So Big Hollywood has been going after Rock the Vote lately. I’m not entirely sure why, other than that it’s an election year. If the whole ACORN mess taught us anything (and it didn’t), it’s that assholes like those in BREITBART’S CREW just flat-out don’t want more people to vote.
Resident in-house ummmmm artist Alvaro Alvillar went so far as to post this awesome piece the other day, clearly created in the version of MS Paint that shipped with Windows 95. The Big Hollywood position isn’t “Vote!”; it’s “Get smart, then vote.” In this context, Alvillar’s implying that A) young people are stupid, and, B) if you haven’t had the requisite indoctrination, you are not qualified to vote.
Being the crazy LIBTARD that I am, I actually think that everyone has the right to vote, and everyone should be free to exercise it as he or she sees fit. If the self-styled martyrs at Big Hollywood think the voting public is insufficiently educated as to the evils of the NEA, NOW, the SEIU, the United Nations, socialism, and um, “transparency,” and “steal,” that’s not a failure on the part of the voting public to “get smart,” that’s a failure on the part of the BREITBART’S CREW to get their message out without looking like crazy people.
But anyhow, that’s not what this post is about. This post is about Pam Meister, Internet Detective.
Back in December, Rock the Vote came out with a video featuring Eva Amurri and Zach Gilford – who the hell are they, anyway? Guess I’m not young enough to rock — and a bunch of other unknown wannabe actors encouraging young people to “rock the vote” by withholding sexual favors from anyone who dares to believe that a government takeover of health insurance is a bad thing.
Oh yeah, I remember that video. Why are we talking about it now that the health bill is stalled? Whatever. Also, Zach Gilford is fucking awesome. I’m always a little surprised that conservatives don’t give Friday Night Lights more love. It’s about a strong nuclear family with a tough and eminently capable patriarch going around being traditional and awesome, all deep in the heart of red-state country. I guess there’s not enough Muslim-bashing or something.
Traditionally used to sell items like beer and aftershave, sex is now being utilized to encourage citizens to give in to an unconstitutional take over of one sixth of the American economy. Has sex really become that commonplace and tacky?
Yes, sex has become exactly that “commonplace and tacky.” Where has Meister been since, oh, I don’t know, the invention of communication? And I find “commonplace” a bizarre word-choice there. Sex should be… rare? elusive? zah?
Rock the Vote is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Because of their tax status, non-profits are…
…prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Basically, what this means is that non-profits can’t come out and say, “Vote for so-and-so,” or “Vote NO on this proposition,” or “Tell your senator to vote yes/no!” However, voter education activities are not prohibited if they are conducted in a non-partisan manner.
Tell me exactly how a group that comes out and tells people to support the current form of “health care reform” is non-partisan.
Happy to oblige! Issues-based advocacy is different from political advocacy, ie, 501(3)(c)s can advocate for health care, but they can’t advocate for Obama. That’s a pretty simple distinction, one that the IRS makes here.
Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.
It’s pretty telling that Meister simply can’t fathom a difference between policy and politics.
But, just in case that’s not clear, here’s a quick (obviously incomplete) list of conservative organization with 501(c)(3) status, found after 5 seconds of googling: The Cato Institute, The Conservative Caucus Research Foundation, the American Conservative Union, the m’fucking Christian Coalition. Not to mention the many churches and other religious organizations that advocate against gay rights and still enjoy 501(c)(3) status, or the host of other conservative organizations that enjoy tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status.
Enough tax code, though, things really get good when Meister goes deep cover to expose the LIBTARDS behind Rock the Vote’s insidious efforts to engage young people in the process of governance.
According to Ayeroff’s TimeWarner bio, he is “Co-Chairman of Rock the Vote, a non-partisan, non-profit organization he founded in 1989 in response to a wave of political attacks on freedom of speech and artistic expression. Rock the Vote is dedicated to protecting freedom of expression and helping young people realize and utilize their power to affect change in the civic and political lives of their communities. To date, the organization has registered more than a million young people to vote.”
Take a look at Ayeroff’s campaign contributions for 2008 – nary a Republican in sight. And back in 2007, following the Dixie Chicks brouhaha and their subsequent sympathy win at the Grammys, theNew York Times said that “Ayeroff, a longtime music executive and an academy member, said the resounding endorsement of the group reflected the fact that the academy represents ‘the artist community, which was very angry at what radio did, because it was not very American.’ Mr. Ayeroff said he voted for the Dixie Chicks in at least one category.”
What, voting with your wallet is un-American? And since the government doesn’t control radio – yet – it’s up to radio stations to decide if they want to play music from a particular group or not. Besides, when’s the last time we heard from the Dixie Chicks? Is Ayeroff still a big fan? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Actually, it’s hard for me to think of an issue I care less about than Ayeroff’s ties to the goddamn Dixie Chicks. And his personal political contributions are evidence of what, exactly? That he’s a Democrat? That disqualifies him from running a charitable organization the simply registers people to vote (in a highly-regulated and non-partisan manner), how?
I won’t belabor the point by rehashing all the googling Meister does for various RtV board members. One’s Linked-in profile says she’s in favor of high-speed rail! Quelle horror! One advocates against coal power! Hitler!
One was… present on election night?
In the question and answer portion of the bio, Smith is asked what the “biggest explosion you have ever seen/caused” is. Her answer? “Rallies, spontaneous dancing, and other expressions of pent of hope and fear and frustration and happiness on Election Night 2008… I was at the White House.” So, was she amongst the mob who was screaming at George W. Bush “na na hey hey goodbye” and people saying such tasteful things as “you can suck my **** Bush“? That certainly gives Smith her non-partisan props, wouldn’t you say?
She was in the same room as people who said mean things about Bush. We’ve uncovered something big, here, guys. Get Glenn Beck on the phone!
I just want to address one thing really quickly:
How can a group whose stated mission is “is to engage and build the political power of young people in order to achieve progressive change in our country” possibly run a “non-partisan voter registration campaign”?
RtV has registered millions of young conservatives. RtV holds events at the GOP conventions, has young Republican street teams, and conducts polls on the issues important to young Republicans.
Steven Crowder is doing some quality trolling today with a headline like “Poor People Can Be Greedy Too”. Judging from the url, it looks like the Big Hollywood editorial staff wisely trimmed Crowder’s original title, “Poor People Can Be Greedy Scumbags Too.”
Ever notice that the chronically poor nearly always share one thing in common? They are some of the most greedy SOB’s on the planet. I know it seems sacrilegious to say so. You’re just not supposed to criticize the poor.
Yeah, they’re always trying to get “food” and “shelter.” Greedy fucks.
Now, I hate to throw a Proverb at you (particularly as it’s not of the trendy Chinese variety, but one of those scary Old Testament scribbles) but no matter what your faith, I would imagine that Proverbs 28: 22 would still have to be incredibly insightful.
A stingy man is eager to get rich and is unaware that poverty awaits him.
See, God isn’t condemning rich people. He’s condemning actions followed by a solemn warning of where they would lead. God seems to think that actions are a reflection of your heart. He’s a freaky dude when it comes to that kind of thing. Yes, I said “dude.” Feminists, start sending your letters.
Now statistically, it’s true. Poor people (particularly liberals) donate a lower percentage of their income than middle and upper-class Americans. To be fair, they have less to give… But then I guess it becomes the whole “chicken or the egg” deal. Do they have less to give because they’re stingy/greedy, or are they greedy because they have less to give?
The poor don’t… give enough money to the poor? What? And what does that random Proverb have to do with a goddamn thing? Seems to me the Bible actually addresses the question of poverty and charity pretty directly:
He sat down opposite the treasury and observed how the crowd put money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. A poor widow also came and put in two small coins worth a few cents. Calling his disciples to himself, he said to them, “Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury. For they have all contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood. (NAB, Mark 12:41-44)
I agree with Crowder, though, that actions can reflect the heart. So what does writing sarcastic blog posts attacking the least privileged members of society say about his? Oh wait, the Bible has something to say on that, too:
Amen, I say to you, whatever you did to one of these least brothers of mine, that you did unto me. (NAB, Matthew 25:40)
Re: John Nolte’s yawn-inducing list of the Top 25 Christmas Films. It’s a third unassailably canonical Golden-era shit that no one actually enjoys watching, a third treacly and/or poorly-aged family films, and a third various versions of A Christmas Carol.
But it’s biggest flaw?
No motherfucking Die Hard. He’s probably just mad that Hans Gruber wasn’t a Muslim.
Yep, that’s Big Hollywood‘s Steven Crowder throwin’ up the air quotes for
If you believe in the modern concept of “peace,” you might be an idiot.
Definitely one of the more lazy and ridiculous examples of BH’s reliance on putting scare quotes around benign words and phrases to make them sound bad (though not as awesome as the time Crowder put scare quotes around the Virginia Tech shooter’s name).
When you strip away the crazy (and there’s a lot of it this time), the main thrust of Crowder’s argument–that war is sometimes necessary–is one that few people, even on the far left, would disagree with. I’m so old, in fact, I can remember when Republicans were largely isolationists. Liberals have spent years advocating for military intervention in a host of troubled regions: Sudan, Liberia, Rwanda, the Balkans, Somalia, etc. Not that I personally agree that military intervention would be/would have been/was the right call in all those situations, I’m just sayin’.
But it’s possible, I suppose, that Crowder’s not making his customary strawmanish “YOU LIBERALS…” argument, and that he’s narrowly criticizing the hardcore peace movement that opposes any military action.
If that’s what he wants to do, he goes about it in a bizarre way. First he does a couple so-bad-they-go-past-good-and-back-to-bad bits lampooning John Lennon (ooooo, burn, guy-who’s-been-dead-for-29-years) and reeling off some quick ad hominem attacks relating to Lennon’s personal life. That’s weird enough, but then he goes into the tired old John Birch Society conspiracy theory about the origins of the peace symbol. Next he’ll be freaking out about the pyramid on the $1 bill. National Treasure 3: Rise of the Lispy Canadian.
Now, if you want to criticize the peace movement, calling them crypto-anti-Christians is a pretty weird tactic, given the modern peace movement’s Christian roots. Apparently some people take that “love your enemies, do good to those who hate you” thing literally.
All that’s left to ask is what planet are these people from and how do we keep our children far, far away?
[Rihanna] admitted to being “humiliated” earlier this year when naked pictures of herself sent to an ex-boyfriend were posted online.
But she later shrugged off the episode, saying: “If you don’t send your boyfriend naked pictures, then I feel bad for him.” …
The 21 year-old said in an interview with The Sun: “Every woman should have naked pictures taken. In five years my body might not look like this.
“I’ve always been borderline raunchy and a little sexy. But sexy at 19 and sexy at 21 are two different things. I’m just having fun.”
Did shame go out with Eisenhower?
Apparently not! Because here you are trying to shame a woman over A) something that’s none of your goddamn business to begin with and B) the simple existence of her body. It be squicky enough if they were trying to shame her over a sex tape, but these are just naked photos.
Look, a woman who’s not filled with crippling shame at the sight of her naked body! And she even appears to enjoy her sexuality. Buuuuuurn her!
It is a little depressing that Rhianna seems to think she’ll be an unlovable hag by 26, though.