RIGHT WINGERS DISCOVER POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

In a move of tactical brilliance, two frequent targets of PMW’s wrath (Right Wing Wackos and PC Nonsense) have united in an unlikely and uneasy truce. On Friday, Sarah Palin demanded that comedian David Letterman apologize for a joke about A-Rod knocking up her daughter at a Yankees game. But not to her or her family! He is supposed to apologize to all the young women of America, who are apparently suffering emotional scarring from his sexism.


While Letterman’s joke was not very funny, Palin's call for an apology is wrong on so many levels.

1. THE WRONG VICTIM: The person in this joke we should focus on is first-class douche Alex Rodriguez. After burning the city of Seattle, making millions in Texas, becoming a Yankee, cheating on his wife, testing positive steroids, and pretty much being a terrible human being, we need to focus the negative energy on HIM. I have repeatedly called for the Mainstream Media to leave the Palins alone, as I am sick of hearing about them.

2. PC NONSENSE: David Letterman told a joke. I’m shocked, SHOCKED, that a late-night talk show host would make a crude sexual joke. This has never happened before. Seriously? Look, if you don’t like inappropriate jokes, you should unplug your TV and throw it out the window (hopefully hitting A-Rod).

3. EPIC HYPOCRISY: Right Wingers (and, let’s face it, most people in the world) are no strangers to hypocrisy, but this is just a completely new level. The GOP is supposed to be the Party of Rugged Individualists. Badass Southerners and Westerner Pioneers. Tough Bastards in off-roading Jeeps, with their friends riding shotgun like in the old days, with an actual shotgun. Now, Sarah Palin is turning them into the Party of Thin Skin. Meek Children offended by everything. The Right suddenly cares about sexism when their biggest star is a woman. Hmmmm. After hearing them over the years mock any Democrats who suggested something was sexist or politically incorrect, this is just hilarious to watch.

VERDICT: DO NOT APOLOGIZE, DAVID LETTERMAN. Your joke was stupid, but Palin’s reaction was even stupider. In fact, I call on David Letterman to make fun of Palin every night until she shuts up and stops using phony outrage to get more media coverage. Spare the daughter, foil the mother.

**UPDATE

Letterman has apologized, which is sad. However, anti-PC hero Bill Mahr is backing us up, arguing that he knows Letterman, he's not a pervert, and there was no reason for Letterman to apologize. Thanks, Bill!

***UPDATE II
Gail Collins at the New York Times has my back as well.

"Recently, during a dust-up with David Letterman, Palin once again violated the cardinal rule for famous parents who want to shield their children from the media, which is, of course, don’t talk about your children to the media.

She is perhaps the only celebrity in America who does not understand that if a late show host makes a tasteless joke about your daughter, the worst possible response is to complain loudly until it’s certain the entire universe knows your child was insulted, all the while making the joke sound even more offensive than it was."

ADMIN UPDATE: Waco Returns…the Rest of PMW is MIA

Greetings PMW Nation

Waco, here. I’m back, baby! We nearly went a month without posting. I was swamped with the very end of classes and then I was out of town. I got back and checked into the PMW office, but the entire staff is gone. They've abandoned me! Everyone’s life is crazy right now I suppose.

I can’t say if we’ll get this ship back on course or go down in flames, but we’ll at least have someone cover the confirmation for Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. Will the Republicans mount a risky attack on her? Will they alienate all Latinos, who are already voting Democrat more and more? Hispanicdotal evidence also suggests an electoral shift. We’ll have the coverage here.

Thanks to our loyal readers. I’ll try to track down the staff so you can keep reading hilarious (or mediocre) posts and as always, please submit your guest posts. Although it appears even our commenters are gone (LeVar and Jonathan are no doubt watching Star Trek over and over again, which to be fair was a good movie).

Cheers

The Waco Kid

MADAME FAILURE: Nancy Pelosi sucks at life

It was nice to see a lady elected speaker of the house in 2006 (congress is SUCH a Sausagefest), but despite her party having both houses since 2006 she seems incapable of accomplishing anything. Yes, until recently, Bush could veto everything in his final two years of lame duckery, but she didn’t even make him veto many bills. He bullied with her with his “don’t waste America’s time with legislation I’ll veto” line, so she just ran the clock out on his presidency. If congress has to wait for a Democratic president to get elected, then it is useless and powerless.

Nancy, it’s your job to find ways to assert congress’s authority as a co-equal branch of government (or at least pretend congress has power). The word we use for people who can’t do their job is FAILURE!

Now, Pelosi is caught in this C.I.A scandal. Basically, the story is…well, I forget, it’s stupid and I’m tired of hearing about it. The point is, I don’t think she did anything wrong, I think she’s just an idiot. Frankly, the Democrats should hope that she gets censured and has to step down as Speaker, and then hope that her replacement sucks less.

THIS JUST IN: Mike Huckabee (R-Fox News) has written a poem about Nancy Pelosi called “Fancy Nancy,” about how much she sucks. Excerpt:

She sat in briefings and knew about enhanced interrogation
But claims she wasn't there, and can't give an explanation.
She disparages the CIA and says they are a bunch of liars
Even the press aren't buying it and they're stoking their fires.

Well I wrote a poem for Mike Huckbee

Rose are red
Violets are blue
I suck at poetry
But I’m better than you


Anyways…

LESSON TO BE LEARNED: Stop putting people from the most liberal parts of the nation in party leadership roles. They don’t know how to do anything. To get elected in San Francisco by a bunch of hippies, Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have to do shit. Most of the San Francisco electorate is stoned during any election. They all show up and pull the lever for the “D” candidate (hoping it stands for “DIME BAG,” but they always accept the outcome later).

Similarly, John Kerry was awful at campaigning because he came from Massachusetts, where nobody cares how liberal you are or asks you tough questions. This is the state where Republican Mitt Romney said he was a stronger supporter of gay rights than Ted Kennedy. According to a PMW/Daily Planet poll, when asked their stance on gay rights, Bostonians answered:

8%: I stand proudly for homosexual rights

5%: I’m watching Glenn Beck, don’t bother me.

87%: I’m watchin’ the Sox. Piss off!

But, I can hear you asking, what about Barack Obama? He comes from Chicago, as blue as San Francisco or Massachusetts. Excellent question. Obama defied logic here for many reasons. First, he has magical powers, or at least we hope he does. Face it, as the economy goes deeper and deeper into the shitter, you’re hopin’ like hell that he’s the Messiah (Make it stop, Lord, please!).

Second, having lived in Chicago (aka the Most Corrupt Place Ever), let me tell you: Politics is not dominated by Democrats or Liberals or Hippies or Commies. It’s dominated by Corruption. Mayor Daley built a corrupt empire, then mentored Rod Blagojevich, now an infamous example of the Windy City (which is actually named for its politicians’ hot air, although the wind will also knock you on your ass from time to time).

Finally, Obama grew up on the South Side of Chicago. If you can survive that, you can do anything. I used to think a black man getting elected president would be very difficult, but having lived on the South Side, I realize the hardest day as president will be a piece of cake for Obama. No matter what happens, he has secret service. On the South Side, you can be shot in the face at any moment (skipping obvious Dick Cheney joke). This is like an easy retirement for Barack, and I say he deserves it. He should be able to get a lot done as president, as long as the bumbling Speaker of the House stays out of his way!

ADMIN UPDATE: First 100 Days

This is the make or break time for Obama. The success of his entire presidency has been realized in these first 100 days. FDR, Reagan, all of the successful presidents wrapped things up during this time. To see how he’s doing during this crucial time, this new PMW poll measures public approval of Obama.

He has secured his place as a great president: 5%

It’s really early, but he’s done fine so far I guess: 70%

He’s destroying the country/I’m watching Glenn Beck: 12%

I can’t comment, I’m eating a tofu scramble: 5%

I can’t comment, I’m at a Ron Paul convention: 3%

LOL, everyone is talking about tea bagging: 5%

Thanks for reading, everyone. The PMW Staff is busy with their day jobs (or looking for day jobs), so you may hear less and less from us. Unless, of course, things get really bad, because unemployed people always have time to blog!!! Good luck to you all. Hopefully the next 100 days are better for everyone than the last 100 days.

Cheers

PMW Staff

GAYS ROB SOME CALI CHICK OF CROWN!

Miss California, Carrie Prejean, has complained that she came in #2 and not #1 in the Miss USA pageant because when pageant judge Perez Hilton (Gay-FL) asked her if she thought gays should be able to marry, she said no. She now feels that political correctness (well-known enemy of PMW) has robbed her of her crown. And by the transitive property, gay people have robbed her of that crown. But she says she feels like a winner (and that is totally not a lame thing to say). So why does she deserve this? Let me count the ways. Now I didn’t watch the pageant, because…pageants are dumb, but here goes…

1. It is a beauty pageant. Did it never occur to you that, at an event so fabulous, gay people might be there? Yes, I know, you talk to men, and they usually don’t listen. Fair point. But the gay people, I’m guessing, were listening. Just a hunch. I’m not going to perpetuate the beauty queen stereotype by calling you stupid, but you are pretty much doing the work for me.
2. What the hell kind of name is Prejean? (Kind of sounds like Prejudge). How do you even say that? Is that French? Oh, I’m sorry, am I being intolerant? How insensitive of me.
3. "I see where he was coming from and I see the audience would've wanted me to be more politically correct, but I was raised in a way that you can never compromise your beliefs and your opinions for anything." Actually, that’s respectable and honorable. You should always stand up for what you believe. Moreover, you’re fighting for what you believe is right, showing virtue and devotion that would make Rod Blagojevich proud. You keep fighting the good fight and one day you’ll be able to say you delayed the acceptance of gays a little longer. I know it’s hard only being considered the second most beautiful girl in America, but hang in there, kiddo, you’ll be fine. And when you get divorced in...probably 5-10 years, you can try to blame the gays for that, too.

Walker Texas President???

On March 9, 2009, Chuck Norris blogged

“On Glenn Beck's radio show last week, I quipped in response to our wayward federal government, ‘I may run for president of Texas.’

That need may be a reality sooner than we think. If not me, someone someday may again be running for president of the Lone Star state, if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state.

From the East Coast to the "Left Coast," America seems to be moving further and further from its founders' vision and government.”

I sincerely hope this speech was intended for the Bush administration, but somehow got delayed. Norris proceeds to quote the founding fathers in attempts to paint Obama’s stimulus plan and then hints that a second American revolution should be considered.

“I'm not saying that other states won't muster the gumption to stand and secede, but Texas has the history to prove it. As most know, Texas was its own country before it joined the Union as its 28th state. From 1836 to 1846, Texas was its own Republic.”

This is a serious problem. Chuck Norris, as everyone knows, is a black belt. He’s Walker Texas Ranger! That wasn’t trick photography. He’s a badass. He kicks people’s asses just for fun. You can’t mess with this man. He could certainly kick my ass.

To stop Obama from turning America into a defenseless Commie Share Camp, Chuck Norris will command an entire army and they will rise against the forces of…bailouts or taxes or something. They’re all buying guns, too, at record rates. They think Obama will ban all guns, apparently. Norris and his army will start a revolution and he will take back his country. NO ONE CAN STOP THIS MAN! NOT A SINGLE HUMAN BEING ON THIS PLANET! Except…

This man is our only hope. We’ll have to pardon him from his torture charges (isn’t that what’s happening on the show? After years of awesomeness, I finally lost interest). The scary part is the way this has already occurred in internet lore. I thought those Jack Bauer vs. Chuck Norris webpages were just hilarious nonsense. Apparently, they predicted the next great battle of our time. It will not be Obama v. Palin or Santelli v. Stewart or Wolverine v. Sabertooth, NO!

Get me Jack Bauer! Get his ass over here, now. It’s time to plan for war. One American hero against another. But give him a ride, please, just in case. The man has a drinking problem and he doesn’t need a third strike on his record.

The Waco Kid v. Motley Fool v. Jon Stewart v. Jim Cramer

The interwebs are buzzing with different takes on the Jon Stewart-Jim Cramer Cable TV Smackdown. Legendary MSM basher Eric Alterman argues that Jon Stewart (single-handed killer of Crossfire) and Steven Colbert (White House Correspondents Dinner) are two of the most influential and important figures in political media, and this makes a third victory for the forces of reason over the idiocy of the MSM.

“Stewart and Colbert have done yeoman work for the rest of us by exposing the thoughtlessness of the punditocracy's perpetual-motion machine, which spins itself silly powered only by hot air.”

Tim Hanson at financial blog Motley Fool dismisses the interview as amateur hackery and accuses Stewart of insinuating that long-term investing doesn't work. He continues:

“Rather than be angry, let's recognize that the stock market, like most human endeavors, is flawed. There will be disasters and blow-ups from time to time, just as there will be bubbles. Let's use this as an opportunity to educate more Americans about how to take control of their finances and ignore the market's manic day-to-day movements. The solution is not to scare Americans into thinking the stock market is some Ponzi scheme controlled by immoral cretins that can never work for them.”

Money issues are not my area of expertise, but I did watch the interview twice, so here goes.

In no way did Jon Stewart say long-term investing does not work. No sane person would say that. He basically said just what the author says: "let's recognize that the stock market, like most human endeavors, is flawed." Stewart also said, "If it's too good to be true, it probably is." Stewart was mostly talking about the financial schemes where they tell you you'll get rich quick, not long term investing. They were talking about his mother who is 75, so there's not much long-term investing there.

Stewart is angry, and the author is right that anger is counterproductive, but a lot of Cramer's comments made it really sound like people behind the scenes knew this stuff was risky and passed it off as easy money, which would obviously make people angry, whether you think it's their own fault or not. Jon Stewart's original argument, that he harped on all week before the interview, was that Santelli is a fucking idiot (which the author admits) and that CNBC "is not good at hard-hitting reporting" (which the author admits).

At a certain point, it's true that it's counterproductive for Stewart to be overly pessimistic about the market. The difference is Jon Stewart is just a comedian and more people care about what CNBC says about the market. So I think it's totally unfair to say Stewart is "scaring Americans into thinking the stock market is some Ponzi scheme," especially when he's having less affect than CNBC. It's also unfair to scold Stewart for being overly pessimistic while giving CNBC a pass for being overly optimistic, especially when way more people care what CNBC says about the market.

Ultimately, this was all for show. Cramer is just an entertainer too, and the whole thing was about ratings. I think it was more substantive than most news only because so much of the news focuses on gossip and stories like "Obama disparaged the Special Olympics" or "John McCain misspoke today." So, it's fair to say Stewart got too angry. But his main argument was the CNBC was giving bad advice, has silly promos like "In Cramer We Trust," and Santelli sounded like an idiot. It's fair to say the argument was trivial, but I disagree that it was counterproductive.

Finally, he was really hard on Cramer, and this recession is not Cramer’s fault, but Stewart did make it clear multiple times that Cramer is kind of a scapegoat and this “feud” between them was manufactured by the media.