Saturday, January 23, 2010

Saturday Sarah.

Conservative superstar and Alaskan gubernatorial quitter Sarah Palin tweets,...

"Pls watch Glenn Beck's FOX documentary on Friday to learn about "manufactured crisis"-mode of govt operatives that lead to harmful proposals"

...you watch. Behold, Glenn Beck's pièce de résistance in all it's Godwin's Law-esque glory!



No word yet on whether or not that bit of Palin's brilliance is attributable to Twitter's character-count limits.


18 comments:

Torybaiter said...

Thank you for this. I am agog. Thanks to the towering intellect of Glen Beck I have learned Hitler and Stalin are bad people. Therefore it must follow that everyone who doesn't believe what Glen Beck says are bad people. I bow to this man and his superior intellect.

Patrick Ross said...

Hmmmm. Audrey and Tory seem oddly threatened by this program.

I wonder why? God knows they haven't watched it.

(By the way, Audrey, does a moron who doesn't know the difference between astronomy and astrology have any business nitpicking anyone?)

Audrey II said...

You're welcome, Torybaiter. I hope you enjoyed watching it as much as I did!

I guess the question that it raises for me is whether Beck et al. lack the critical reasoning abilities to understand the logical problems with what they're advancing, or whether they have them and advance things like this nonetheless in a cynical exploitation of an audience incapable of (or uninterested in) discerning what's wrong with it.

Patrick Ross said...

Hold up, what precisely are the "logical problems" with the program to date?

(My lord, you're about to try to stand up for Che Guevara, aren't you?)

Dillon said...

Hmm. A documentary by Glenn Beck, recommended by Sarah Palin and Jonah Goldberg.

My instincts are telling me to "Always trust the shorter" and pass on clicking the link to the YouTube video.

Patrick Ross said...

Ah, yes. Media Matters for America: party central for any progressive who doesn't want to peer outside their insular bubble.

I wonder why Media Matters is so terrified to have some light shed on the atrocities of Che?

God knows it isn't like left-wingers and ingoramuses wear his face on T-shirts or anything.

Audrey II said...

@Dillon: LOL! Oh. My. Lord! So what you're saying is that you're afraid of conservative intellectualism. ROFL! Your support of Che is duly noted. ;)

Maloy's analysis is pretty much spot on with respect to the transparent guilt-by-association effort in the piece. Don't forget that Beck/Palin/Goldberg's flock already has shown an eagerness to swallow Sunday School nonsense like the attribution of the holocaust and the atrocities of Mao and Stalin to Atheism. No wonder so many of them lap up (and leap to defend) "intellectualism" like this. By elevating this kind of thing via populist cries of "bias" and "unfairness", they vicariously elevated their own poor critical evaluation abilities. Even in this thread we have two examples already of someone employing Beck's approach.

That said, I still recommend the original, if only to appreciate the full extent of the wingnutty goodness in its intended form. It's like a piece of art in its unapologetic and blatant application of well-poisoning. As well, the stunning suggestion that some ideology defined and characterized by nothing more than American manifestations while others are defined and characterized by the most tenuous of relationships to particular non-western-democratic political expressions is not only amusingly inconsistent, but also gloriously ethnocentric and ignorant.

(Btw, did you know that there's never been any wide-scale atrocity perpetrated by a nudist. Want to know who wears clothing? Here's a hint: His first name starts with a G and his last name is Beck. Know who else wears clothing? ACORN workers. Time to find me a blackboard! ...After I polish my Che statue.)

Patrick Ross said...

Heh.

And there goes Audrey. See, kids this is what "intellectuals" do: they offer "critiques" of intellectual works without ever bothering to read them.

It's been made perfecty evident that not only is Audrey not familiar with the works she'd like to refute, but she never will familiarize herself with them.

It's just how she rolls.

Audrey II said...

Of course it might be "perfecty evident" (sic) to those who lap up Beck and Goldberg's drivel that commentary on work A not only shows unfamiliarity with work B, but is then sufficient grounds to reject said commentary on work A. I think there's an audience out there with a bit of a better grasp on elementary logic, but I do appreciate yet another illustration of the contrast between it and those that find Beck and Co's above "intellectualizin" compelling.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled strawman slaying, lols, rofls, hehs, baseless accusations, and other rhetoric of assholery.

Patrick Ross said...

Yawn.

Speaking of regularly-scheduled -- the same old empty rhetoric from Audrey.

But the fact of the matter is -- and we both know it -- that you can't honestly comment on Goldberg's book.

You haven't read it, remember? And we both know you'll never read it.

That's just too much work for someone who prefers to be explicitly ideological -- which also tends to make one extremely lazy.

If you really want to get into a serious discussion regarding Goldberg's work, Audrey, I'll take you on at any time. Any time.

But the fact is that you're at a tremendous disadvantage. Not only have you been caught saying some extremely stupid things (a la astrology) in your attempts to criticize Goldberg for anything you can, but you know nothing about his work.

Audrey II said...

Pat:

The fact of the matter is that I wasn't commenting on Goldberg's book here, nor was I commenting on it on any of the other repeated occasions you've opted to slay that strawman. That hasn't stopped you from beating that drum here and on your blog repeatedly, and I'm betting I'm not the only one who has found it amusing.

I've actually read "Liberal Fascism" twice (although, admittedly the second read was more of a review), and I understand that you'd rather discuss it than the topics that I've actually raised. I'm not about to indulge you, and am quite happy to point out the desperate strawman slaying that you engage in each time Goldberg's antics come up here. You're not only unable to separate arguments from the arguer, you're also unable to separate argument from argument.

"At a disadvantage", indeed! Keep on truckin', Pat!

Patrick Ross said...

Nope, Audrey, I'm afraid I simply don't believe you.

If you've actually read Liberal Fascism then you'd be able to comment about it's actual comment -- something you have, to date, declined to do.

Either that, or you've failed that simple test of reading comprehension. Which wouldn't shock me.

Now, this being said, this simply establishes your track record in regards to intellectual engagement with these kinds of work. I sincerely doubt you've watched the Revolutionary Holocaust film, either.

If you had, I'm sure you'd be able to tell your readers that the closest Beck comes to even addressing contemporary liberalism in this particular installment of the film -- the only installment seen to date -- is a brief mention of George Bernard Shaw.

Without that particular argument in play, Audrey, to date all you really have to flail about is Beck's treatment of left-wing totalitarian regimes.

Which leads me to wonder: what's your objection? Do you have a Che Guevara T-Shirt in your closet or something?

Audrey II said...

This isn't the first time you've employed the 'If you don't agree with me, it's clear that you haven't read / are unfamiliar with the work' non-sequitur, nor will it likely be the last.

Hanging your hat on that ironically fits you well. ...But then again, so do the oh-so-terribly-compelling Che-support taunts.

Best of luck with both, Kid Cash!

Patrick Ross said...

See, Audrey, anybody can say "I disagree with the book". One need not read it to just say that.

But at some point, someone who's actually read the book might -- oh, I don't know -- say something that demonstrates that they either read or understood the work in question.

Oddly enough, you have yet to say anything about the book that suggests you know anything about it's actual contents.

Not much unlike flailing against a documentary film that is, to date, merely a factual portrayal of left-wing totalitarian regimes. If you'd actually watched it, you'd know that.

Audrey II said...

"See, Audrey, anybody can say "I disagree with the book"."

Anyone can. I haven't in any of the posts or threads that you've whined about on your blog or here.

"But at some point, someone who's actually read the book might -- oh, I don't know -- say something that demonstrates that they either read or understood the work in question."

In each of those threads that you've railed against in your multiple threads, the work in question was not Goldberg's book.

Ooopsies.

I understand that you'd rather discuss "Liberal Fascism" than the posts, tweets, and other gaffes of Goldberg's that have been the topic of my posts, but your desire to use the former to distract from commentary on the latter doesn't make the conflation of the two any less absurd.

"If you'd actually watched it, you'd know that."

Scroll up. Stop when you get to "If you don't agree, it's clear that you...". Again, thanks for further illustration of the point.

Patrick Ross said...

Audrey, Audrey, Audrey.

I understand fully that the topic of this thread isn't the book. I'm using the book to set your track record for "intellectualizin".

That being said, why is it that I can't even get you to talk about the film itself?

Kind of shoots your whole "stay on topic" thing right in the foot. Then again, you've had your own share of gaffes -- as many as anyone. This one's just the most recent.

Audrey II said...

"I understand fully that the topic of this thread isn't the book"

The topic of none of the threads you've referenced has been the book. Yet, like in this thread, you've chosen to not only attack that strawman, but suggest that an unwillingness to voluntarily don that straw-stuffed-shirt "proves" something. How ironically Beckian to suggest that sets any record straight about anything.

"That being said, why is it that I can't even get you to talk about the film itself?"

I have spoken to the film itself, multiple times in this thread. But instead of addressing that, you've chosen instead to employ the "you're about to stand up for Che" routine, the "You disagree with me, which makes it clear that you're unfamiliar with the subject" non-sequitur, and other various forms of the rhetoric of assholery.

If you think that approach promotes discussion or debate, that speaks volumes to the issue of self awareness.

Zach Bell said...

Not to interrupted your little back n' forth with Mr. Ross there, but I just gotta say...Is Glen Beck bucking for a promotion to Alex Jones?

The editing techniques used in this "film" are hilarious in that they are meant to subvert the message delivered (or bolster it) with emotional involvement in the imagery.

It's kind of funny also that films that use these techniques often talk about Joseph Goebbels in a negative light. I mean, they've learned so much from the fellah.

Post a Comment