Showing posts with label Kathleen Parker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kathleen Parker. Show all posts

Sunday, February 27, 2011

We Will Never Fit The Narrative (We Never Have)

Over at Classical Values, there's a post about "Breaking The Narratives That Enslave Us". We won't explain it (you should actually click the link and go read it) but we do want to mention it features a black gay conservative man driving Liberals crazy because he doesn't feed into their expectations.

Now, over at Mediaite.com, the great John Ziegler explains why Kathleen Parker was "Doomed At CNN" with that Parker/Spitzer thing. Here's the take-away:
It is hardly a secret that the best (and perhaps only) way for an unknown or career-challenged conservative to achieve mainstream media acceptance is to be a sellout to their supposed cause (just ask Arianna Huffington, Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, David Frum, Michael Smerconish, or Joe Scarborough, to name only a few).
Bingo! This is why black conservatives also drive Liberals crazy. We have to give up our values for the narrative to make sense.

How many times have we heard a Liberal ask a black conservative "How can you vote with those white people?" forgetting we do so because conservatives aren't the ones bringing up anybody's race all the time?

Of course, we black conservatives also have to fit a narrative on the conservative side, which will usually consist of something like denouncing Rap Music, accepting Christianity, and - let's face it - a whole lot of behavior modification.

This, too, will not do.

We've said many times the reason you should donate to this blog is because we want to restart our music career, and deliver to the other side a conservative message in the bold cultural manner they will find familiar and agreeable. We know that no one is doing it, and we feel no one else really can do it. Not like we can anyway. Nor should they be - if you know of another artist that can write and perform Rap, Rock, Jazz, Country, Industrial, Pop, Punk, and anything else you can think of, please, bring him/her/them forward:

We'd love to hear it.

TMR thinks we - and by "we" we mean we Americans - have got to disrupt many narratives to get this country going again. But, if we're asking for donations, then it should be obvious TMR can't do this on our own. We don't care how much it is or where it comes from (Rush Limbaugh? The Koch Brothers? Anybody?) but conservatives have to decide they're ready to shake this place up, by helping unconventionally conservative artists get a foothold in the underground, and the first way they can do that is by putting their money where their mouths are - then backing away - and abandoning the narrative of what we have to be:

Including the narrative that says even conservative artists must be tightly controlled before they can expect support from our fellows.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Or Is It The "Hunter S. Thompson Syndrome"?



Jesus, these people are stupid.

Here are three important folks - a journalist/media personality, a former prosecutor/media personality, and a Pulitzer Prize winner/media personality - and, though they can each summon a fog of words, not one of them is capable of seeing the obvious and stating it as a jumping off point for an interesting and honest discussion. For instance, not once in this conversation probing media bias, during this clip at least, do they give context by mentioning the John Edwards blackout. Was anyone even considering how bad the media bias was until the public noticed not one outlet, but The National Enquirer, was reporting Obama's potential vice-presidential nominee/attorney general had fallen for a moonbeam?

And while Dan Abrams admits the media fell in love with Barack Obama, and that love (betrayal?) hurt Hillary Clinton - which, in our book, is also a major no-no: they're just supposed to report the news, not make or determine it - Abrams fails to mention their actions also hurt the media, because it further signaled the public couldn't rely on what they were saying. And, yes, Kathleen Parker is just oblivious to her own role in the Sarah Palin story - so who's the airhead now?

And has anybody ever explained why "all of them" isn't a good enough answer to the question "What magazines have you read?" If so, we haven't seen it. Has anyone ever explained what it is about Katie Couric that makes other media types consider her intelligent - though that's an opinion the general public doesn't seem to share?

It's no wonder we find the internet more informative, and fascinating, than anything these bozos can conjure up, because engaging with these people - with nothing more than a television screen between us - is too much of a temptation for us to want to pull an Elvis and just blast the damned thing to smithereens.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

The Road Has To Start Somewhere

"The great thing about having five mothers was that with each one you get a new religion and new décor."

-- Kathleen Parker, now giving back as good as she got - Thanks, Mom!!! - after watching her father maneuver, as The American Prospect.

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Shut Up, Kathleen

"The evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh."
-- Kathleen Parker, after voting for Barack Obama - and revealing herself as a NewAge conservative turncoat - on Nov. 19th 2008, in The Washington Post.

"When it comes to irresistible words, 'oogedy-boogedy' has few peers."
-- Kathleen Parker, revisiting her moment of shame - but still feeling pretty good with herself after a visit to The Daily Show - on Dec. 5th 2008, in The Washington Post.

"Deepak Chopra earns $20m a year selling spiritual guidance to the likes of Demi Moore, Hillary Clinton and Mikhail Gorbachev - and he’s not the only self-help guru making a fortune. In the first of two extracts from his new book, Francis Wheen traces the rise and rise of mystic mumbo-jumbo:

'In September 1784 a Berlin magazine invited Immanuel Kant to answer the question: What is Enlightenment? "Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity," he replied. "Immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without direction from another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolve and courage to use it without another’s guidance. Dare to know! That is the motto of Enlightenment."

The Enlightenment had many critics, but its illuminating influence and achievements were apparent in the history of the next two centuries - the waning of absolutism and superstition, the rise of secular democracy, the understanding of the natural world, the transformation of historical and scientific study, the new political resonance of notions such as 'progress', 'rights' and 'freedom'. Does that light still shine today? According to the philosopher Roger Scruton, 'Reason is now on the retreat, both as an ideal and as a reality.' The leaders of the counter-revolution may seem an incongruous coalition - post-modernists and primitivists, New Age and Old Testament - but they have been remarkably effective over the past quarter-century. Those who lack the courage to use their understanding 'without direction from another' are easy prey for self-styled gurus, and the sleep of reason has duly brought forth many such monsters, exploiting and expanding the demand for mumbo-jumbo."
-- Francis Ween, calling the Right and (more importantly) the Left's problem by it's proper name - all the way back in Jan. 27th 2004 - but never being invited anywhere except the blog (that apparently nobody else reads) called Religion News.

There's a portion of Francis Ween's "How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World: A Short History of Modern Delusions" on Google Book Search:

He's waaay more fun to read, and more accurately nails the problem, than silly-ass Kathleen Parker's oogedy-boogedy.

Friday, June 27, 2008

The American Anti-Christ Still Doesn't Count

"Not one white male has ever been treated as poorly by the media as [Hillary Rodham Clinton].”

-- "One angry female e-mailer," who has clearly lost her mind, in a Kathleen Parker article for the National Review.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

In No Mood To Play Around

Looking at the pictures of Eliot Spitzer's wife are torturous. Betrayal is such an ugly thing. You can see she hasn't been sleeping, probably not eating, as well. The poor woman. Anyone who can suggest there are "worse things than adultery" is either sick in the head or equally guilty. Without killing someone, it is, without a doubt, the ultimate way to hurt those who love you.

I hope she'll be alright and has friends who will be good for her and her daughters because, despite knowing the truth, she's still in for a rough ride ahead. Possibly years of torture because nothing will ever be the same:

She now knows she can't trust him but, more importantly, she's discovering she can't exactly trust herself - because, damn it, she trusted him.

That's the really tough part. That look in the mirror.

Moving on, the way the media is trying to portray this - as merely a male failing - when 70% of divorces are started by women, is just wrong. Oh well, the Liberals have their story line and they're sticking with it, whether it's a lie or not. When it comes to the part that's true though, I think Kathleen Parker says it best:
"Are we harder on women than we are on men? Here’s a hint: If President Hillary Clinton were caught having an affair with a male intern her daughter’s age, would she ever be received again in public except for her own funeral?"
I assure you, the answer - outside of Liberal circles - is a very-loud "no". How "feminist" Hillary helped make that statement true is a question for the ages. Stand by your man? Understandable. Cover for the cheating bastard? Attack his accusers? And then run for his job - with his help - in front of all of us? That's just sleazy NewAge insanity. Our whole country needs a shower after those two. Like Mrs. Spitzer, we didn't ask to be a part of this.

David Mamet has switched sides, politically, becoming a Conservative. (Something Liberal dreamers keep declaring is impossible in these anti-Bush times.) It happened for Mamet as it does for so many others:
"As a child of the '60s, I accepted as an article of faith that government is corrupt, that business is exploitative, and that people are generally good at heart.

These cherished precepts had, over the years, become ingrained as increasingly impracticable prejudices. Why do I say impracticable? Because although I still held these beliefs, I no longer applied them in my life. How do I know? My wife informed me. We were riding along and listening to NPR. I felt my facial muscles tightening, and the words beginning to form in my mind:

Shut the fuck up."
Ha! "Shut the fuck up" was such a popular phrase with me, my ex had it put on a t-shirt for one of my birthdays. It really is a magic phrase. A serious determinant of position:

Liberalism is over once you get there.

Welcome to the club, David.

Fiona MacKeown, the mother of Scarlett Keeling (above) a 15-year-old murdered in Goa, India, is being questioned about possible negligence in leaving the teenager on her own. While her mother and family were in another part of India, her daughter is said to have been drunk, and high on drugs, when she was raped and murdered on a beach. So why do I mention it? Listen up:
"Mrs MacKeown, 43, is well used to being viewed as unusual, with her brood of children by at least four fathers leading an alternative New Age lifestyle, with the help of her partner, Rob Clarke, 47."
Yep, Scarlett's mom is one of them. Speaking of them, in some parts of the world, NewAgers are being jailed for failing to vaccinate their kids, which I think is a step in the right direction: Let there be a real price for imposing this idiocy on kids. On society. On history.

Which all brings me to Kwame Kilpatrick, the embattled mayor of Detroit. Just four words:

Shut the fuck up.