Random thoughts on technology, business, economics, new media, politics, local affairs in the Capital Region, music, the collapse of community, the corruption of the American Dream, fighting the evil bastards amongst us and suggestions for fixing this fucking mess.
"I ain't here to make friends, cowboy; I'm here to tell you the ugly truth. So you might as well get out of that warm bed and deal with it."
Meet Basil Marceaux, who miraculously accomplishes what no one thought possible: making Sarah Palin appear at least half-way coherent.
25 comments:
Anonymous
said...
In the 3rd video he said something (I think) along the lines of making everyone carry a gun, and then if 25 or more people have a gripe, they should grab their guns and come visit the governor, and because he would be outnumbered "10to 1" in that instance, they would get their way?
Did I hear that correctly? It's hard to understand his mumblng.
He sure fills the role of a good hero for the Tea Party doesn't he?
Yes, this guy is an easy mark for our yankee-esque elitism. However, I believe you miss the point entirely.
Anyone who wants to run for office should be able to, regardless of socio-economic or educational background. In fact the citizens themselves are supposed to be a part of the government, at least in theory.
Obviously this guy has enough sense to not only be disenchanted with his current form of government, but he has the gumption to actually do something about it. What's wrong with that? We should all be so lucky.
I imagine I would actually enjoy hanging out with this character and wouldn't hesitate to do so.
Yes, credit should be given for his willingness to get involved.
But at the same time he can't be given a free pass for extolling universal gun ownerhip (even for criminals) and whatever the hell he was saying about giving-in to demands whenever 25 people show up to outnumber him. Can we? lol
Yes, his red folksiness makes him an easy (and maybe even unfair) target, as you suggest.
But isn't it about time we pushed back against the right's personality (as opposed to policy)-driven approach to power politics? Doesn't rational and coherent public policy count any more?
I mean: if they're going to insult us with the lipstick on a pig called Palin and the screaming lunatics of the broadcast news networks, don't we call a few bluffs here?
Need phone numbers? Just call any of the rabid right talk show hosts' call in numbers. In years past we would have institutionalized or jailed these lunatics. Or in Beck's case, jailed them as co artists.
I could call some of the 'rabid' talk shows but I doubt I would get on. Screeners are trained to put on the crazies and the inane for a reason, it makes for a fun show.
When you say the rabid right, you are not specific so I don't know who you might be referring to. I don't listen to Glen Beck because I am a die hard Al Roney fan.
Even though I do not agree with his stance on homosexuality or immigration I do listen to Mike Savage, of all the talking heads out there, he is the most credible and certainly the most educated.
He is a talking head for no one and no political party unlike many others. When he goes off the air so does the illusion of freedom of speech in this country.
oh yeah, regarding your comment on con-artists: anyone could be perceived as a con-artist in the nation we live in. For as long as we allow liars to operate with impunity thats the nation we will continue to have.
Think about it, look at how many professions can and are perceived as cons: public school administrators, lawyers, politicians, tv and movie executives, investment bankers, insurance agents, real estate agents, I could go on but I will stop there.
I admit to not being familiar with Mr Roney, but I will make a point of tuning-in for a listen soon. However, it is my understanding that he is a figurehead for some variation of the local Tea Party, so he has "lot's of 'splaining to do", in my boook at least.
As for Savage, I will add some thoughts on that traitor into the WIP piece that should appear here in the next few days.
But I am baffled by your last paragraph. You state "he is the talking head for no one." I would argue that he is the talking head for an easily identifiable demo/psycho-graphic in the current American landscape. Are you arguing that only formally organized political parties can have talking heads? If so, we disagree.
Furthermore, how does this individual get treated as the poster child of freedom of speech?
Let's face facts: the reason that Rush, Beck, Hannity and (especially) Savage have sizable audiences is because of their in-your-face broadcast style. Period. It's pure and simple show biz--if they limited themselves to publishing position papers for a think tank, you and I would have never heard of any of them.
It's all part of our national decay and race to the bottom. American Idol becomes the pulse of the nation's musical preferences; a trip to the mall becomes family time; Thomas Kincaid prints adorn more living rooms than any real artists, and mouthy radio hacks spewing lowest common denominator nonsense to the "give it to me in ten seconds" masses becomes the de facto standard for public policy discussion.
All of it driven home by the 'cheap is good / consume, consume, consume / dumb it down' corporate messaging machine. A liberal media, they claim? My ass it is.
My point: going off the rails in a fit of outrage -- in and by itself -- does not somehow put you to the top of the heap as a Freedom of Speech advocate or case study. It's like my claiming to be a journalism genius just because I am authoring this stupid blog. I need to earn that disctinction (don't hold your breath).
Does Savage have a right to speak his verbal garbage? Yes; of course. Do others have a right to point out his lunacy? Yes, of course.
But here's the bottom line: if he disappered from the airwaves tomorrow, would the quality and depth of public discourse suddenly be greater or weaker?
Unfortunately, when a local radio program manager is making a decision to carry the syndicated Savage show, he's not approaching it from that angle. He's looking at the licensing cost as compared to his other options (goodbye local production)and matching messages to audience.
The result? A Mike Savage is on many hundreds of stations daily, and the retired, white, working class shut-in audience has someone offering the play-by-play for a world they haven't been an active part of for some time.
25 comments:
In the 3rd video he said something (I think) along the lines of making everyone carry a gun, and then if 25 or more people have a gripe, they should grab their guns and come visit the governor, and because he would be outnumbered "10to 1" in that instance, they would get their way?
Did I hear that correctly? It's hard to understand his mumblng.
He sure fills the role of a good hero for the Tea Party doesn't he?
Whats with that badge? Reminds me of that rapper with the clock around his neck. But even dumber.
Nanoburgh:
Yes, this guy is an easy mark for our yankee-esque elitism. However, I believe you miss the point entirely.
Anyone who wants to run for office should be able to, regardless of socio-economic or educational background. In fact the citizens themselves are supposed to be a part of the government, at least in theory.
Obviously this guy has enough sense to not only be disenchanted with his current form of government, but he has the gumption to actually do something about it. What's wrong with that? We should all be so lucky.
CN: fair points and well said.
I imagine I would actually enjoy hanging out with this character and wouldn't hesitate to do so.
Yes, credit should be given for his willingness to get involved.
But at the same time he can't be given a free pass for extolling universal gun ownerhip (even for criminals) and whatever the hell he was saying about giving-in to demands whenever 25 people show up to outnumber him. Can we? lol
Yes, his red folksiness makes him an easy (and maybe even unfair) target, as you suggest.
But isn't it about time we pushed back against the right's personality (as opposed to policy)-driven approach to power politics? Doesn't rational and coherent public policy count any more?
I mean: if they're going to insult us with the lipstick on a pig called Palin and the screaming lunatics of the broadcast news networks, don't we call a few bluffs here?
hmmmmm. Re: calling a few bluffs
If you can get bluffs phone number, I might be willing to make the calls.
Need phone numbers? Just call any of the rabid right talk show hosts' call in numbers. In years past we would have institutionalized or jailed these lunatics. Or in Beck's case, jailed them as co artists.
I could call some of the 'rabid' talk shows but I doubt I would get on. Screeners are trained to put on the crazies and the inane for a reason, it makes for a fun show.
When you say the rabid right, you are not specific so I don't know who you might be referring to. I don't listen to Glen Beck because I am a die hard Al Roney fan.
Even though I do not agree with his stance on homosexuality or immigration I do listen to Mike Savage, of all the talking heads out there, he is the most credible and certainly the most educated.
He is a talking head for no one and no political party unlike many others. When he goes off the air so does the illusion of freedom of speech in this country.
oh yeah, regarding your comment on con-artists: anyone could be perceived as a con-artist in the nation we live in. For as long as we allow liars to operate with impunity thats the nation we will continue to have.
Think about it, look at how many professions can and are perceived as cons: public school administrators, lawyers, politicians, tv and movie executives, investment bankers, insurance agents, real estate agents, I could go on but I will stop there.
I must admit, though: the more I watch this guy, the more I like him!!!!!
CN,
I admit to not being familiar with Mr Roney, but I will make a point of tuning-in for a listen soon. However, it is my understanding that he is a figurehead for some variation of the local Tea Party, so he has "lot's of 'splaining to do", in my boook at least.
As for Savage, I will add some thoughts on that traitor into the WIP piece that should appear here in the next few days.
But I am baffled by your last paragraph. You state "he is the talking head for no one." I would argue that he is the talking head for an easily identifiable demo/psycho-graphic in the current American landscape. Are you arguing that only formally organized political parties can have talking heads? If so, we disagree.
Furthermore, how does this individual get treated as the poster child of freedom of speech?
Let's face facts: the reason that Rush, Beck, Hannity and (especially) Savage have sizable audiences is because of their in-your-face broadcast style. Period. It's pure and simple show biz--if they limited themselves to publishing position papers for a think tank, you and I would have never heard of any of them.
It's all part of our national decay and race to the bottom. American Idol becomes the pulse of the nation's musical preferences; a trip to the mall becomes family time; Thomas Kincaid prints adorn more living rooms than any real artists, and mouthy radio hacks spewing lowest common denominator nonsense to the "give it to me in ten seconds" masses becomes the de facto standard for public policy discussion.
All of it driven home by the 'cheap is good / consume, consume, consume / dumb it down' corporate messaging machine. A liberal media, they claim? My ass it is.
My point: going off the rails in a fit of outrage -- in and by itself -- does not somehow put you to the top of the heap as a Freedom of Speech advocate or case study. It's like my claiming to be a journalism genius just because I am authoring this stupid blog. I need to earn that disctinction (don't hold your breath).
Does Savage have a right to speak his verbal garbage? Yes; of course. Do others have a right to point out his lunacy? Yes, of course.
But here's the bottom line: if he disappered from the airwaves tomorrow, would the quality and depth of public discourse suddenly be greater or weaker?
Unfortunately, when a local radio program manager is making a decision to carry the syndicated Savage show, he's not approaching it from that angle. He's looking at the licensing cost as compared to his other options (goodbye local production)and matching messages to audience.
The result? A Mike Savage is on many hundreds of stations daily, and the retired, white, working class shut-in audience has someone offering the play-by-play for a world they haven't been an active part of for some time.
I need some time to process your comments before I get back to you.
I don't know what to make of your deleted comments.
Regarding the 'deleted comments' (above):
For some reason, the system posted duplicate copies of my 10:58 entry.
We cleaned up that mess by deleting the extras.
I'll vote for this dude! He can't do any worse than the clowns in there now.
He's Basil Marceux Dotcom.
You got my vote, Mr Dotcom.
That has to be a comment planted by someone trying to make the Tea Party appear racist, right?
Nope, he's real. Given the remarks and the Troy and Patriot references, I'm 90% sure of who it is.
But his lovely wife is deserving of sainthood. The big mutt that's trained to fetch the paper is pretty neat, too!
Basil is the MAN!
Post a Comment