Two Hours with Fox News

 I’m at the car dealership in the waiting room. The TV is on a game show.

A guy walks in. He’s in his late ’50’s. He’s carrying two books. One of them is the Bible. The other has Glenn Beck’s name on it. While others are actively engaged in the game show, he picks up the remote and changes the TV to Fox News.

Nobody says anything.

I say, "Excuse me. I’d prefer to watch anything other than that. I don’t mind what you change it to, but I’d prefer not to be stuck here for two hours watching Fox News if you don’t mind."

He ignores me and puts the remote on his lap.

Two hours later…

I’ve been watching Fox News. I’ve been making notes. This is what I learned.

First, Fox News is far worse than all reports I’ve heard.

In two hours, I documented twelve "commercials" that were politically specific. They included Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and others urging the audience to take political action against Democrats and Obama. Obama was mentioned by name in every commercial. These were "commercials." Not political messages but "commercials."

Every commercial break ran a commercial about buying gold. Not multiple commercials, but the same commercial over and over again. With a commercial break every six minutes, that means ten commercials per hour. Twenty times in two hours. The gold commercial included language that warned the economy was "in peril" and could collapse "any day now."

I saw Fox News commentators trying to find a way to blame Democrats for the disaster in Japan. (I also heard them continually refer to it as "a tragedy." It isn’t a tragedy. It’s a disaster.) They also raised questions as to why Obama’s administration has not yet updated our own nuclear reactors. I tried counting the number of times commentators–not guests, but commentators–mispronounced "nuclear."

More on Japan: they used this disaster to justify more oil drilling to avoid "the same kind of disaster." 

I’d like someone on Fox News to show me where the US has built a nuclear power plant on a fault line.

They also said that "After the BP disaster, the Obama administration tried to politicize the oil issue." Yeah. Because my memory of that was Democrats shouting, "DRILL BABY DRILL!"

Fox News folks also questioned, "While our own economy is in ruins, is it wise for Obama to send precious resources to Japan?"

Three people nodded silently–including the Glenn Beck fan–when the commentator said this. Having enough of this nonsense, I asked, in a very loud voice…


The Glenn Beck fan called me rude.

I told him, "You were the one who changed the channel without asking anyone’s permission. And when someone asked you if we could watch someone else, you put the fucking remote on your fucking lap, asshole. So fuck you with your ‘rude’ bullshit."

I then quoted FDR: "When your neighbor’s house is on fire, you don’t haggle over the price of your water hose."

Now, pardon me for a moment because I’m going to apparently go off topic. I’m not. I’m trying to illustrate a point.
At Neoncon this year, I had a conversation with a few folks who were once employees at WotC about the RPGA. They insisted to me that the RPGA was not a good way to judge the average D&D player base. I’ve heard White Wolf say the same thing about The Camarilla. "The Camarilla is not indicative of the typical White Wolf player."

The WotC people told me the same thing. "The RPGA is not representative of the typical D&D player."

My counter to that is simple.

are not the typical player. 

of these groups are the official player base for your game. When folks want to play D&D or WoD, they seek out the official organization of that game.

By definition, they are the representational player base of your game.

And, by analogy, I’d like to make this argument…

(BTW, I am not a Democrat. I’m not a Liberal. Don’t even think about painting me with that epithet.)

Many of my friends call themselves "Republicans." I’m talking to you right now.

You are are reasonable, intelligent folks. I respect and admire you. I enjoy our debates and learn something when we talk about disagreement. I even change my mind sometimes. And, I hope, I make you question your own assumptions.

But you are not the Republican base. You are not representative of the "typical player." You are not the guy with the Bible in one hand and the Glenn Beck book in the other. You are not sitting in front of Fox News, brainwashing yourself to hate anyone who disagrees with you. You are not buying the lies being pumped into these people’s heads. You are not buying the propaganda. 

You are not the problem.

The problem is the base.

And "the base" is stealing your message.

I agree with a smaller, more efficient government. I agree with getting rid of government waste. I agree with protecting citizen’s rights. I agree with all of that.

These people don’t even understand what I just typed. 

"The Republican base" scares the fuck out of me.

They don’t want to think. They don’t want to listen. They want to be told what to think. And they believe you only need to read one book to understand the world around us.

Two hours with Fox News taught me this.

I thought I was mad two days ago. I was wrong.

Now… I’m fucking mad.

Reagan Reminiscing

For all my Republican friends who may be reminiscing fondly about Ronald Reagan, I offer my own memories. I remember…

  • A guy who raised taxes 11 times,
  • Increased the size of the government,
  • Promised to eliminate government cabinets but actually added a couple,
  • Promised organized school prayer, criminalization of abortion, and the end of racial equalization but (thank Eris) never delivered,
  • Was the only administration not to raise the minimum wage,
  • Ignored AIDS until one of his wife’s friends (Rock Hudson) was diagnosed,
  • Argued for tuition tax credits,
  • And, finally, a man whose son recently revealed his dad had Alzheimer’s *before* he was elected President and never revealed it to the public.

Just like every other man or woman walking the face of the Earth, Reagan was no saint. He was complicated, he compromised, he succeeded and he failed. 

And he had to pull down his pants and sit on the shitter just like the rest of us.


Rush Limbaugh: Liberals Should Not Be Allowed Guns or Free Speech

You can read his words–in context–here.

"I’ve got the solution to all this. I’ve got the solution to most crime in America. From this day forward, somebody propose it, liberals should not be allowed to buy guns. It’s just that simple. Liberals should have their speech controlled and not be allowed to buy guns. I mean if we want to get serious about this, if we want to face this head on, we’re gonna have to openly admit, liberals should not be allowed to buy guns, nor should they be allowed to use computer keyboards or typewriters, word processors or e-mails, and they should have their speech controlled. If we did those three or four things, I can’t tell you what a sane, calm, civil, fun-loving society we would have. Take guns out of the possession, out of the hands of liberals, take their typewriters and their keyboards away from ‘em, don’t let ‘em anywhere near a gun, and control their speech. You would wipe out 90% of the crime, 85 to 95% of the hate, and a hundred percent of the lies from society."

If you are a conservative/tea party/republican/whatever, DARE YOU to post a disagreement with this statement.


Be public about it. Post the same link, the same words, and say, "Rush Limbaugh is wrong about this."

Go on.

Because if you don’t, I’ll assume you don’t disagree with him.

Both Sides Have Gone Insane

Here’s Republican Rick Barber. He’s insane.

Really, Rick? Taxation without representation? Do you really know what that means? Don’t you have Representatives and Senators in Congress? Didn’t you vote for the President? As much as I hate to do it, I must invoke Inigo Montoya.

"This phrase you keep using. I don’t think it means what you think it means."

Also, a blatant call for violent uprising against the government? You say you defend the Constitution, but the Constitution has a clear definition for what you are proposing.

It’s called "treason." Look it up. Article 3, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Two witnesses, Rick. You’re such a dumbshit. You just uploaded this to Youtube. You’ve got a few million witnesses.



Okay. We’ve covered the Right. Now, let’s take care of the Left.

Yeah. That’s right. Commit assault while being filmed. That’s great. You just handed your seat to your opponents. Dipshit.

I should also demonstrate the cowards who made this video blurred out their faces. Ah, anonymity. How cowards love you.

America’s Most Trusted Movie Critic

The Usual Suspects: 1 and 1/2 stars.

Fight Club: 2 stars.

Blue Velvet: 1 star.

Die Hard: 2 stars.

Meanwhile, while he was employed by Disney…

The Hunchback of Notre Dame: 4 stars (the same number of stars he gave Casablanca)

Mulan: 3 and 1/2 stars.

Hercules: 3 and 1/2 stars.

Ebert says his ratings system is "relative" and that he reviews a film for what he feels will be its prospective audience. Okay. So why then give a movie like Fast and Furious a single star? Did you not consider the audience that would attend that film get exactly what they expected? Well, the very first line of his review for that film is "Fast & Furious" is exactly and precisely what you’d expect.

As a footnote, you should also check out his review of Basic Instict 2 which he cannot decide whether to give the film 1 star or 4. Yeah. I’d call that pretty "relative."