Sean Hannity Molests Collies

I'm not the first one to say this, but I think it's good for people to say it as much as possible: Right wing radio is really really evil.

Generally, I treat Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and their various derivatives like I do Newark Airport- if I never go there, then they doesn't even exist. However, a recent trip to God's Country, the state of Oregon, brought both of these previously strategically avoided phenomenon squarely to my attention. Let me say I will never bother with Newark airport again. I fear I will not be afforded that luxury when it comes to right wing radio.

It's not that I'm about to start listening to this drivel. But having had some prolonged contact with this stuff, I can now see that no matter how much I ignore these guys, they are not going away; and they do- in their own haughty, arrogant, aggrandized and tragically deluded way- exist.

But, first, what the hell was I doing listening to these schmucks? Well, that's a funny story. Last week I flew to Oregon to spend a week fly fishing with a friend. We had originally planned to go backpacking, but an emergency appendectomy had my friend on restricted orders from his doctor, so we opted for car camping instead of the backpacking trip. It had it's perks- like cold beer and pillows for the tent- but it meant we would spend a lot of time in the car, driving around Southeast Oregon.

What would we listen to? We played a little music, but we both like news radio. However, we were in some very remote country, and the only radio we could get was local color. Now, if you've never been, God's Country is a bit conservative. Slightly right of Attila The Hun. My friend and I found ourselves listening to the local right wing radio, first with novel amusement, then with growing rage, and finally with mixed bewilderment and awe: like watching a cock fight, or a midget toss- you know it is wrong, and it boils your blood, but you are too stunned to look away.

We listened as the recycled feeds of Limbaugh and the rest murdered news stories, inflicted their tortured worldviews on their poor hapless listeners, spewed mindless rhetorical garbage, and basically grabbed humanity by the throat and dragged it down for a death roll, like Paul Hogan wrestling an alligator. To quote Capetown's favorite movie, what I wouldn't give for a giant sock full of manure.

The guys are so obviously the worst type of political hacks that it would be quite easy to dismiss them as lower life forms if people didn't actually listen to them. That's why I know that I can't escape these guys. People actually called in to agree with these idiots! I couldn't believe it. That anyone would agree with the utter nonsense of these characters is a scary comment on this country.

So let me say it loud and clear, and invite you do to the same: Right wing radio is pure evil. Please remember that.

I don't like Newark airport either.

Encyclopedic Knowledge Part II: You’re an Encyclopedia and You Didn’t Know It!

My previous post was really all I wanted to say about internet encyclopedias. I was supposed to get that off my chest and be able to wash my hands of the matter and get on with my day. I was looking forward to it. Then this happened.

If you are reading my post, you’ve probably read the CapeTownDissenter’s post which mentions the new Conservapedia, a Conservative Christian version of Wikipedia. Now, after having read about how much I hate the original (and utterly useless) Wikipedia, you can probably imagine my disgust when I learned that some lunatics made another one of these things. At first, there was no consoling me. No sooner had I (quite rightly and eloquently) pointed out how ridiculous it is that we even have Wikipedia in the first place (and I did so quite ingeniously, I might add), than the amount of Wikipedias in the world doubles! I mean I was pretty angry. First I considered putting my fist through a wall, but then I remembered that the walls in my apartment are load bearing walls, which means that it was going to hurt me more than it hurt the wall. Next I considered inviting the creators of both Wikipedia and Conservapedia to a cocktail party at my apartment where I would sit them down and, – like a high school football coach who yells at the team after screwing up a big game – after giving all of them the verbal tongue-lashing that they so desperately deserve, I would then stare silently at them for a few minutes, and finally try to give them a motivational speech about how to pick up the pieces of our previous, blissful Wikipedia-free world which they so carelessly smashed to…um, pieces, and try to start anew. Next I considered making pages on both Wikipedia and Conservapedia called “Useless Wastes of My and Your Time” and then explaining (quite systematically and compellingly) exactly why we should all be ashamed of ourselves that we even know that these things exist.

After a couple of deep breaths and one beautiful little ditty by Julieta Venegas (WBUR, you never fail to comfort me during my darkest and most troubled hours) I calmed down. I started to think about it a little bit. First there was Wikipedia, I thought. Well, no, I corrected myself (politely), first there was Google’s “I’m Feeling Lucky Button.” Then there was Wikipedia, a shameless rip-off of Google. And, thanks to the CapeTownDissenter who (unforgivably) broke the news to me the other day, now I know about Conservapedia. I was pretty incredulous as to the fact that not only is the original Wikipedia still in existence but that imitations are now springing up, so I went to the site just to see if I wasn’t having a terrifying nightmare (the test is that the internet never functions properly in a dream – it always takes too long to load and every link takes you to the same web site no matter what you are trying to access).

So I visit Conservapedia’s web site and it turns out that Conservapedia is the exact same freaking thing as Wikipedia except they recently started it from scratch whereas Wikipedia is about six years old and about a billion times bigger. I mean they didn’t even try to make it look different, or even change the name (they only changed half the name?! From “Wiki” to “Conserva”?!). Then I realized that Conservapedia means Conservative Wikipedia, which I guess is a Wikipedia for Conservative Christians who want to write these articles instead of whatever bozos are writing them for Wikipedia. Honestly I had no idea that Wikipedia was biased against Conservatives and against Christians (I thought it was just useless), but in any case we now have (an equally useless) one that takes an explicit effort to be biased in favor of these groups.

Now, unlike some of my co-dissentators, I don’t consider myself a member of either of America’s two main political parties, which I guess makes me a (hey voter voter voter voter) swing voter. To give you an idea of my moderateness, I often find myself farther to the right than many of my liberal friends, and I often find myself farther to the left than many of my…actually, wait…I’m not sure if I even have any conservative friends (they don’t call me the BostonDissenter just because I also happen to throw a glorious tea party). So, as a moderate open to all views (except those in favor of these ridiculous web sites existing), even I found this web site over the top. At first I was upset, I thought the “Anti-America bias” of Wikipedia claim was something of a stretch, and that maybe they should call the site “Psychopedia” (even a psycho would admit that name sounds better than Conservapedia (also conservapedia I believe is Spanish for “a whale’s vagina”)).

Then I realized something pretty amazing which totally turned me around on this Conservapedia. I did a little investigating and found out there was like nothing on it. Now, I realize it is just starting up, so this might not be true for much longer, but currently we are living in a golden age where – if we are willing to accept this thing as an encyclopedia – we know more than an encyclopedia. To give you an example of your encyclopedic knowledge, let’s start with a simple one. How about the country Spain. Conservapedia says:

“Country located on the Iberian Penninsula. Borderd by the Alantic Ocean to the west and the Mediterranean on the east. Portuagal is located on the same penninsuala. Is the same country as was in the medieval times. And known for its famous explorers.”

Now if you already knew all that, you have encyclopedic knowledge: the person searching should have just asked you! You maybe even know more! You maybe even know how to spell the words “peninsula,” “bordered,” “Atlantic,” and “Portugal!” Now I know this thing is supposed to favor America so things like countries, oceans, peninsulas and borders don’t really matter, but if we are supposed to be smarter than people from other countries, we should know more about their country than the know about America, which is hard to do post-Borat. So let’s try another country, Germany:

“A country in central Europe that was blamed for both Wolrd Wars and claimed to be the dominate race of mankind.”

Again, if you knew that too, you are as smart as an encyclopedia! And you probably would have called the “world” a “world” instead of a “wolrd!” I mean what is a wolrd anyway? I tried to look it up, but there wasn’t an entry for it. Then I looked up “world,” no entry for that either. Honestly I looked up “earth” and all the page said was “Mostly harmless.” Again if you know more than that about the earth you have encyclopedic knowledge. Now I know what you’re thinking: Conservapedia is pro-America so it really doesn’t matter whether there are articles about the wolrd or the world or whatever the hell that thing is that you were talking about. Well that’s why I looked up some American stuff as well. Now I know what else you’re thinking, you’re thinking what if you didn’t know as much as Conservapedia? For instance, what if you didn’t already know that Spain “is the same country as was in the medieval times”? Well don’t worry because to persuade you that you really are smarter than an encyclopedia, I have found a bunch of things that have no entry at all in Conservapedia, so if you have heard of even one, you have encyclopedic knowledge and you should start charging people to access your brain instead of those charlatans at Wikipedia and Conservapedia and whatever hell-spawned pedia’s that spring forth next. So those items are:

1. Alan Greenspan
2. Drudge Report
3. Rush Limbaugh
4. Argentina
5. David Brooks
6. John F. Kennedy
7. Supreme Court
8. Iraq
9. Mao Zedong
10. Taepodong
11. Ari Fleischer
12. CNN
13. Rolling Stones
14. Rice
15. Boston
16. Brain
17. Condoleeza Rice
18. Garth Brooks
19. Franklyn D. Roosevelt
20. London
21. World Bank
22. Wal-Mart
23. Jon Stewart
24. Harvard
25. Michael Jordan
26. New York Yankees
27. New York Times
28. Liberty University
29. Wall Street Journal
30. Education
31. Arnold Schwarzenegger

Incidentally, I don’t mean for this to be a contest between which of these two useless web sites is less horrendous, but I did find it noteworthy that while Conservapedia has no entry on the Taepodong, Wikipedia has three different Taepodongs in their encyclopedia.

In closing, I believe I’ve (quite nimbly) proven my point – that you are an encyclopedia and you didn’t know it. If for some reason you still haven’t heard of any of the above items, and you are still on equal footing, knowledge-wise, with Conservapedia, I will tell you something about Argentina. So to be smarter than Conservapedia (no one’s ever accused me of not making my readers smarter (than Conservapedia)), all you need to know about Argentina is that it gave us this.

Behind Every Great Show is a Huge Schmuk

(On a side note: I hate myself for the opening of my first sentence and swear that I do not start conversations this way. Alright. Proceed.)

A recent article in the New Yorker discussed “The politics of the man behind ‘24’.” In my opinion, the man, co-creator and executive producer of “24”, Joel Surnow, is a bit of a schmuk. Politically, I don’t really care where you stand as long as you form your opinions with some semblance of reason and factual knowledge. I admit that there have been times that Pat Buchanan has swayed me a bit on some issues. Buchanan, after-all is not an idiot by any means, whereas Surnow acts like he is.

Recently added to Keith Olbermann's list of "Worst Person in the World", Surnow has jokingly referred to himself as a “right-wing nut job.” Hahaha – Surnow is smarmy to boot. What a guy! The article describes a man who takes sickening delight in his radical conservatism: when he’s not eating dinner with Justice Clarence Thomas at Rush Limbaugh’s house, he is planning projects such as “The Half-Hour News Hour”, a conservative version of The Daily Show to be aired on Fox News, as well as a film aimed as a response to Good Night and Good Luck, a collaboration with a fellow purveyor of misinformed and irrational politics, Ann Coulter. Why? “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,” says Surnow. And people call Democrats the party of reaction.

The main discussion of the article revolves around his show’s predilection for depicting torture scenes – often gratuitous displays of barbaric coercive tactics resulting in Jack Bauer’s getting the goods on the bad guys -- which if you have ever seen the show, are friggen awesome. The author cites statistics demonstrating the increase of torture scenes on television since September 11, 2001 (from four each year to over a hundred), and how these scenes increasingly portray the “good guys” as the torturers. While describing a meeting the executives from “24” (Surnow conspicuously absent) and U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, Dean of USMA at West Point, in which his concern for the show’s promotion of such tactics fell on deaf ears, the article also demonstrates expert opinion and official policy that prove the ineffectiveness of torture for interrogation.

I am digressing from my purpose here – the show itself, of which I have watched the first five seasons in a two week period, is great television, and at the end of the day, it remains just that. While it may have a slight influence on impressionable cadets at West Point, I do not believe that it will actually affect procedure. Also, watching Jack Bauer, for many Americans, is catharsis during this age of anti-American terrorism.

My beef is with Surnow and those, both liberal and conservative, that argue and aim to proselytize their political agendas with subjective belief and in the face of logic, facts, and objective proof. I’ll just let Surnow show you what I mean, and notice how he quickly reframes the discussion from the effectiveness of torture to what a brave man like him would do in a hypothetical and highly improbable situation:

“They say torture doesn’t work. But I don’t believe that. I don’t think it’s honest to say that if someone you love was being held, and you had five minutes to save them, you wouldn’t do it. Tell me, what would you do? If someone had one of my children, or my wife, I would hope I’d do it. There is nothing – nothing – I wouldn’t do.”

(For a response to this quote, please see Al Pacino's Soundboard and click on "Bah, what a big man you are...", fourth down in the right hand column)

Also, the companion video from The New Yorker: