Posts Tagged ‘Greg Gutfeld’
I’ve generally given up posting about Greg Gutfeld’s (ugh) “Gregologues,” in part because they mostly conform to a link-oneliner-plug format that doesn’t leave a lot of room for discussion, and in part because he’s the one member of Big Hollywood‘s sub-Caroline-in-the-City comedy team who at least tries to crack jokes instead of acting like creepy, seething, passive-aggression is comedy. Maybe he’s only tolerable relative to the likes of Crowder, Jena, or Hudnall, but I’ve developed a bit of a soft spot for the big lug.
It must also be said, in the interest of giving credit where credit’s due, that Gutfeld is generally judicious when singling out figures or initiatives or soundbites from the left that are worthy of mockery. My usual reaction to his column goes something like, “Wow, it’s a little sad that Greg is 35 and still pining for the ol’ frat days, but yeah, that was a silly thing Obama said, there.”
Today, though he’s getting his smirk on because there’s a harmless GOTV video where Obama doesn’t pander enough to “middle-aged white dudes”:
So, for this upcoming November election, here’s an idea to help restore American strength and prosperity. White middle-aged men must band together and throw the idiots out.
That’s all there is to it.
At least, if I follow President Obama’s lead. For, in his mind, his victory requires splitting the populace apart – and only these folks matter: young people, African Americans, Latinos, and women.
I like how Gutfeld acts like “white middle-aged men must band together and throw the idiots out” hasn’t been his employer’s plan since, oh, I don’t know, Tax Day ’09. But that shit aside, the video Gutfeld links to is completely harmless. Obama talks about engaging and energizing people who didn’t normally vote before 2008, who came out specifically for him, and who are now in danger of slipping back into apathy.
Yes, that largely means women, black, Latinos, and young people. Now, it may surprise Gutfeld to learn that women alone account for over 50% of the population. Shocking! I did a quick-and-dirty calculation based on census data, and those groups combined account for about 72% of the US population.
But Obama actually spent two minutes directly addressing the majority of Americans, while not addressing its most privileged sub-sub-sub-group, “middle-aged white dudes,” so clearly he’s a racist.
Acknowledging that people other than “middle-aged white dudes” exist is not the same as excluding them! Is Gutfeld so used to seeing “middle-aged white dudes” pandered to that he can’t see the difference? Guys, he works for Fox.
I’ve been waiting patiently for a Big Hollywood contributor to weigh in on George Tiller’s murder (you may remember Doug TenNapel contributing to the O’Reilly-driven hysteria about Tiller’s clinic before his death). I expected the “one bad apple”/”can’t blame a political movement for the actions of one nutjob” etc etc argument, but it never materialized. Which is interesting, because BH posted several pieces making that case with respect to last week’s shootings at the Holocaust museum. Silence on Tiller, though. I wonder why?
The only piece to bring up the Tiller murder is one of Greg Gutfield’s daily dashed-off-between-burrito-bites “Gregologues,” which takes an angle I wasn’t expecting at all:
Am I wrong for not caring?
I mean, I know that soon there will be a movie about Tiller (not about William Long, of course), probably starring walking hairpiece Ted Danson. But I still don’t care. I mean, I know that killing Tiller is wrong. It’s murder. And if you’re against the killing of unborn children, you can’t just go out and kill a man, even if he kills unborn children.
But that still doesn’t explain why I don’t care. And I’m willing to bet that the rest of America – save the media – don’t care much either.
Why is that? It’s not about Tiller’s murder being wrong. I get that. That’s not the issue. This issue is, when you make priorities of “stuff that’s wrong” – is it more wrong to kill a dumpster full of viable babies, than to kill the doc who fills that dumpster?
Making fun of a just-murdered guy’s hair. Classy. Beyond that, though, Gutfeld is so busy thinking up fart jokes that it’s not really clear which argument he is trying to make. It’s either:
1) Tiller’s murder, while morally wrong, is not newsworthy.
2) Tiller’s murder, while morally wrong, is not worth discussing because he did something I think is worse.
If it’s 1), that’s a little hard to swallow given the fact that, to date, Big Hollywood has run 10 pieces on David Letterman’s Willow Palin joke, and a whopping 24 pieces on Miss California. And let’s not forget that piece about the institutional religious implications of Miley Cyrus. By those standards, I think the murder of a man who was only made notable in the first place by media coverage from the conservative movement, is clearly newsworthy.
If it’s 2) then, well, it’s just a cowardly way for Gutfeld to say he thinks Tiller deserved to die. “Sure, sure, murder is wrong. But whatevs.”
As has been my custom of late, I’m going to quote today’s Greg Gutfeld piece in full, so you can really savor the whininess:
So President Barack Obama just named federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor as the nominee for the next Supreme Court Justice.
So what do we know about her?
Well, she’s Hispanic.
Also, she’s Puerto Rican.
Plus, she’s Puerto Rican.
That’s the joy of racial politics and the media that swallows it– all you need to know about a person is their racial makeup – and in the words of the cop grimly taping off the bedroom in my vacation condo, there’s “nothing more to see here.”
So far, every single headline I’ve seen mentions the woman’s race – which, as you know, is by design. It’s a terrific strategy, this vaccine against scrutiny. Simply make sure you nominate anyone who is the “first” of anything and you create an impenetrable cone of immunity around the nominee (protecting mainly against the media, and of course, conservatives). You could say this strategy worked with great success during the last presidential election – that if Barack wasn’t black, he would have just been another white policy wonk – a less persuasive version of John Edwards, without the wayward weenie.
Granted, I don’t know the first thing about Sotomayor (I’m sure she’s a nice lady!) other than she’s Hispanic, and an “inspiring woman” who grew up in “poor surroundings,” etc… But it all sounds a bit familiar in an unnerving way. The bottom line is, when a person’s “story” is the story, it’s purely a diversionary tactic to take you off the ideological ball.
It’s a clue to everyone – especially the media – that this time you should do more than order the commemorative plates.
I love how he admits that he knows absolutely nothing about Sotomayor, but he still whines that her nomination MUST be a race-card tactic. And then blames the media for his failure to educate himself. How dare the media report that the first Hispanic woman on the court will be the first Hispanic woman on the court! Because clearly that’s not newsworthy!
And besides that, there actually has been a lot of discussion about Sotomayor in the press relative to other potential nominees. There was that now-infamous New Republic hit piece and the controversy that ensued.
Perhaps the real problem is that by “the media” Gutfeld clearly means “the cable news networks” and by “articles” he means “Fox and Friends segments I watched online while getting drunk.”
I absolutely love Greg Gutfeld’s piece from yesterday. It’s like he started out on the classic “YOU LIBERALS SAY THAT…” attack, then even he got bored with it.
So The FBI and NYPD busted a homegrown terror cell Wednesday – a group of four men who wanted to replace two Bronx synagogues with a crater.
(Thank God religion had nothing to do with it.)
It turns out that all the explosives they purchased were fake – supplied by agents pretending to be Al-Qaeda militants. Chuck Schumer called the group “relatively unsophisticated,” which I guess should make us happy.
But it pisses me off. Frankly, I don`t give a flying imam how incompetent a terrorist is. I don`t care if they couldn`t tell the difference between a Stinger and a stapler, the fact is – it`s dangerous and stupid to make light of their ultimate goals, simply because they didn’t reach them.
Chuck Schumer wasn`t doing that – thankfully, even he stressed the need for vigilance. And I admit the typical, dismissive attitude toward the threat of terror hasn`t happened just yet.
But it`s only been a day. Give it time, folks.
He was all set to rip into Schumer for being so unserious about terrorism, but then realized that “relatively unsophisticated” was a completely accurate description, and that part of fighting terrorism effectively is having the ability to recognize the varying seriousness, credibility, capacity, and resources of different would-be terrorists.
So instead of ripping into Schumer, he goes after unnamed “liberals” and “blogs” who totally are going to make light of this threat at some point in the future. That’s a neat argumentative trick. Attack your enemies for things they haven’t even done yet. Cause they might do it! Based on your totally unbiased impression of them! The Bush Doctrine goes blog!