LGBT NEM vs. Teabaggers

Hmmm. Not likely going to see much coverage of this protest event in the so-called “non-fringe media” are we?

So why wasn’t that insufferable little douche Griff Jenkins and his producer out there helping to rally the crowd? Where was Glenn Beck and the rest of the Fox crew covering the event? I mean Fox News is purportedly “fair and balanced” right? But no… when we check Rupe’s website what do we get? Well, we can learn about the dangers of an H1N1 shot, that some woman died in a sweat lodge, or that there’s a bleak employment picture… or better yet: “Man Who Held Woman in Casket Faces Life in Prison.” I don’t even want to know…

I give up trying to figure this shit out for the time being. It’s just altogether too crazy-making… Need to take a break from the insanity for several days and hunker down with some work projects. If you want to hit the tip jar in the meantime with some coin, that would be more than nice, very much appreciated and, sad to say, not entirely unneeded at the moment.

p.s. I’m sure there is a pile of potential jokes associated with the notion of pitting LGBTs against teabaggers, but it may be better not to visit that particular realm of comical possibilities.



Filed under Lunatics, Media Bias

41 responses to “LGBT NEM vs. Teabaggers

  1. Heh. I just posted on this too and considered teabagging jokes. Decided not to go there.

  2. It’s hard to resist the temptation, but let’s try to avoid it if we can.

    Don’t be afraid to pimp your link, btw.

  3. philosoraptor

    I have to agree about fighting the urge to make jokes….they would only degrade the good LGBT folks.

  4. philosoraptor

    I mean that absolutely seriously. Just being associated with the teabaggers, outside of any sexual context, is degrading.

    I don’t know how they did it, but I think the teabaggers actually devalued the term ‘teabagger’ even beyond the sexual connotations. Calling someone a ‘teabagger’ now doesn’t even conjure up the sexual act. Instead, it paints them as a drooling vegetable ever-pursuant in the undermining of their own self-interest.

  5. Oooo, pimping. Okey-dokey. More video here.

  6. LOL Hey, I love the morphed bread loaves with alarmed cat faces on them.

    See how nicely that worked out.

  7. Dave — It does seem a bit self-defeating… Alright, you don’t like “big government” and wasteful spending… Well, who does? Duh! But, it’s all of the hate and rancor that makes them laughably pathetic. And furthermore, what are they defending? A system that routinely fucks them over and keeps a good many of them permanently impoverished and lacking basic services while the gilded class that’s floated to the top luxuriates at their expense. They need to articulate their argument beyond just blind rage and loudly denouncing people as “Fascists” and “Communists” or whatever. Oh, and harking back to the Constitution or the impassioned rants of Thomas Paine (delightful as they are) is especially lame.

  8. Tomm

    For all the great thinkers, writers, and visionaries in the US, there is a real reticence about social evolution.

  9. jkg

    I was having a conversation with a colleague of mine the other day in which we were discussing just how our current democracy would look so insane and strange in the eyes of the ancient Greeks or Romans. This was because even in that period, there was an elected body, but in truth, they were an elected aristocracy of sorts. In principle, this sort of elitism I oppose because it did not really allow for upward mobility that would be afforded to a more equal and just society. However, when it came to questions of democratic governance and political philosophy, people who studied the concepts and understood profoundly their subtleties and complexities were generally considered more respected and consequently tasked with the difficulty of actually governing. This may have not been always true in Ancient Greece, but on the whole, it was understood that not everyone was a bona fide political thinker, and the gold merchant should not believe that his opinion on political thought should have the same weight and influence in a forum as those of say Plato or Socrates.

    The interesting point by my colleague was that we are witnessing just the potential danger of overleveraging the concept of democratic equality and individualism today. It is sort of paradoxical: While praising the meritocracy of our system, people still expect no such hierarchy exists or should exist when it comes to political opinion, thought, and influence. Ironically, since our meritocracy is rooted in capitalism, the scion of which is materialism, the ruling class is rarely composed of actual thinkers, but people who are simply adept at channeling, sequestering, and creating capital that they use for political gain. For them, the questions of governance is unimportant, and they remain idealogically fluid and intellectually flaccid, with respect to political thought anyway.

    Meanwhile, discussions of political systems at the local watering hole in which Marxism and Fascism are used interchangeably are considered equally valid than those of dedicated intellectuals at a political science conference. This creates a relativistic world in which an individual is sufficiently right if she or he just holds an opinion and should be respected as such no matter how ridiculous it is without having to revise said opinion or let alone recognize its logical faults. A person in a discussion made a case that fascism and marxism were not all that different because each of them was a form a collectivism and differed minutely in terms of application. Never minding the fact that short of anarchism, almost every system has a collective component to it, I decided to illustrate the weakness of this reasoning by stating in parallel that pumpkins, emus, and Athlete’s Foot are not all different because they are all forms of living things, they simply differ just in biology, reproduction, physiology, survival and cellular composition.

    The response was the same as I do when I point out other simple logical mistakes like appeals to tradition and incredulity (emotion): I was being a stupid liberal by “telling them how to think,” even after wearily pointing out that thinking logically is a way of thinking but an objective one that does not denote any political leaning.

    When you have this state of affairs, it is no wonder elites exploit it quite easily for their gain as the recent developments down south show quite clearly wrt health care and the “teabaggers.” I just wish that when it came governance, people have to earn their vote by being informed and at least putting forward a logically cogent perspective. If our Western society praises the benefits of a meritocracy, it should apply to the realm of responsible citizenship as well. I admit it sounds elitist, but with what I see, I cannot help but be a little cynical because the people who are in the levers of power are doing such a terrible job and it is the citizenry that put them there unwittingly.

    Sorry for the long rant….again. I just have a nasty habit of setting up all my ideas with too much detail.

  10. jkg — No apologies necessary. That was an enjoyable read (albeit very densely packed with a lot of thought-provoking ideas).

    Let’s take one to start with. Yes, it is indeed a perverse irony of sorts that the lofty notion of meritocracy (which in practice is largely a myth, imho) on which our free-market system is predicated, doesn’t seem to apply whatsoever when it comes to suffrage and the free exercise of our so-called democratic franchise. Odd that.

  11. jkg


    It has always been my sneaking suspicion that this is something that has been left unresolved for a very, very long time. Feudal and class systems are part of the civil history and memory of Western society, so there is this natural inclination towards wanting a free and just society. It seems to me that in practice, we (the royal we) wanted all the benefits of these past systems in our new system, but for the most part, this was more of a change in discourse that gave the illusion of liberty and equality for each and every individual. It is better to frame these ideas in the context of a meritocracy to justify why a trust fund kid from Orange County will end up lobbying capitol hill while the educated and/or working middle class, despite all their efforts, watch their net worth and status erode. It is a great equalizer then to believe that one’s influence based on unexamined ideas should be on par with another in the realm of democratic citizenship.

  12. The concept of “liberty and equality” is a charming notion, but rarely seems to play out in reality and nobody except the most naïve amongst us seriously believes them to be actually true in practice. Fact of the matter is that we’re not really free at all and all people aren’t created equal, nor are they treated as such in society. Yes, I suppose it could be said that casting a ballot is a “great equalizer” but it’s kind of a token gesture that’s less than satisfactory compensation for the daily reality of being an overworked/underpaid wage slave. Perhaps that’s why 30-40% of people don’t even bother to vote (and at the municipal level of politics that figure is more like 70-85%). For all the talk of “democracy” many of us don’t really give a toss about it…

  13. uh, “teabagging” (the sexual euphemism, not the retard euphemism) is not exclusive to gay men, ya bunch of missionary position prudes.


  14. “For all the great thinkers, writers, and visionaries in the US, there is a real reticence about social evolution.”

    you’re a fucking serf in free men’s clothes.


  15. Ti-Guy

    Off topic…

    What the Internet is best at: Exposing the royal half wits who call themselves the elite.

    Best quote from Noonan: “My study group is about being a person who thinks things and believes them and turns them into words that convey thoughts and feelings.”

    “…incredibly inebriated, and seldom more than a little coherent…” is how one participant describes her.

  16. “She isn’t teaching a class. It’s a study group. It’s just two hours of listening to a woman who should not be permitted to operate heavy machinery.”

    LOL. Man, what a funny article. Alas, poor Peggy… another lost soul on the right-wing raft of the Hesperus.

  17. Ti-Guy

    She brings out the best snark, though. From the comments:

    “The golden light of a Massachusetts autumn shone through the double-paned glass of Lady Nooningtonshire’s penthouse hotel room. A lipstick-stained Pall Mall smoldered in a crystal ash tray, threading the room with its hazy tendrils.

    Lady Noonington looked up from her Chivas and Cherry Mountain Dew. The clock on top of the TV playing C-Span and ‘Ni Hao, Kai Lan’ in picture-in-picture read 2:45. Only 15 minutes until class. No time to write a plebeian ‘syllabus.’ She would have a few Percocet, and simply be Noonan. So it goes”

    “Oh my, this has been a most delightful development. If Gawker were to take all the time and space wasted on Coldstare, Julia and Tucker, and instead devote it to my sweet, precious Peggy, I would be on cloud nine. And Peggy would be there with me. We’d float about, swathed in muslin, sipping chardonay and feeding chocolate-covered diazepams to each other. Bliss.”

  18. That’s quite delicious, I must say.

  19. jkg

    Loony Noony (my rare feeble attempt at snark) reminds me of an aimless courtier you would have found in any royal court at the height of their decadence and irrelevance. They would attend parties and festivals, yammer on acting as if though they play a integral role in the nation’s political discourse while the serious people continue to wield power discretely with much more subtlety and finesse. She has proudly become the face of the faux elite, so when she attempts to indulge in her chimerical sense of noblesse oblige by imparting her Denny’s placemat pearls of wisdom, she gives disenfranchised young adults the false sense of relevance and engagement into the large world of socio-political discourse (much in the same way casting a ballot falsely gives a sense of equality and citizenry). She feels smug having accomplished ‘something’ and another day goes by where the inertia and gravity of false populism slingshots the young impressionable minds light years away from any constellation of serious inquiry and analysis. Then again, some of them probably like MTV programming, so by choosing The Hills over David Attenborough or any documentary for that matter, I suppose they get what they deserve. More and more I wonder if the play that these political actors perform was written by a room full of chimps on meth, or more in a more sinister way, it is a careful distraction to what is really going on. My cynicism tends to think it is a clusterboink combination of both .

    Auhour’s note: In rare bouts of annoyed frustration, I may stray from my very serious and dense writing. I hope you understand RT et al.

  20. hitfan

    What I find funny about leftists in Canada is that they love Obama so much, but Obama’s stance on gay rights is _to the right of_ Harper, the latter who only wanted the word “marriage” reserved for heteros (while giving completely equal rights to gays). And Harper has since quietly dropped the gay marriage issue after making a symbolic bill to be defeated like a sacrificial lamb.

  21. Myfanclub

    Noonan IS a loon.

    ‘“…incredibly inebriated, and seldom more than a little coherent…” is how one participant describes her[Noonan].” “What the Internet is best at: Exposing the royal half wits [i.e., Noonan] who call themselves the elite.”

    Ti-Guy, October 12, 2009

    Etc., etc.

    I hate her too! What a dime-store snotty fraud she is!

    “Oh, you guise…your so meen to Peggy Newnan. I think she’s grate!Seriously, this cunt on the mainstream American media….God, I hate that country.”

    Posted by: Ti-Guy | January 7, 2005

    Two words: I agree!

    Fan Club out!

  22. Ti-Guy

    What I find funny about leftists in Canada is that they love Obama so much…blah blah blah…

    What I find funny about wingnuts is that they write this comment at least once a week.

  23. Navvy

    What I find so “funny” about wingnuts is that, for supposed heterosexuals, they spend an amazing amount of time thinking about butt seks and what other people are thinking about butt seks. Just wouldn’t occur to them that other people might base their votes on something other than sticky man-on-man action.

  24. Ti-Guy

    Speaking of Conservatives and buttsecks: Harper Screwed Canadians and Didn’t Even Have the Decency to Give us a Reach-Around.

    When it comes around to having to pay down the debt the next time, we’re going to figure out a way to hold Conservative supporters themselves directly responsible for most of it..

    Lying thieves.

  25. Bowler

    Off topic, but some sad news. The “Red Canuck” passed away this morning. He was only 36 years old, but he was surrounded by family and at peace with his fate.

    We talked about blogging from time to time, which was a pursuit that he first took up while he was at home recovering from his first bout of cancer. While there were a few that he enjoyed, I know that yours was his favourite, and a source of enjoyment during some very difficult times over these past three years.

  26. Ti-Guy

    I’m so sorry to hear that.

    Rest in peace, RedCanuck.

  27. Oh dear. I am so sorry to hear about. I have thought about him for a long time.

    Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis.

  28. sassy

    Sorry Bowler, I didn’t notice that you had already let folks know the sad news.

  29. Bowler — Thanks for letting me know.

    I’m so sorry to hear that. I’d really hoped to hook up with him when I was living in Vancouver so we could finally meet. We talked about going to the Vermeer exhibit at the VAG, but he couldn’t get out much (at all?) because of his immunodeficiency problems at the time.

    Naveen was a really good online buddy who always made me laugh and I’ll miss him.

    36 yrs. old… what a terrible shame.

  30. Bowler


    There is a memorial service at VGH on Friday evening, if you happen to be in Vancouver.

  31. Navvy

    Red, enjoyed the Chomsky interview you twitted. Although I can’t agree with his suggestion that the teabagging is based on a legitimate beef. I would think if this was anger about the bailout and stagnant wages, we’d hear about that. We don’t, instead we hear about birth certificates and czars. Like so much conservative rage, it’s not about them, it’s about the other, the undeserved.

  32. Guzzeuntite

    “… [T]eabagging is based on a legitimate beef …

    Now THAT IS the funniest thing I heard a leftist utter. It is quite literally true.

    Except for Ti-Guy’s tea bag. The “Ti-bag” is not really based on anything, the boys being un-descended and all … and his beef being more like misshapen slug. Not really a “guy” thing at all.

    Regarding your assessment of the tea parties, Navvy, I think you have not been paying attention or watching the news, if you think they’re about birth certificates and czars.

    If you’re going to comment, I’d suggest you get your facts straight enough that your words are absurd on their face.

  33. Ti-Guy

    You don’t even have the guts to use the same pseudonym, you dull pest.

  34. Guzzeuntite

    The same pseudonym as what, you anonymous twit?

  35. Guzzeuntite

    But thanks for comment, Ti-Guy. It allowed me to reread my immediately prior comment, and I found an error: There should be a “not” before the word “absurd.”


  36. Navvy

    “I’d suggest you get your facts straight enough that your words are absurd on their face.”

    Heh heh, bravo

  37. Ti-Guy

    Don’t talk to it, Navvy. It’s a malign psychotic.

    I just finished watching the interview with Chomsky. I have to disagree with your disagreement that these teabbagers don’t have legitimate complaints. They’re certainly unable to articulate them coherently and are therefore easy prey for people who propose to do their thinking for them, but it’s always a mistake to dismiss what are, inarguably, strong emotions. People (with the exception of malign psychotics) are not angry just for the hell of it.

    What are the legitimate complaints are complex and are rooted in the sum total of American history. There’s likely nothing that can be done at this point except to have a certain degree of faith that things will get better only when the USA is finally confronted with stark choices and is forced to become serious about serious things.

    Where I really disagree with Noam Chomsky (not intellectually, but for pragmatic reasons) is his worship of freedom of expression, precisely because that right in the US is only taken seriously, even by the people themselves, when it comes to corporate entities and substantive issues. Until that situation changes, worshipping freedom of expression has the unintended consequence of providing a moral case (which Chomsky provides with robust intellectual and scholarly rigour) for corporations to continue to make a complex legal case that enables them to intrude into spheres of activities that should be off limits to them (democratic politics). In a country that still confuses the freedom to spend one’s money with freedom in general (the two are interrelated, but are not conceptually identical) it’s seems pointless to continue to worship what has become something that is in fact destroying the country.

  38. Ti/Navvy — Glad you guys checked out the Chomsky interview.

    Bowler: Had I been in Vancouver I would have certainly attended *Sigh* Anyway, thanks for letting me know. Hope it was upbeat — he would have appreciated that.

  39. Ti:

    I, too, have struggled with Chomsky’s free-speech fundamentalism. I’m probably more sympathetic to it than you are, though perfectly alive to the problems inherent in what it appears to endorse.

    It’s important to note, though, that Chomsky considers corporate monopolisation of the means of “speech production” to be a suppressive mechanism–something that militates against free speech–rather than a feature of an authentically free-speech environment. Chomsky’s passionate defence of free speech as an abstract right, divorced from the question of precisely whose speech is at issue, is (I think) a default position made inevitable by his refusal to grant ethical legitimacy to any current or conceivable American regulatory authorities.

    I suspect he feels that any statutory limits upon free speech would merely replicate the asymmetric power relationships inscribed within his society. Chomsky would argue that, until such time as the corporation per se is dismantled and rendered harmless, one cannot hope to use statutory tools and public agencies always-already compromised by corporate power to neutralise one of its most baneful effects (i.e. its monopoly of speech).

  40. Ti-Guy

    Chomsky would argue that, until such time as the corporation per se is dismantled and rendered harmless, one cannot hope to use statutory tools and public agencies always-already compromised by corporate power to neutralise one of its most baneful effects (i.e. its monopoly of speech).

    I’d agree with that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s