.
Really? their sales staff couldn’t do jack and their stupid mgmt didn’t replace them?
Well, that’s one reason. The other reason is that every time one market picks up AAR, two other markets drop it because of low ratings. “Morning Sedition” was brilliant, but aside from that the talent pool there has been a wash from day one.
The only clip I’ve heard of this show so far was a joke about candidate HRC promising a cabinet of great diversity, but filling roles exclusively with “angry lesbians.” My reaction was “heh,” but is there ANY basis for this, other than conservatives like to imagine that HRC is herself an angry lesbian? If she is, have I missed the great Clinton lesbo-cronyism scandal? And I hope the show didn’t miss the follow up joke w/ appearance by Cheney’s daughter—or is she not “angry”?
I’d be angry at HIM.
but is there ANY basis for this,
oh jesus f’in christ, yes, of COURSE, there’s obvious publicized evidence that HRC is damn near SLATHERING over the prospect of gaining power, JUST to stack the courts, agencies, and various departments with her praetorian legions of lesbo-cronies. Give me a fucking break.
Of course, this give an amusing image is a southern foghorn leghorn-style senator address a senate panel about “the growing threat of lesbo-cronies in our midst, gentlemen!” like something out of Bloom County.
also, the lesbo joke is mentioned up thread. Where’s that image of radical animal rights ecoterrorists that somebody found, with the angry lobster and the unshaven hippie chick w/ a gasoline can?
ah, here we are:
lobster with angry eyebrows! Suicidal bomber owl!
is that a k records tattoo?
close, but i think the tattoo is more of a kitty/wolf thing
ah, kingfish; filling the need to post stuff requested by kingfish in a previous post for what seems like years now
four year anniversary, coming up
The tatoo looks like something out of ‘Maus’ actually.
lol hairy leg
lobsters only turn red when they’re cooked, no wonder bro’s pissed off.
i just noticed that the dude in that picture does shave his legs!
Are the overnight ratings for this thing in yet?
I like this one: A neat little bit of commentary on the jokes of the show, from an actual joke-writer.
from that New Yorker article:
Surnow and his friend Ann Coulter—the conservative pundit, and author of the pro-McCarthy book “Treason”—talked about creating a conservative response to George Clooney’s recent film “Good Night, and Good Luck.” Surnow said, “I thought it would really provoke people to do a movie that depicted Joe McCarthy as an American hero or, maybe, someone with a good cause who maybe went too far.”
I feel like the way this idea is framed is very revealing, and kind of ties in with what that review linked above says about the show actively trying to wring humor from things rather than looking for naturally-occurring humor. Notice that he doesn’t say that he, specifically, sees Joe McCarthy as a tragic figure deserving of sympathy, or would like to reform the public perception of him; he simply thinks it would “provoke people” (see also: Barack Obama race jokes, reheated Ann Coulter foot-in-mouthisms, etc). I realize that this basically just confirms what everyone else has already said, but it’s still kind of amazing (to me) to see just how straightforward his thought process is.
he simply thinks it would “provoke people”
Not only that, but as a direct response to Clooney’s out-there liberalism. HE’S MAD AS HELL AND HE’S NOT GOING TO USE REASON ANYMORE.
I think that the entire point to a lot of these guys is the “provoke” bit, which is why half of the rightwing blog posts about the show always included the “and it will drive those liberals NUTS.” A.C.‘s raison d’etre is to expend a large amount of effort into being “outrageous”, just to get airtime and sell more books.
But, as said earlier on this thread and elsewhere, modern conservatism is pretty much boiled down to “we’ll get those dirty hippies” and little else.
all this horseshit is intended not to amuse conservatives but to inflame liberals and so far it seems to be working like a charm
no one’s really getting ‘enraged’ though are they?
Not really. It’s like the reactions are more a mild irritation to a mild bemusement.
Of course, there are those who call for the hanging of all traitors, then start talking about people who disagree with Dear Leader...
actually Id like to hang that smug fuck from “24” interviewed in the New Yorker
More on hangin’ the traitors, and that stupid Lincoln quote that some guy at the Moonie Times made up
don young calls for the execution of the people who represent 60%+ of US opinion... not newsworthy.
search: the last 2 of montreal albums, “in the aeroplane etc” (shut up it’s pretty good)
destroy everything else
d’oh
Frum says ‘Watch Rome instead.’ Which sounds like good advice.
clearly ur preference for nu-barnes makes that post even more of a whoopsie doodle (xpost)
If the Lincoln non-quote dustup is your thing, or if you just like hearing a jerk prevaricate, here’s Greenwald vs Gaffney, regarding Gaffney’s repetition of the non-quote. Gaffney’s explanation is roughly I didn’t mean we should literally hang Congress members, but those Congress members need to understand that their words have consequences, just as acts of treasonous dissent have consequences, and treasonous dissenters should be hanged. And, schoolmarmy lectures from Colmes.
all this horseshit is intended not to amuse conservatives but to inflame liberals and so far it seems to be working like a charm
— m coleman (writeco...), February 19th, 2007. (lovebug )
really? i think the liberals are chuckling as they read the conservatives talking about piss poor the whole thing is. schadenfreude, etc. i have yet to see any ‘inflamed’ liberals.
Jeez, upon actually listening to the full Gaffney clip, this guy is a straight douche, and then starts nattering on about how Saddam actually had WMDs, supported terrorism against the U.S., wanted to ship these WMDs over in aerosol cans, etc. And more funnies when the guy busts out an FCC violation when actually challenged.
It’s really scary that these assholes hold policy positions and get listened to at the highest levels.
^- this thing’s s’posed to be like a rightwing Onion, right?
next ep is coming on March 4th
Meanwhile, more comedy, courtesy of them hiring Michelle Malkin. I’m hoping that they give an hour-long show to each TownHall poster, just for full entertainment value.
Did anybody ever see the 2nd ep of this? Apparently more are on the way...