May 10, 2005 by s.z.

Only Extremists Didn't Like Laura's Jokes Bill O'Reilly, who's a day late and few million dollars short (thanks to settling that sexual harassment case), deals with the same letters to the NY Times that Rush Limbaugh talked about in Thursday's show (which we covered in our last American Street post).  Leave Laura Bush alone. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." Nearly a week after the first lady delivered some funny lines at a press dinner in Washington, the political militants still can't get over it. The letter section of "The New York Times" is the bulletin board for the Kool-Aid left, and I can't believe what some of these people are saying about the Laura Bush deal. Because I don't want to hurt anyone, I'm withholding the last names. A man named James from Berkeley, California — perfect— wrote, "Laura Bush made a roomful of self-important media oligarchs twitter at her scripted jokes, but not even her soft porn act can reverse her husband's growing policy failures." Soft porn act? Linking the jokes to policy? It's unbelievable.  Laura just did her act in order to bring some cheer to the hardworking men and women of our media, so how dare this James person mention her jokes in the same breath as policy.  It's sacrilege! Jane, who lives downstate in Carmel Valley, California wrote, "Laura Bush may think she's only being funny, but some of us think she is being a hypocrite, and even further exposing the true agenda of the Bush administration, which is to do harm and, apparently, enjoy it." Now Jane's obviously a fun gal, but how over the top is that letter? Come on. How about the extreme right? They're no better. Jane Smiley, Pulitzer prize-winning author of A Thousand Acres, will probably be thrilled no end to know that Bill O'Reilly said that shes a "fun gal." How about the extreme right? They're no better. But wait, the NYT is just a bulletin board for the Kool-Aid left.  Plus, we know from Rush that all four of the letters that the NYT published in response to John Tierney's piece were from hate-filled, ranting liberals. But let's see what Bill's got: Jim, who lives in Delaware writes, "Laura Bush's speech disparaging her husband before the international community demands an apology to God." Wow. With all due respect, Jim, don't you think God has better things to do than critique a few harmless jokes? Perhaps the deity is offended by the word "Chippendales", but I kind of doubt it. Hey, if the deity isn't offended by Bill's remarks about vibrators and falafel, He certainly wouldn't object to Laura's harmless jokes.  Anyway, I did a GoogleNews and Google web search, and can't find Jim's remarks anywhere.  So, did Jim send his letter not to the editor of the NY Times, but to Bill O'Reilly?  If so, that must mean that Bill's website is the bulletin board of the Kool-Aid right. Ellie from Ohio picks up the theme. "I no longer think of Laura as a lady of good faith and taste. No Christian woman could compromise her values that way." It's just amazing. What this brouhaha proves once again is that extremism is irrational, but plenty of people are caught up in the trap. All Laura Bush did was provide a few laughs in a gentle, well-meaning way. And the ideologues go nuts. Yeah, that's all Laura did, and in a gentle, well-meaning way, no less.  People have no right to say that they thought her remarks were unseemly, or to complain that her jokes didn't distract them from her husband's policies or make them like him more, as they were intended to do!  Why, anybody who would disparage Laura's gentle joking must be an irrational extremist, and should probably be locked away in a mental hospital! [E]xtremism is obviously alive and well in the USA. We just hope it isn't growing. And that's "The Memo." Thanks, Bill.  Whatever would we "folks" do without you to keep us from the path of extremism which manifests itself in a failure to appreciate Laura Bush's jokes. P.S.  Our friend, the editor of Crooks and Liars, goes over the General's to send Bill a letter commending him on his story about Paula Abdul.   C&L tells Bill that he understands why Bill reacts so strongly when he hears about cheap 'hos who try to blackmail important TV hosts, and sends Bill a little token of appreciation to help him avoid future law suits. 8:25:03 AM

Investigating the Gay From WorldNetDaily: A resolution urging churches to investigate the level of homosexual advocacy in their local school districts will be presented at this year's Southern Baptist Convention gathering. Dr. Voddie Baucham Jr., a Southern Baptist lecturer, preacher and author, and Bruce N. Shortt, author of "The Harsh Truth About Public Schools" announced yesterday they have submitted the resolution for consideration at the SBC's 2005 Annual Meeting in Nashville, Tenn., next month. According to a statement from Baucham and Shortt, the resolution "encourages every SBC church to investigate whether the school district in which it is located has either a homosexual club or any curriculum or program that attempts to influence children to accept homosexual behavior as a legitimate lifestyle. If the school district has any of these, the resolution urges churches to inform parents of this fact and encourage them to remove their children from the district's schools immediately." Because if the school has a "homosexual club," your kids might turn homosexual, just so they can join it.  And if kids are taught that "it's okay to be gay," then gay kids won't grow up with the proper shame and self-loathing to keep them closeted (and possibly depressed and suicidal), like God intends. As WorldNetDaily reported, last year, Shortt was part of an unsuccessful effort to get SBC approval of a resolution urging church members to pull their children out of government schools. And since the resolution didn't pass, this year Shortt is trying to convince parents that schools are trying to recruit their kids into gayness -- that way, maybe the parents will buy into Shortt's agenda and remove their kids from public ("government") schools.  Besides calling for the local school investigations, the resolution: [,,,] rebukes homosexual activists for slandering minorities by claiming that homosexual behavior has any authentic connection with the civil-rights movement. Because gays comparing themselves in any way to decent people constitutes slander. Said Baucham: "I am convinced that if government schools had to recruit students by sending out brochures outlining the academic, moral and spiritual aspects of their curriculum, most Baptists would throw it in the trash without a second thought. However, when these schools can hide behind stealth phrases like tolerance, safe schools, multiculturalism and safer sex, parents are often unaware of the dangers lurking beneath the surface. Moreover, parents who speak up are often branded as narrow-minded bigots with outdated values. "Narrow-minded bigots with outdated values" -- Mr. Baucham, if the shoe fits ...  Anyway, we'll see if Baucham's resolution passes this year.  If it does, expect public schools in the South to start passing out brochures which claim that they are intolerant, anti-multicultural, and in favor of dangerous sex -- you know, in order to placate enough Baptists to keep their schools running. 7:34:51 AM

comment [] trackback []

Vanity, Thy Name is Guckert The Vanity Fair feature about JimJeff GuckertGannon is out now (we're not mentioned, btw).  You've probably already heard most of its new info, such as Jeff's claim that some time after her came to D.C. he did "secret work" for which he needed a security clearance; or his allegation that "Some of his fiercest gay detractors had even come on to him, shedding their convictions 'like a sweater on a hot day.'" (Yeah, I can see Rick Santorum doing that.) But even though I didn't learn anything new from it, here are a few parts that struck me: Gannon talks of writing a tell-all book, and suggests he has good gossip on important Washington, D.C., people, though in the same breath he says that given his ordeal he's not sure he'd dish. Jeff, you keep talking like that, and Karl Rove might have to take care of you --  permanantly! "He was almost cherubic when we first met him," said Bob Johnson, of Rightalk.com, the conservative Web site that gave Gannon an online radio program. "People in Washington get crusty, jaded. Jeff wasn't like that. He was like a newborn baby, full of glee and giddiness, always with a smile on his face and always laughing." So, not your typical dominiant top, then. God, Gannon believes, bestowed a White House gig on him not as a reward for cleaning up his act, as he had first thought, but as, in a sense, another Station of the Cross, affording him a chance to burn away all his transgressions and purify himself once and for all. Now he's been humiliated, but he's been liberated too. Or maybe it wasn't God who got Gannon in that White House at all, but Satan!  (Something to think about, Jeff.)  Anyway, Jeff, if it was God who wanted you to be humiliated so you could purify yourself, then you need to stop whining about how mean liberal bloggers outed you (because, under your theory, they would have just been doing God's will). The Peoples' Church, which its pastor describes as "a hospital for hurting people [sic]," is housed in a plain brick building on 8th Street in Southeast Washington. [...] "He wasn't hurting when we first met him," the pastor, Michael Hall, said of his most famous parishioner. "He would look around and say, 'I feel so bad—people have so many problems and my life is so great!'" Then word of the Web sites broke.   "A hospital for hurting people" -- trust Jeff to find D.C's only S&M church.  We wondered whether, following the Gannon affair, the White House would tighten up the rule for day passes—to prove that Gannon was a fluke—or would keep things loose, to prove his easy passage was hardly exceptional. From what we could tell, it was the second. We sailed in on little more than Social Security numbers, driver's licenses, and the claim that we worked for Vanity Fair. Care to add the White House press briefing room to the Lincoln Memorial and the National Air and Space Museum on your next trip to the capital? Say you're a journalist, and we don't think you'll have much of a problem. Can we say we work at Vanity Fair?  Will the mag vouch for us, writing a memo on  Vanity Fair letterhead to the White House press office?  If so, I'll give it a shot.   Hey, Margolick and Gooding, if you really wanted to see if "Gannon's easy passage was hardly exceptional," then you would try to get into the White House by claiming to be reporters for some obscure web-only, partisan site (maybe something like "Democrats USA") -- and then, if you do get admitted to a press conference, you try to return to the White House almost every day for two years, even when there are no briefings.  If you can do all that with just your SSN and driver's licenses (and a fax from "Democrats USA"), then I might be inclined to believe that Gannon wasn't a fluke (or a fake who was given special privileges for some reason).  But I'll bet you a hundred dollars that you can't. Gannon sees his comeback happening via an interview show, or talk radio, or even the White House briefing room, though that's not something Scott McClellan thinks he'll see. "I don't think anybody expects it," McClellan told V.F. "It seems like he's moved on." But that's not what Gannon says. "Someone who didn't care, somebody who's a maverick, who wants to create a little controversy … might have the stones to say, 'We want him as our White House reporter,'" he says. "Because that's news, and that's going to attract readers." With his determination, intelligence, resourcefulness, chutzpah, and—perhaps—connections, maybe he will just pull it off. Or perhaps it is now Jeff Gannon who is divorced from reality. Hey, anybody who thinks that Jeff is intelligent is divorced from reality. But we think Jeff's plan to be the White House reporter for some maverick with stones is an interesting one.  Too bad that Hunter Thompson is dead, because he might have been Jeff's only hope for a come back. P.S.  Here's Jeff's take on the article: May Vanity Fair explores Gannongate David Margolick and Richard Gooding take an in-depth look at the scandal that isn't.  They end up providing a chronicle of a political takedown of a journalist and an egregious invasion of privacy by dozens of liberal activists hiding behind screen names on the internet. Mr. "Bulldog" "Gannon", I hardly think that you're in any position to be talking about people hiding behind fake names on the internet. There is a lot of material in this article, some accurate, some not, and even after nine pages, the story is still incomplete.  I guess we'll have to wait for the book, right, Jeff? 6:44:24 AM

Shouldn't Rich, Famous People Be Allowed to Blog? So, day two of The Huffington Post has dawned.  It's got Bill Maher blogging about biodiesel.   There's Larry Gelbart with some random thoughts about politics and other stuff (some of them are sorta funny, some are sorta lame). And there's Rob Reiner on how the media is letting us down (not a bad piece, but nothing you haven't read many times before if you read blogs).   And then there's Danielle Crittenden with the claim that the Bush administration's problem is that it just doesn't flatter Hollywood enough.  She provides a little playlet to show them how to do it.  (Hey, it's no "axis of evil," but maybe she can get a White House appointment out of it.) My impression of the HuffPost so far is "meh."  I might read it occasionally, but only if I have nothing better to do.  (If my blog were included on its blogroll I might give it a more favorable review, of course ...) Salon has a pretty good piece about the HP.  It says that the site isn't very compelling because it has no unique voice and no urgency.  It also quotes those who are complaining that the place is stocked with Hollywood celebrities who, in large part, aren't all that interesting if they're just blogging like us peons; and who don't need to blog, because they already have an audience for whatever they might want to say. Huffington acknowledges that these people wouldn't have a hard time expressing their views elsewhere. If Larry David sent his post on John Bolton to the New York Times op-ed page, chances are the paper would have published it. But what's wrong with having a blog where busy people like David can just dash something off whenever the mood strikes them, Huffington asks. If you or I can have a blog, why can't Gwyneth Paltrow? And, as we learned yesterday from Katie Kieffer, if Gwyneth exercises her right to free speech, we must all pay attention to what she says.  That's the law. 5:50:46 AM