"Whatcha talkin' 'bout, Janeane?"
Janeane Garofalo asked for comment on a "Tea Party" sign that displayed the catch-phrase, "Whatcha talkin' 'bout, Willis?"
I submit that it is an integrated popular cultural expression conveying a very appropriate emotional response to the financial goings-on in the U.S. Government: Suspicion!
"Whatcha talkin' 'bout, Janeane?"
(Wikipedia sez:Suspicion is an emotion of mistrust in which a person doubts the honesty of another person or believes another person to be guilty of some type of wrongdoing or crime, but without sure proof.)
(Update:6-13-09, supplemental content added.)
(What stimulus was Janeane Garafalo actually responding to? The same stimulus that the "Tea Parties" themselves are a response to: the binary regime "T-aking E-vasive A-ction" by attempting to deflect a direct First Amendment Petition to a diffusionary, incoherent, politically binarized, and pointlessly celebritized "public demonstration" under the disinformative banner "T-axed E-nough A-lready". I'll give you a codekey: "synapses/neurological problem". Elaboration forthcoming. As promised, it will be impossible to miss.)
You have such brilliant incite. Implicit in the use of the word "peacably" in the text of the First Amendment is the exclusion of violence or incitement to violence from its legal protection. Implicit in the use of the words "the government" in the text of the First Amendment is the exclusion of private residences and places of business for public demonstrations. (Pass the word to ACORN, "organized labor" and "Critical Mass", won't ya?) If they have a grievance, they need to bring suit in a court of law. Such demonstrations are wrongful, unlawful harrassment. (Wow! Ya'd never know it in the post-"progressive", 20th and 21st century United States of America, would ya? We can't be bothered by a trivial little thing like "the domestic tranquility" when self-styled "have-nots" can't get their way!)
Harry S.Truman a war criminal?
Harry S.Truman a war criminal?
When "the Left" proclaims that "war is not the answer", it is usually aimed at suppressing an American response to criminal aggression. What they omit to address is that the most reliable way to persuade criminal aggressors that "war is not the answer" (their purported objective) is the certainty of a resolute and decisive retaliatory response (which certainty they invariably call into question). Harry S. Truman decisively persuaded the Japanese Nation that "war is not the answer" to the historically inarguable benefit of all concerned. Would "the Left" please help in keeping would-be aggressors persuaded that "war is not the answer"? (If that is indeed their intent.)
Opposing points of view. (1-27-09 TPM)
You have it exactly backwards. One should value the person who holds an opposing point of view, even if their point of view is detestable. You require people to respect opposing points of view. This is an amoral value. Amoral does not mean neutral, it means anti-moral. Should one respect the views of Hitler? Ahmadinejad? Charles Manson? Nancy Pelosi? Certainly not. Should one value them as people? Absolutely.
Matt Damon's opinion
Does Matt Damon really believe that things like eyes and flight are the result of uncounted trillions of "lucky" random mutations? Because, I mean, he presumes to pass judgment on Gov. Palin's views and that raises serious questions about his qualifications...
Notice how self-congratulatory the "Young Turks" are about the "superiority" they share with Matt Damon.
4Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Sure eliminates a lot of confusion in sexual decision-making, don't it?
Megan Kelly consistently argues for individual liberty.
Lis Wiehl consistently argues for collectivist tyranny.
Check it out.
The reason kids are clueless about civics, etc. is the same reason the "left" exists in America: material abundance. If Americans did not enjoy so much leisure and plenty, no one would have time to indulge the ideological hypocrisy and parasitism of liberal socialists, and parents would not tolerate anyone indoctrinating their children with a philosophy of narcissistic, anti-social self indulgence and quasi-intellectual delusions of unfounded moral superiority. They'd be too busy putting them to work to shoulder their share of the family load.
48As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.
49Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
50And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
(Is that pecksniffian bloviating,or too popinjay-esque?)
Marc Lamont Hill, PH.D., and Ward Churchill dismissal
How would Dr. Hill characterize this statement?
"All socialists advocate slavery and those that benefit from socialist entitlements such as welfare are, in fact, LITTLE SLAVE MASTERS". (Ward Churchill's "Eichmanns" comments, if Dr. Hill's summary is accurate, are an example of this advocacy.)
I think President Lincoln would characterize it as true:
Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged.
Dr. Richard Dawkins
Dr. Richard Dawkins made the assertion that the founding fathers of the United States were secularists. That is a lie (hyperlink added for clarification at time of blog post) and therefore "spin". The founding fathers were avidly non-SECTARIAN in their philosophy of government. Atheism was criminal and antithetical to the government they founded, and the government of today that tolerates policies that decriminalize atheism is demonstrably NOT the government that they outlined in the U.S. Constitution and other founding documents. Therefore, you are a failure as a "cultural warrior" and the "spin" goes right past you.
Isaiah Washington segment. 1-25-07
Labeling Isaiah Washington's use of the word "faggot" as "bad behavior", while implicitly elevating those who elect a homosexual identity to the status of an oppressed minority in need of special legal, social and political protection as you and Belisa Vranich did in this segment proves that your "culture warrior" persona is camouflage for your role as a diffuser of cohesion in social and cultural resistance to the New World Order, which itself coheres around this unifying and definable principle: anti-Christ. This "rehab"-like atmosphere surrounding Mr. Washington's choice of words, set against the backdrop of his costar's choice of deathstyle, is typical of the Orwellian socio-psychological assault on diversity and personal liberty being waged against the rank and file sheep by the New World Order oligarchy. To describe this warped set of priorities in another way:
24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
28Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Christ calls people to first clean their hearts by repentance and reconciliation to God and neighbor, while the New World Order compels outward conformity, as typified by the approach of Belisa Vranich and those she speaks for. The New World Order is making the world safe for sociopathic predators, like the devil.
A mindless Christian fundamentalist
On your radio show, you said the war in Iraq was about WMDs. It wasn't.Saddam's proclivity for using them in international aggression is closer to the mark. It was about UN security council resolutions.The regime refused to comply. We are enforcing the resolutions that the UN security council did not have the testicular fortitude to enforce itself: Disarmament. Remember? Keep it straight. You're spinning.