The Janeane Garofalo of academia
It’s one thing for Hollywood twit Janeane Garofalo to smear the Tea Party movement as RAAAAACIST. We expect ignorant celebrities to be ignorant. But when newspapers phone up “experts” in academia to provide commentary and analysis on social and political trends, it would be nice if they based their assessments on reality, wouldn’t it?
In the Christian Science Monitor today, one professor of emeritus plays the Janeane Garofalo of academia:
Jeffrey Kimball, a professor emeritus of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, says the protesters seemed to represent the most extreme adherents of American conservatism, hardly representative of the average American.
“We may have just seen the whole movement” at these protests, says Mr. Kimball. “I don’t see it as a groundswell, but a manifestation by those people who form the core of … the extreme right reacting both to the condition of our time and President Obama – he’s black and he’s liberal.“
Where’s my cluebat?
California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger booed at Sacramento Tea Party: White and Republican.
California GOP chairman Ron Nehring booed at Sacramento Tea Party: White and Republican.
Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Sens. Orrin Hatch, and Bob Bennett all booed at Salt Lake City Tea Party: White and Republican.
Rep. Gresham Barrett booed at Greenville SC Tea Party: White and Republican.
Reality doesn’t fit Hollywood’s narrative — or left-wing academia’s. Must be lovely to live life immunized from the truth.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
CPAC vs. the Occupiers: Keep calm and carry silly string
February 9, 2012 10:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
109 Comments
Femme-a-gogue Debbie Wasserman Schultz smears Tea Party, exploits Tucson massacre anniversary
January 11, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
185 Comments
Romney: I’m the Ideal Tea Party Candidate; Update: Des Moines Register Endorses Romney
December 17, 2011 04:05 PM by Doug Powers
158 Comments
New DNC Ad Portrays Newt Gingrich as Tea Party Godfather
December 11, 2011 11:59 AM by Doug Powers
105 Comments
Occupy Wall Street Shuts Down Production of Law & Order Episode About Occupy Wall Street
December 9, 2011 03:20 PM by Doug Powers
67 Comments
Document drop: What Scholastic is teaching your kids about the Occupiers
December 9, 2011 11:30 AM by Michelle Malkin
102 Comments
Video: On Beltway Newt, Cupcake Mitt, and Lame-Duck Barney
December 1, 2011 09:12 AM by Michelle Malkin
163 Comments
Categories: Tea Party
Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"Sister Toldjah
» Obama’s new budget is a bad jokeJustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
All these old hippies from the 60s causing us to go through this right now know they are going to end up in nursing homes at some point. How charitable do they think they are going to get treated for trashing this country because their insides-souls are so fugly? Lets hope their nursing care comes from Christians that can turn the other cheek, and not self centered narcissist like themselves who will let them wallow in whatever state they find themselves…growing old sucks, growing old and having everyone not stand you is going to be worse.
Just sayin they are going in their nests. What shouldn’t you do where you eat?
Oh jeez is that her issue – her character in Romi&Michelle was an autobio?
So basically she was a female Dylan Klebold who didnt off her classmates prior to graduation, so she’s going to take it out on the whole country.. Hmmmm
Speaking of…. tomorrow is the 10th Anniversary of the Colombine massacre. I was giving a tour of my company to a whole group of my kids from Boulder High School that morning while Columbine was going on 30 miles south of here.
Thats crazy, some of those kids from BHS are 28 now, wow.
Secession is not an act of war. It’s what reasonable people do when the union, like a marriage, isn’t working for them any longer.
Oh great, I think I just shorted out my keyboard…
Indeed…
Woof…!!!
I was just looking over the Founding Bloggers story on how CNN has “disappeared” their infamous Tea Party footage. They claim copyright infringement…which, as a non intellectual property lawyer strikes me as really weak.
I wonder what free speech champions Grrr-buffalo and Prof. Erroneous Kimball think of all that…
The fact is, these guys are going way out of their way to discredit the movement and the people involved. They have absolutely no evidence of anything they claim, and even their own words are evidence to that. Just look at what this guy says, “We may have just seen the whole movement” and “the protesters seemed to represent…”
See…no proof, just their normal set of feelings. This is proof that they are most definately scared. They know the entire Socialist power-grab is built on lie after lie and supported by their feelings and emotions. Once all their lies are exposed, their who effort will crumble around them and they will, at last, be finished.
Re CNN footage, this claim by CNN of copyright violation is baloney. The video wasn’t filmed by CNN, as far as I know, and it only shows what a silly twit that CNN woman really is — and arrogant, yet uneducated and uninformed.
CNN only wants to hide the embarrassment, that’s all.
Sorry I’m jumping in late on the secession talk but I had to throw my 2 cents in. Texas does have a legal right to attempt to leave the Union as does any other State. In 1861, Texas and a few other independence minded States attempted to do just that. The legality was never questioned. It never went to the Supreme Court or any other. President Lincoln was the sort of man that saw his house being split apart and did something about it.
The fact is that the Civil War settled the question on States’ right to secession. As long as the USA was willing to use superior force of arms, there is no question.
Fast forward to the Democrats of 2009.. Would they be willing to use force of arms? If so, how long before they gave up after the least bit of resistance? Is Obama the kind of man Lincoln was? Does the mindset exist for the will of both sides to take action? Does the US military have the wherewithal to kill it’s own people?
The answers to these questions would finally determine if a State could depart the Union. I am by no means suggesting armed conflict, but the will to use it would be the deciding factor. Just like it was in the 19th century.
I need for Janeane to understand one thing:
I am white trash with money NOT a redneck.
There is a difference and she knows it. And I would appreciate for her to keep her self-loathing disparagements accurate and distinct. One day she will finally come out of the closet as the true conservative she knows deep down that she is. Her main issue is that she grew up hating the rich and the pretty, but once she became the pseudo-celebrity that she is, she has to continue to pose as a liberal left-wing wac job.
She only disparages rednecks, because she feels that that is the one group that she believes is beneath her dignity, and therefore in order to be superior for once, SHE can talk down to them.
Janeane, Janeane, Janeane, why did your daddy not love you? It wasnt your fault. (or was it?)
Well, that rules out California, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Madison Wisconsin, Boulder Colorado and most of the Northeast. But Im pretty sure if we had to pick sides, the Red States and a good chunk of the Blue states would side with Texas.
The South ultimately lost the War Between the States due to a lack of an industrial base, not because of will. These days the Blue States are more lacking in both and would eventually succumb. Che and Bob Marley are mythical characters and are not alive to save them.
One case did go to the Supreme Court: that of blockading ports in the South. Scotus ruled that the Southern states had seceded from the Union, in complying with international law regarding blockades, but were in rebellion in all other areas of law. Weird ruling, but, then, those were weird times. That brings up the constitutionality of the 14th amendment. It was never ratified by the states, nor was the formation of Nevada and West Virginia as states constitutional. During the war and immediately afterward, we had no real “Constitution”; it was totally ignored, by all 3 branches.
conservative in europe, Texas is the only state in the US that has the LEGAL right to secede from the US because we were a country before we were a part of the US, and retained that right when we joined the Union.
My poor, poor country, where some of its truest and best are discussing with any degree of seriousness having to leave it!
Secession…while viable in respects…is a bridge up the road, a long ways from where we are.
Short of there…far short of there, I suggest we have things to try.
One of them is a peaceful tax boycott…or revolt, if you prefer.
As I noted, this cannot be a scoff-law or out-law notion. It has to be pure civil disobedience, which I submit is a powerful, effective, and moral tool to use in such times as these. It has to be declarative, open, and defiant.
What are your thoughts, this sober Monday?
michelle, you say it well. “it must be lovely to live life immunized from the truth.” i would add immunized from reality. both hollywood and academia have long been bastions of nonreality. in hollywood, you can be a third or fourth rate actor or actress, and people still think you matter and should be listened to, while first rate actors are flaming geniouses who should rule the world despite their high school education. meanwhile academia shrouds itself in the cloak of intelligence, when for the most part these people have one small area of expertise, and the rest of their lives are a disaster because all they have done is go to school in that one area. their moms still have to remind them to wear their mittens in the winter and look both ways when they cross the street. they have tenure, so they can be as big a nitwit as they wish, which gives them the liberty to become bill ayers and his ilk. live in the real world, and be that big of a jerk, and you would be a street bum because no one would hire you or keep you employed.
You forgot the Liberals Second Rule.
Their First Rule is the same as the Wizards First Rule and they use it to their advantage all the time.
Well she (Garofalo) will never have to worry about being Labeled as an Intellectual. Facts can never be found anywhere withing shouting distance of Credibily, when she speaks.
Hell
As long as they misunderstand us and under estimate us the message will get out without any effective comeback from them. SWEET!
I am starting to get a stream of e-mails about boycotting “24″. It turns out that Garofalo is on that show in some capacity. We need to send a message that this kind of behavior doesn’t come without consequences. After all, she is an actress and little more apparently.
Actually thats a myth. Texas retains no right greater than any other state.
They did get their a$$ kicked in the Civil war which negated the initial reservation.
But RS
rights are what you make of them, sometimes.
And “perceived wisdom”…like any perception…can be reality.
Most people perceive Texas as an exception (which, of course, we are), and that can be all it takes…
While, I have no issue with playing the personna of a potential secessionist, for others in the the world I have no idea as to their intent. Perception of this particular myth is no different than believing that prohibition is still in effect.
While also true at one time, one would have to completely forget that the 21st amendment exists as rationale for walking into a liquor store and starting to break all the merchandise because of an abomination to the public and to God. (reference Muslim, Bakery, Oakland)
When driving on the freeway, I only trust myself, I dont trust any of the other drivers.
One takes the tools the box offers…
What are your thoughts on a tax revolt…?
If one cant take the heat then get out of the kitchen. Or another view is, legally one can kill whomever one chooses to kill.
Meaning – as long as one accepts the penalties for ones actions, then he or she can do as they choose. Our legal system seems to be based on recompensation not rehabilitation.
For a tax revolt, then as long as the corresponding interest, penalties, jail and potential confiscation of assets is acceptable, then we can withhold paying our taxes for as long as we want.
Have Chloe off her in the FBI server room.
This assumes that a revolt would not be sufficiently supported that it overwhelms the enforcement mechanisms.
Of course, that is entirely possible. As an optimist, I believe that the action will be popularly supported, and that it will overwhelm the enforcement mechanisms.
But, I think your post reflects mythology of its own. Jail…meaning criminal penalties…is very unlikely in a revolt. Criminal penalties are reserved for evasion…and a boycott is arguable not an evasion, but an expression of political speech.
You people are so funny – you claim to hate everything about Obama except the color of his skin, and you expect the rest of the world to believe you?
When it comes to disagreeing with President Obama, you can’t win. Even if your reasons are valid, you’re still racist.
I choose to not comment on the first part of your post, but to quote Reagan “There you go again…”
Since I have free will, I do not choose to be a ‘global citizen’, therefore I do not care what the rest of the world believes about me. I do not need acceptance to validate my existence.
I dont know if I consider my post to be a mythology or not. Perhaps its more of a definition (or qualification/quantification) of terms.
A single person refusing to pay their taxes – we can go back to Henry David Thoreau on that if we choose. Is a single person a revolt, a boycott or an evasion?
Is a small group of people (dare I say taxpayers?) a revolt, a boycott or an evasion?
Is a quorum of people a revolt, a boycott or an evasion?
At what point does the black vs white become a gray?
But as you have alluded to before, do you have a case to cite as precedent for ‘a boycott is arguable not an evasion, but an expression of political speech‘ ?
They think it protects them from AIDS.
Hey, they are never going to let something so trivial as facts get in the way of their beliefs.
This is the type of garbage that ilovemycountry posts.
For the record, the liberal commenters here are tired of him, too.
liked this take as well:
http://theblacksphere.blogspot.com/
(link button not working so well for comments…)
DagneyT,
I understand what you say about Texas having been a nation before joining the Union and therefore under a different circumstance. However, all of the original 13 states were independant nations until they agreed to become a republic. This is why we call them states and not provinces.
The outcome of the Civil War made a final statement on the Federal Government’s willingness to allow any state to depart the Union. Millions of dead Americans later, the South lost (yes, I agree, it was a lack of manufacturing base and not will) and secession ceased to be an option. “States” were relegated to the level of Provinces in authority and the Federal Government learned that it could place the term “Due to it’s effect on interstate commerce” in front of any law and no one would argue about it.
What I’m saying is that in 1861-5, the Federal Government had the will to fight a war over it. In 2009/10, I really don’t think the Democrats would. Also, if Texas seceeded, the Electoral votes it has would be taken out of the system driving the percentage of automatic votes for Dems up across the board. This would ensure a Dem in the White House and a perpetually weak willed, socialist nation to it’s north.
Katherine, thats good stuff.
I may not have grown up in the ghetto but I could see it from my house. One of my ‘friends’ (yeh we never called each other to talk about personal stuff, but what guys do?) is part of the black establishment. His celebrity character plays to blacks being subjected to ‘the man’ and he rants about our hometown being racist (OK yeh hes partially right
)
But like I tell him whenever I go hang out with him in his chauffeured stretch Hummer on the Sunset strip in L.A. “Dude, you’re whiter than I am”
Grow up people – while you were clinging to your guns and your bibles – America was becoming more beautiful, more progressive and more international.
If any of you people had any courage, you would admit you’re uneducated bigots and then you’d do something to make yourselves better people.
You caught me. I have no courage, therefore I must finally out myself as a Democrat. But then on the other hand, if I am a Democrat then there is no way to better myself. Ponder, I must – What to do, what to do…
Its like dropping a cat into water. It never falls in, because it will just hover slightly above the water and spin forever. (true story, try it)
Nice of you to notice, ilovemycount, and to make the connection that guns+Bibles=beauty
So says a commenter who posts only sophomoric opinion, declines to ever provide evidence, and destroyed his credibility a long time ago even with other liberal commenters on this site.
Hey spaceycakes – happy 420
Did someone fart?
RS,
sorry for the delay responding…I had to go be an attorney. Making a living can be such a drag!
Anyhow, there is no case law on point of which I know, so I can’t provide you a precedent.
However, I CAN do this; I KNOW…
tax evasion requires an affirmative…usually fraudulent…act. There has to be intent, and that has to be proven.
Many, many (I’d say millions, but I have no data to substantiate) Americans simply do not pay…do not file. They are not criminally prosecuted, with the important exception of those who collect withholding funds from employees and fail to turn them over.
Often, those people who do not file or pay, after years of “non-compliance” are allowed to settle on very good terms…pennies on the dollar for tax, penalties, and interest.
In the right circumstances, even that is dischargeable in bankruptcy (I do that work, and know).
There is a critical mass, which would number only in the thousands, of cases of people in a boycott that could be pursued by the Service in any given year.
People (respectfully including you) are under the hoo-doo of the IRS. We tend to impute to them “perfect information”, which is a myth. We fear criminalization, which is also a myth.
An overt act…involving no fraud and no special pleading (common among those who I know have tried to be too clever by half)…taken on political free speech grounds, could not successfully be tried as evasion. Nobody is evading anything. There is no intent.
The essence of civil disobedience is that the practitioner subjects themselves to the extent of the law, and calls on others to join them on moral grounds.
This does not need to be done foolishly or quixotically. It could be done in a highly organized way, and only after a critical mass has committed to doing it.
I’m courageous enough to have donated MULTIPLES of my income to charity, over and above the percentage given by THE ONE or his idiot VP.
I’m courageous enough to know that America is not…was designed not to be…Europe or “the world”.
I’m courageous enough to deal with reality…not some subjective notion of “good”.
I’m courageous enough to call racism what it is, no matter what the racial origin of its practitioner.
I’m courageous enough to support freedom of choice for myself…even for a poltroon leftist…both in political and economic venues.
I’m courageous enough to fight the evil of defining other members of the human family as “extra-constitutional” beings, without rights, which you must do to support Roe v. Wade; see DREAD SCOTT.
I could go on, but you just won’t get it…
I write, not for you, but for others whose eyes are not totally scaled over.
Oh, Ragspierre – you talk big, but you and I know your posts are lies – donates “multiples” of your income (you mean like 200 – 300 – 400%) because that would mean multiples – so how is that possible?
America was not designed to Europe or the World – the constitution is a living document, that’s why Obama is the President.
If you are so courageous – then why aren’t you calling the posters on this site out for heir bigotry every day?
Are you claiming that none of these tea baggers or members of MM are bigots? Have you not seen any bigotry in the Obama critics?
If your answer is no, then you are not as courageous as you claim.
I think I’ve just been called a liar.
I will have to report that…
Don’t bother with him. Even liberals here want him to go away.
This is his whole schtick. If you are critical of Obama, you are a bigot.
Yet, he says bigoted and asinine things about Michelle and posters here all the time.
Hey Salt – can you explain why you people had a problem with Obama sending the Navy SEALs to take out those pirates?
When our President gets criticized for protecting abducted Americans – then I look at the critics and wonder why would say such things – maybe you can tell me why?
Thanks – ILMC
Hey ILMC, considering that you are addressing me directly within your typical “you people”, you might wish to get your facts (about me and others here) straight.
I was not critical of President Obama finally allowing the SEALs to do their work. If you were not being so blatantly intellectually dishonest, you would see that many posters here supported that action. If anything we wondered why it took so long for President Obama to give the order and questioned the conditions it took for him to come to that obvious conclusion. We underscored the fact that the Vice Admiral stated it best when he said that the United States should not negotiate with terrorists.
All of this is off the topic at hand, of course, and it still doesn’t erase your comment here which makes your pretense at having any sort of moral high ground a joke.
Salt:
I read a post elsewhere, purportedly from a serving person on the Bainbridge (spelling dubious) that said that the commander on the scene was prevented from taking action in the first escape by the ROE that came from THE ONE. SEALS were aboard, and had a shot, but could not take it under orders.
Later, the commander took the initiative, and ordered that the SEALs engage their targets.
Then, THE ONE followed-up with a “shoot” order.
Kind of like, “Halt or I’ll…BAM…fire!”
I can’t vouch for the account, and it could be apocryphal, but is sounds sort of like it has the ring of truth.
Anyhow, with all the Jimma Carta comparisons flying around the popular press (i.e., NOT MSM), THE ONE had very little choice but to free up the military and not continue to equivocate.
Well look what we have: Salt & Ragspierre – both saying the same thing – Obama took too long , plus neither of you has a problem with his race, you simply think you could have done better than Obama?
I’ll bet you also think getting into Harvard Law School is easy too and becoming president of the Harvard Law Review is also simple.
Ragspierren – aren’t you a lawyer? Where’d you go to school – south carolina technical online university?
And Ragspierre – you still haven’t explained how you give multiples of your pay to charity
Salt you’re still trying to claim that none of you Obama critics are bigots who are upset that a smart progessive person of color is President?
Neither of you can explain why you’re so hostie towards this man and his wife – I suspect his race is significant.
You’re the one that keeps injecting race into it. By extention, you must have agreed with everything Condoleeza Rice said and did, right? You must be sending Michael Steele donations to the RNC because you certainly don’t wish to be a bigot, right?
How many strawmen are you considering putting up today? I have never said this.
So becoming a lawyer is only hard work for President Obama because he went to Harvard? Your “argument” is all over the place here. You attempt to make a point that becoming a lawyer requires effort, but then seek to attack Ragspierre because he has a differing political view than your own?
I am a critic of many of Obama’s policies, but not all of them. Here’s another shock for you that will not fit into your narrow perspective: I do not hate President Obama.
You see, rationally minded people can disagree with a man’s policies without prejudice to the color of the man’s skin or background or hating him. I understand that it’s your inclination to hate everyone that disagrees with you so that you can categorize them into the “you people” mentality, but that’s a sad way to live and I pity you. (That is assuming you’re not a sockpuppet.)
By contrast, the ad naseum/ad hominem attack where anytime someone disagrees with someone from a minority background is accused of being racist is, in itself, racist. You seem to be the one most obsessed with the President’s skin color here.
Cite one example where I have expressed hostility towards the President. While you’re at it, find one occasion where I have said anything judgmental about the man based solely on his race.
Your original “point” about my being opposed to the President’s decision to send in the SEALs has backfired so now you have scrambled back to the “racist” crutch.
You know nothing about me, yet you presume to project any stereotype that fits your world view. It must be nice and cosy instead that perspective where you never need to acknowledge that someone else can disagree with you without being the enemy.
I am beginning to suspect that the liberal commenter that pegged you to be a concern sockpuppet to make liberal posters look bad might be spot on. I have gotten along with many liberal commenters here just fine, so I am inclined to believe they might be right about you.
I spent the better part of my life working with highly educated people. The vast majority were too stupid to pour water out of a bucket with the instructions on the bottom. So if I sat down and tried, I could not care any less than I do right now about some college egghead’s opinion.