My Satirical, Hopefully Comical Musical Comment on Tea Bagger Crybabies.

And what I honestly think about them bastids.

Wing Nut Crybaby Moment of the Week, Cont.

Ok. Sides are being taken in the Michele Bachmann Crazy Picture story. First, my biases. I can't stand her, and what she believes in, and have nothing but the lowest opinion of her as a human being. So I really don't give a shit if Newsweek went the extra mile to make her look bad. Goes with the territory. There's No Crying in Baseball. If you choose to get on the Gaming Grid, you accept the risk of harm. Get over it.

Now I was sorta surprised that NOW came down on Newsweek, and particularly believe their reasoning was bullshit. It was not so much the crazy looking pic itself (and I say that once you get to thinking the person's crazy, you are always going to see the crazy there,) they took offense to, but the caption,"Queen of Rage." Way I saw it was they were saying that did not pass the "Would a man get the same treatment," test. Cough. Burp. Fart. Substitute King or Prince for Queen? Follow me?

More surprising was Jon Stewart taking the anti Newsweek side. Granted, his routine on it ended with some eminently logical and liberal seeming POV that if you want to show how crazy she is, do it with her own words, line. So it's sorta weak for a defense. But I will get to analysis why that was a waste of time (and Jon. Go for the joke always. My man, you do it so well. But don't encourage or condone Wing Nut Victim hood. Even if there is as you said a grain of truth there. If there was a mountain, ok. But give those fuckers a grain, and they will not stop whining about their mistreatment for years. Remember that. Look ahead, not just in the short term. Hmm kay?)

Now on the Catholic Church Lady. I semi sorta agree with her. I agree that the thing is not so much the picture was sexist. But I think even she goes over the top with the it's unprofessional shit. Go here for that.

Now for the analytical reality check. I have studied most communication fields, worked in some, and at least was employed by/at a multi media communications corp. And as I have argued before, no matter what the medium, editing is as much what the process is about as is "creativity" and "creating." I would go so far as to say editing is built into all such processes including the sub processes employed by the artist/artisan. And when we get to photography, editing is done from the choice of camera, lens, aperture, film (if going old school,) lighting, angle, and such. And that is before you get to the darkroom/work room and play with your image to prepare and edit it for publication.

Now don't get me wrong. I think people can take the editing and tinkering far too far. But let us never pretend that the photographer and the editor, and in some cases the Editor (mgmt.) are not engaging in some form of editorial (journalistic) editing, in addition to the practical editing that is routine for the medium, when ever they are mocking up a cover shoot.

Do I think Newsweek went too far here? No. Again, I have the insider's pov. I get it the editing process, as a practical matter, is done on one level in order to communicate some idea. I have heard/read Tina Brown's tweet. And even if it sounds sorta bull shitty, it does convey the core truth that I have been talking about. They are trying to communicate messages in the cover art. They are NOT trying to be neutral. Don't ever believe that shit. Now if you want to believe they should try to be neutral all the time? Go head. It's your time you are wasting.

And in order to communicate my actual contempt for that idea, if you believe it, I dare you to hold your breath till that is the default in all magazine publishing. Let me know how that works out for you.


I originally thought to end it on that snarky note. But since starting this essay I have had in mind that iconic photo of Adali Stevenson, showing the worn sole of his shoe. Imagine if the editor decided to crop the shoe out of the picture. Good thing he didn't. I'd say. In that instance we are talking about the difference between an ordinary image, and a Pulitzer winner. Just saying.

Of Metaphor, Rhetoric, and Delusional Disorders. And Crybabies.

Let's set the baselines.


Metaphor:
A metaphor is a literary figure of speech that uses an image, story or tangible thing to represent a less tangible thing or some intangible quality or idea; e.g., "Her eyes were glistening jewels."



Rhetorical Fallacies
Rhetorical fallacies, or fallacies of argument, don’t allow for the open, two-way exchange of ideas upon which meaningful conversations depend. Instead, they distract the reader with various appeals instead of using sound reasoning. They can be divided into three categories:


1.Emotional fallacies unfairly appeal to the audience’s emotions.

2.Ethical fallacies unreasonably advance the writer’s own authority or character.

3.Logical fallacies depend upon faulty logic.



Keep in mind that rhetorical fallacies often overlap.


We tend to call rhetorical fallacies, "Rhetoric," for short, even if the proper academic meaning of rhetoric encompasses a greater swath of the persuasive arts.


Delusional Disorder has a technical definition, under the DSM IV:
Delusional disorder is an uncommon psychiatric condition in which patients present with circumscribed symptoms of non-bizarre delusions, but with the absence of prominent hallucinations and no thought disorder, mood disorder, or significant flattening effect.[1] For the diagnosis to be made, auditory and visual hallucinations cannot be prominent, though olfactory or tactile hallucinations related to the content of the delusion may be present.[2]

Suffice it to say, few people really have a clinical delusional disorder. But some people are so stubborn with their rhetoric, they seem to be truly mentally ill. One person's passionate conviction is another person's evidence of a profound need for very powerful anti psychotic drugs.

Now for the real discussion. Following the Tea Bagger Terrorist-caused artificial Debt Ceiling crisis, where such people used the small but effective leverage they had over the debt ceiling bill to advance their minority agenda over the whole of the Nation, a lot of metaphor and rhetoric was thrown their way. And that hurt some of their feelings. And I am not sorry about that. I have said it before. I'm surprised they even have feelings (rhetoric.) Maybe it's not really a matter of feelings per se, but one of subconscious shame (analytical supposition.) Or maybe they are just a bunch of whiny assholes (metaphor, intended insult.) Bunch of crybabies (metaphor, intended insult.)

But their response to the patently obvious metaphoric and rhetorical arguments levied against them, while not meeting the DSM IV's definition for Delusional Disorder, clearly, and from the common man's understanding of it, has been quite delusional, and particularly hypocritically rhetorical itself. Let's take inventory, shall we?

Bullshit wind bag Jonah Goldberg (metaphor, deliberate insult,) went on a tear regarding the anti teabagger terrorist rhetoric, on several lines of attack. First he delusionally (rhetoric,) equated calling teabaggers terrorists and such with the odious "gun sights" map that Palin got raked over the coals for (metaphor.) Jonah. You drooling, post lobotomy patient on crack (accurate description. No. I'm being rhetorical and insulting, and enjoying it immensely.) If you are so stupid you can not tell the difference between violent rhetoric and merely insulting rhetoric, you go to hell (ironically that's how he ends the column in question.) That's the case, generally. Specifically he brings up, several times, Rep. Giffords, who took a bullet round to the head, and indirectly equating her level of victim hood to tea baggers being rhetorically insulted? That's some of the sickest shit I have ever read that was not details of an actual violent crime, or some sick and twisted violent fantasy (true present opinion and belief.) What a crybaby (yes, rhetorical. But it has more than a grain of truth.)

I have likely gone so long here that I should stop now. But there are many other examples of this sort of insane hypocritical rhetoric coming from the teabagging terrorists and their enablers. Let them whine about "The New Civility." Let 'em. My thought earlier this morning -- I was specifically thinking of that over paid college drop out (accurate) Hannity. He's such a hypocrite (truth) that if he were forbidden from ever employing rhetoric on either his radio or TV show, they would consist of nothing more than reading AP or UPI wire stories. Because between his bullshit, his usual guests' bullshit, and his callers' bullshit, there's not much there but for rhetoric. And that my friends is the baseline of the right wing. (Special note here. "Bullshit," is not necessarily a rhetorical device. At least according to Professor Harry Frankfurt. See his long form essay,"On Bullshit.")

Now before anyone says,"Your team uses rhetoric too." I will admit. Yes. Everyone does. But discourse on that other side of the fence is at such a low level that there really is not much substance there. It's nearly all rhetoric, nearly all the time. And that is why anyone on the right who is bitching and moaning about the tea bagger terrorists being called terrorists? All I have to say to them is the following:

Could you be MORE hypocritical? (Sarcastic rhetoric, but not a rhetorical question, there.)

Edit to add:

My follow up, as I watched a clip of some bullshit discussion on Fox from yesterday, where the hypocrite Fox host and the hypocrite wing nut radio host continued with the false equivalence. And oddly enough the wing nut radio head said Allen West was "accurate" with his personal attack on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (way to prove being a hypocrite.) That execrable performance led me to formulating the following rule of thumb.

The two prongs of the "If Not Going Too Far, Per Se, at Least Worth Complaining About," rule are as follows. Either something should be (1) such a blatant, non sequitur of a cheap shot personal attack, or worse, or (2) some violent rhetoric that is so far outside the plebian lexicon that it could not pass for (qualitatively, comparably) a line in a high school cheer, in order to be considered complaint-worthy.

I am recognizing two important realities about the American Lexicon. All insults are not created equal. And even if violent rhetoric is the worst, by class, some of that stuff is so deeply entrenched in the lexicon, that to whine about it makes one a crybaby. For example, if a rival calls you a crybaby, that’s no foul. And whining about it is per se evidence of being an actual crybaby. If your election rival says they plan to whoop ya, that is not a foul. Whining about that is evidence of being a crybaby.

See how it works?

A Non White Spiderman. I Was Waiting for Some Racist-y Wing Nut to Complain. And Along Comes Glenn Fapping Beck.

Beck Wants a Traditional White Spiderman, Sorta.

I'm not comic book people. When my sixth grade classmates were still reading Spiderman, I had moved on to the NY Times. (Not bragging. That's when I started with the political junkie stuff. And the Watergate stuff was just heating up.) I would not be caught dead at a Comicon unless I was there to work, as paid staff, or there to promote some project in which I participated. So I only know about the whole 'Ultimate" series of Marvel because some comix people explained it to me, and mostly because I read some other article that explained it, yesterday.

But this recent flap just reminds me of the racist-y whining before Kenneth Brannaugh's "Thor" came out. Because one of the Norse Gods in Asgard was played by a negro man. Because some people get all spastic when their notions of race centric cultural norms are challenged. Hey. It's freaking Gods. Some are so powerful they can change forms. Why limit them to one shade of skin, but for some observers' racist brain damage?

Bringing us back to Non White Spidey. The Marvel "Ultimate" universe is a different than the classic context universe. So anything goes there. So it's not weird for Peter Parker to die, and some half Black, half Hispanic kid takes over the web shooters and the spandex-y suit. Anything goes , there. So when I see some (already exposed as a wing nut racist) idiot like Beck whining about the damage to "tradition," all I see is a racist jerk who goes batshit insane because his racist cultural biases were challenged.

And this is not a matter of such importance that it rises to National Mythology. We are not talking about rewriting the Tales of the Brother's Grimm, or anything like that. I't a freaking comic book, for crying out loud! Get some perspective, asshole.

Now I should note that Beck in the audio says he doesn't care if there's a half Black Spidey, bla bla yadda. If that's the case, why have the segment at all? But he comes across as insincere as the person who says, with contempt dripping in their voice, "With all due respect . . . ," and then goes on to say something contemptible. How his deranged brain links this up to Michelle Obama is evidence of some serious cognitive dysfunction, if you as me. Making anything as trivial as a barely if even 50 year old comic strip part of social/national "Tradition," is pretty messed up, with out the racist/bigotry multiplier factor.

Note for Mr. Beck. The entire "Ultimate," line of Marvel Comics is not new, and not part of some PC conspiracy. It's pure capitalism. Marvel made the decision to expand comix sales into new markets. So the anything goes in Ultimate Universe paradigm allows Marvel to potentially reach any niche market, and maximize sales and profits. Ya racist moron!

Oh. Getting back to "Thor" for a minute. The god played by the negro man was Valhalla's guard of the bridge, Heimdallr. He had to stay on post all the time. All day, all night. Did not get to go to the fancy parties. Did not even get some time off to take a Valkyrie on a Battlefield Date. So it's not like he had the most glamorous gig there. But he did have awesome powers!

Follow up re Tea Bagger Terrorist Crybabies.

Beyond my amusement, specifically, at Mrs. Palin's increasingly desperate and buffoonish attempts to be relevant again, it's interesting to note how hyper sensitive lots of the tea bagger terrorists are about being so described. Reminds me of the bullshit euphemism,"Enhanced Interrogation." So what do they want us to call the legislative tactic employed in the debt fight?

Enhanced Leveraged Negotiation by way of Threat of National if not Global Calamity.


But it's not economic terrorism. No not that. Calling it that hurts are feelings.