Keepin' It Real: DL And Chuck D Have A Soul-To-Soul With Michael Steele

Let’s admit: Like too many African Americans, politics has only recently become worthy of DL's concern. For several generations in their community, politics was a “white man’s game”, and it mattered none to them who was favoring Constitutional principles, enlarging the welfare state, or even fighting the USSR.

These were all “white people’s doings”, and they weren’t expected to have an intellectual conversation about…well, hardly anything I can think of, but politics, to be sure.

But time has caught up with the DL Hugley’s of America. He has the same look on his face as the kid who’s starting to read his book report to the class, but he’s obviously floundering in his panic’d mind, raising his eyebrows as if he’s touching on some bombshell of a fact, when, in reality, it was nothing more than the blurb on the cover of the book. He tries to sell the audience that he really is upset and knows what the issue is ALL about.

Hugley is the African American who is wide-eyed and incredulous that a Rush Limbaugh exists on the airwaves of this great nation that finally elected a black man.Welcome to the conversation, Hugley. Some of us have been here, caring about these issues, for 40 years or more.

Where were you when we tried to explain to you that Conservative principles are what’s best for the African American community? A life of hard work, delayed gratification, and self-reliance would turn out a MUCH better result 20 years from now than to have the same person locked into welfare for 20 years. Who’s got more heart for the black community: the man who tries to “teach a hungry man to fish”, or the liberal who says, “take this fish and vote for me if you want another”?

But to the uninitiated, Hugley et al, this is a far too lofty notion to grasp, I guess. It’s funnier to not think about politics too deeply, so that you can then make cracks about it to a crowd of Americans who also don’t know enough about American politics. It happens every night with John Stewart and Colbert.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Isn’t it ironic that Chuck D, responsible for over 20 years of hate-filled lyrics against cops, society, “bitches”, etc, gets wide-eyed, too, along with his homey Hugley, at the mention of Rush Limbaugh? I rolled the tape back just to catch what brilliant criticism this race war-monger Chuck D had specifically to offer. Not surprisingly, this street poet who probably can’t even pronounce much less understand the words Rush Limbaugh uses every day, had this profound observation: “He gives you the idea that he could say anything!”

Yes, Chuck, it’s STARTLING, isn’t it? Someone like Rush, who insisted on being married by a black man nearly 20 years ago, might use words that sound wild and unforgiveable…like “free market”; “individual responsibility”; “self-improvement”; and “relf-reliance”????

I know, I know…it’s too much for you and DL to comprehend. That’s ok. You’ve been the product of low expectations from the Left all of your lives. That’s why so many of you can’t even read in America.

Tragically, it now looks as if the only crowd who used to see past your race and have higher expectations of African Americans should join the Left’s soft bigotry.

Words have meanings, Michael Steele.

Rick Santelli Beats The MSM In A Debate About First Principles

This actually enjoyed two days worth of modest coverage, mostly as a snickering look-at-one-of-our-own-being-crazy news segment. Rick gets it, manages to say it in soundbite-length, and should be treated as saying something that ALL of our media needs to remember, but doesn't.

It's called First Principles.

In this case with the hysterical loudmouth Chris Matthews, Rick highlights the notion of "a card laid is a card played". Those who haven't played poker won't understand this axiom, but it essentially means that if you lay down your cards to show the two pair that you said you had [contracted], then when another player beats you with their three of a kind hand, you can't suddenly see a higher three of a kind you had missed in your original call of "two pair" when you laid it down.

But watch how Chris, typical of the MSM, brushes aside this chance to discuss founding principles of America because it gets in the way. "In the way of what" you may ask.

In the way of undoing our American Way. There's no better way to put it. If you aren't skilled in knowing our birth as a nation, this blog will confound you. You'll operate from a position close to that of Chris Matthews if you have depended on your high school and college professors to do the hard work of educating you on what it is to be an American.

The typical liberal hears a Rick Santelli enunciate the clear-headed, common-sense maxims of our constitution and national creed, and tries to find an exception to the rule by dreaming up a possible scenario which never happens in this country, yet serves as an actual debate against what we all know as the best possible way to exist with each other.

Watch as Matthews tries one of these sophistries with Rick:

Chimp Cartoon Produces The Same Reaction As The Mohammed Cartoon

Remember this Danish cartoon a few years ago that caused so much stir?


Well, it looks like we're seeing a devolution from the same kind of lunacy from none other than our own Al Sharpton. That's right, the same Al Sharpton that began life as a racial huckster with a megaphone in the Tawana Brawley case and has tried to take over as President once or twice (it's hard to keep up with how many times a black person has ran for President, lately. There are voting age adults in America who have grown up with at least Jessee, Al, Alan, and now Barry running for President every cycle.), is now, 25 years later, a racial huckster with a microphone.

Then:


Now:


Isn't it completely delirious of Keith to start the conversation with a Curious George reference, while forgetting the 8 years we've seen the exact same chimp image used for President Bush:
I guess these aren't a problem because the Left produced them:
Is it because President Bush is white that liberal nincompoops (redundant?) find absolutely nothing hypocritical in this latest Obama-as-chimp episode? Who knows. Trying to understand the petulant mind of a liberal is like trying to think as a child.

I guess in their tweaker mind anything makes sense.

Hell, there's even been a website called Bush Or Chimp since 2000, and they have been putting amateur shots like this up for years:


And in case you've been living under a rock, this is the cartoon that's causing Al to lead a protest today at 5pm in front of the NY Post's hq building. He didn't like that it took the Post 24 hours in order to cave in to something they and the cartoonist himself said they didn't do.


This thing is getting really stupid under Obama's reign, so far. Lots of racism, race-baiting, and now demonstrations in his name over perceived injustices.

How much longer can we keep doing this kind of thing before it all gets away from us? A riot here, a riot there. The next thing you know you have an armed insurrection.

While scanning youtube for Al's appearance on the UberHam show, I found this guy. His name in SkitzShow, and he's pretty funny. And right:

The Bill Press Show: Silencing The Opposition

Sen Stabenow is married to a big executive behind Democracy Radio and Air America--Tom Athans--yet the conflict of interest doesn't phase her a bit when she makes this declaration to Bill Press about bringing back the fairness doctrine for talk radio.

Her idiocy is palpable in this interview, along with the ninny Bill Press, as usual. These people are admitting that the reason liberal whine radio doesn't succeed is because owners can't make money off of that programming, yet talk earnestly about legislating a different result! How can congress MAKE us like the format enough to make the radio owners realize a profit from it for the first time?

Indeed, even the nationally-syndicated liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh-Air America-has even failed, filing bankruptcy papers a couple of years ago. Seems that no one likes the message they're selling. On the other hand, Rush has been making great radio profits for 21 years now, and enjoys the fruits of his success: he just completed 10 years straight of making 10 million dollars a year in salary alone!

But that's where the rub is. They can't make a program to even compete against Rush, Tammy Bruce, Ingraham, Levin, Beck, Boortz, (the late) David Brudnoy, Hannity, Savage, Bill Bennet, or most of the other political talk hosts, so what do they do? They SABOTAGE the entire format, making the Rush's have to go underground to deliver their goods anymore.

How will the Fairness Doctrine and Stabenow accomplish this sabotage? By making a law that all radio station owners must play equal hourly amounts of any political program from its competing party, the owner will try to fill equal hours in a day for which he ran Rush & Hannity, only to find that not only will no local businesses want to hang their name on that nasty program of the Left's, but that the station is beginning to loose popularity among the community.

The result will be that the station owner says, "Screw it, I'll play music on my radio station." The conservative radio format dies, due to the Fairness Doctrine.

Even before I sold radio for a living, I knew the truth of what I've just said. Selling radio only confirmed it. Too bad that Senators like Stabenow can't figure that out. Maybe then the Left wouldn't have to resort to Stalinistic approaches to free speech anymore.

Media As It Should Be: Stupid But Honest

At least they proudly identify their limitations: "The Daily Left". If only MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN would do the same.

"Newspapers On Your Computer? What Will They Think Of Next?"

The Death Of Dinosaur Media: Hitwise Data For January 17, 2009

Kim Komando Shows Why Radio Is Failing

I was heading over to my girlfriend's house yesterday when I was listening to Kim Komando's show. She was taking a call from some listener who was asking about business software. What started as a response involving Quickbooks turned into Kim telling us all how she runs her business as a radio show host:
KIM: I had a new sales person start the other day, and she was kinda wondering why she didn't have a work desk equipped with a lot of things she needed--you know, things that require electrical wires and cords and such. And I'm sorry, but those things cost money. And when I hire you, you're going to have to produce first--get a few sales--then we'll talk about providing you with a few of those things.
She wanted--and get this--she wanted business cards! Can you imagine? No, no, no...you produce first, then we'll see about business cards.

All I can say is, Kim, you're lucky your business is radio, because the bar is already so low there that no clients notice yet another radio outfit sending in their newest sales rep. How long did the last one make it? 2 months, was it? More like 2 weeks for the ones before that.

I worked for a Cumulus cluster of six stations once. They had gone through 76 sales people in the year previous to my hire. That is for a sales staff that kept maybe 12 full time sales people at any time, and also factor in the 2 or 3 sales people who had good lists, and NEVER got fired. Radio is a hard sell business, and the management/ownership treat their sales staff MUCH worse than than the client will ever know. That annoying radio rep who keeps knocking on your business' door is well aware of how pesky she's being. The bosses she comes back to every day tell her that making a sell is the only result that's acceptable, here. "Make yourself a nuisance to him! If he buys something from you just to get you out of his door, that's still a sale!"

If you've worked for any other kind of sales, you know just what a bottom-feeder that radio is. Radio the medium has been flogged to death by the bean-counters of this world, turning what was an investment that brought us theatre of the mind and round-the-clock news into, what my friend Chris calls, "A snowcone in August that we're running around to any client who'll listen saying, "Hurry up, hurry up, before it all melts!""

Yet there's no hurry for the local businessman, with profit margins getting smaller, to spend enough money to satisfy the radio hemmorage happening right before our eyes.

CLUE TO KIM: Following the Clear Channel, Cumulus, etc. business model will get you the same place they are: dying from a sucking chest wound. They don't make money because they don't spend money. Haven't you ever heard that old business axim, 'To make money you have to spend money'? If you have been spending money on your business, it would be selling itself.

I guess when you're the "Goddess" you can treat those new employees you hire with an attitude which says, "Your value here is yet to be determined. I don't trust you, so you're going to have to perform at high levels without any tools or support from me."

With tactics like that, you're never going to get a sales staff of mature, seasoned people who can tell a client why to advertise on the Kim Komando Show. Those kind of professionals aren't ready to submit to being treated that way. Only kids right out of college, or drunks looking for their next paychecks will be your sales force.

How The View Treats Its Own

Ann's appearances on shows like Today, Early Show, and The View, have got to be understood for the full drama that they are. This is not just some conservative author who is being interviewed by a left-wing media. That would be interesting enough.

This woman has really hurt these prima donna's through her laser-like analysis, and they are trying their damnedest to capture just ONE SECOND of an unflattering moment while they have her in front of their cameras. And ANYTHING will do: scratch of the nose, look of horror, snorting laughter, etc. The plastic airheads aren't the only people to worry about, either. Producers (usually younger support staff, trying to do what they have to in order to make it in broadcast media), can keep a camera trained on an unaware person, picking up hushed dialogue [witness the Jesse Jackson flap last year, where he was caught on tape expressing how he'd like to reach out and grab The Great O's twig and berries], or any unflattering face we may make in the course of a ten minute episode. Then make that one unguarded second be the most prominent image we see for the promo of the interview, the still jpg to use as the website thumbnail, etc.

A lot of people are geared towards watching you fall, towards being rewarded by these wounded Barbara Walters for picking up that ugly moment while you're in their midst.

Ann can't relax AT ALL during these red-hot "Gotcha" traps, yet she presents cooly, sophisticated, and sincerely gracious to be there for an interview. Can you understand the pressure that she's under, not only to complete this annual "dance-with-a-bear" episode without blowing up, but to take a punch on live camera like a man? (I'm sorry to be sexist, but there's no other way to express it.) Ann knows that she's coming into a hornet's nest, that Matt will be trying to slam her for what she said in her book, what Harry had someone read to him about CBS anchors, and of course, what four women got themselves in a snit over in her book. Yet she comes willingly, anyway.

Ann is one brave, cool, cat.

It is one thing to be a provocateur. I cite Rush for being one of, if not the best political satirists/provocateur of the last 50 years. But Rush doesn't submit himself to the punnishment of taking these punches like Ann does. Don't get me wrong--he's got balls, for sure. But Ann's got that, too--maybe even more so.

She's been taking her life into her hands with every speaking engagement that she does for many years, and it's all because of a drive to illuminate, to educate, and yes, even to laugh! She is a precious commodity to America, a lonely voice that speaks for all of us Conservatives, and anyone brave enough question what you were taught in high school.

She digests serious, higher-level legal/social issues with wit and humor, painting a picture that is the alternative to the one painted every night by the MSM. If you don't think Ann is brilliant, it's only because you're still brainwashed by public education. Or, you are one of the annointed airheads in front of our tv cameras every day and night.

APPEARANCE ON THE VIEW:
This interview went just like the others have, only this time there was a little more estrogen, thanks only to Hasselback.

The tension in these interviews is there from the beginning, as Ann greets the interviewer(s) each time with a cheery "Good Morning". The daggers come out, sections of Ann's book are read out loud as if you were reading the confession of a serial murderer, slow...with pauses...to resonate...in the viewer's ear.

Do these tv bobble heads read with the same passion and glare when they interview despots like Castro or Chavez? There are real men and women trying to destroy America at our doorsteps and in our neighborhoods, but the harshest language directed at an interviewee these days is targeted towards this sleek, beautiful siren who spends the other 364 days of the year away from these red light districts we call television news.

What's the main subject this time? It's the unwed mothers facts that Ann cites in her book. I haven't read her book yet [just got my signed copy from WND in the mail today], but so far, after 5 major cable and network shows have interviewed her, it looks like Ann has done a 264-page analysis of one thing: the sexual mating habits of women. I see the sharks circling around Ann, obviously trying to paint her as cruel and heartless the best their feeble little minds will allow them.

Is there any doubt that the point about unwed mothers is merely an incidental part of her larger thesis, which is that liberals try to turn the guilty into victims in our declining culture? Why not start from the top, perched as any unbiased reader might, and examine the book from it's overall argument, then, in the framework of that context, pull out several salient or weak points as you may find them? Wouldn't we all benefit from a clear-headed, dispassionate analysis of her thinking on any particular subject?

But I guess the IQ of the View and their average viewer is too low to expect a more academic approach to this great mind. It is as if Einstein stepped into a Kindergarden class to talk about gravity.

*sigh*

The things she must do to make a living. The book sells itself to our crowd, to be sure, but to enjoy some better return for the years spent in research, analysis, speechmaking, and weekly output of a syndicated column, this is what must be done. One must dance with the bear if you want to win the prize.


The cackling hens that are trying to tear apart Ann are less trying to remain professional than they are trying to pander to their audience. This wasn't a
segment meant to showcase a tough woman who's made her way through a male-dominated industry, relying only on brains, grit, and principles all along the way.
These pro-women hyenas tore into Ann in hopes of destroying her, all she's worked for, and all she stands for.

Yet no one sees the irony. Where's the sisterhood? So what if Ann doesn't think like your kind of women? I know plenty more that do. Why couldn't you try to showcase and celebrate one of your kind for all that she has done by herself?

No, the View women couldn't get past their show-Ann-as-cruel agenda, trying to whip up a class and racial response right there with the audience full of women who don't work for a living. These audience members were loud and disruptive towards Ann when she was to reply a few times, but their morals and standards are different from you and me. For me, talking about unwanted, illegitimate births is a serious thing that has some amount of shame and negativity attached to it. That's why I've never done it.

For that crowd, though, it's not.

The only surprise here was that Hassleback had her knives out for Ann as well. I admit to not watching this beauty parlor experience called The View enough to know whether Hassleback acted out of the ordinary, but I had grown to understand that she supports the Conservative cause, to the degree that she understands it.

The moment at the end of this clip shows Whoopi regainning the conversation reigns because she knew they were going to break, needed to wind up the segment, and wanted to throw a zinger at Ann then storm off to commercials. "You can dish it out, but you can't take it", the brilliant sophist cackled at Ann.

Amazing, Whoopi. You, of all people, should know what it's like to be circled by a bunch of angry people who want to string you up, but you sat there salivating as Ann had to spend 10 minutes fending off charges of racism, elitism, (and being a pretty blonde, which they would never admit to being jealous of, but you know it's true), responding to every single rapid-fire accusation that they had been throwing at her...and you felt so little empathy for this woman that you tried to add one more knife to the collection in her back.

And how brilliant, too! The interview is set up for four snarky women to gang up on Ann, arguing that she's many things terrible, then, as this Jet Li-like wizard defends every thrust and perry with grace and exactitude for ten minutes, she faces the charge of "not being able to take it." HA!! That is what you say when you've been bested, dear Whoopi. You couldn't form a real charge of racism, cruelty to single mothers, or even *gasp* daring to "talk down" to the almighty Barbara Walters, (in between her tell-all books about screwing married men who are still married), against Ann, so you had to resort to doing schoolyard antics like the bully you are. You've gotten way too much mileage from being ugly and black.

NEWS FLASH TO WHOOPI: Apparently she CAN take it, you washed-up hack--she's obviously HERE, answering all of your claims, and TAKING IT. When's the last time you made declarations about morality in this country, then went to be interviewed by the very people you criticized?

CBS' Harry Smith Tries To Match Wits With Ann Coulter

What I think is pure brilliance, here, is the way that Ann turns around her would-be assassin in mid sentence:
SMITH: You want to be taken seriously…I sense that, right? [then takes a deep breath, ready to deliver some one-two punch at Ann]
ANN: [interjects] Well, I make serious points in a humorous way, for instance…

You could feel Harry exhale, in a dejected way, having missed his big chance to skewer Ann Coulter. Did you notice the body language in this interview? Harry is up on the edge of his chair, feet planted and ready to leap to them if necessary, and is both leaning into and pointing at Ann as he tries to methodically lay a trap for her.

But Ann is WAY too advanced to be prey to this two-bit hack anchor, and his high school debate tactics. Has Harry ever argued with any mind more prepared than the typical CBS Early Show staff? I mean, does he even understand a person like Ann? Here’s a plastic piece of lawn furniture in Harry Smith, trying to match wits with the Hanging Gardens Of Babylon in Ms Coulter.

It was priceless to see how Ann turned Smith into a pussycat.

What is even more delicious is to know the backdrop to the whole appearance, which I didn’t before. Here’s Ann, who has been finishing her next book for months, now, and ALL of these networks know that a book tour is going to be following the release of her book. Hell, the NBC segment which was to be aired yesterday (then today) was recorded months ago. Then, at the point of having her on, they balk not once, but TWO days in a row! And who did they replace Ann’s book interview segment with? The highly important and profound Perez Hilton! The NBC audience IQ is more suited for Perez Hilton’s kind of wisdom, anyway, I guess. They can understand trite not truth.

NBC made the move for political reasons, and then it BACKFIRED on them when Ann, on the fly, goes over to CBS to perform her segment. And to add even more sweetness to the deal, we saw her deftly light herself like a bird into Mr Smith’s outstretched hand, which concealed the knife he wished to plunge into her back while performing the interview.

And she bested him!!

After that first perry, Ann had Harry leaning back, defeated, trying to figure out a different angle since she threw him off stance. The rest of the interview consisted of a supposedly-objective network news anchor trying to criticize Ms Coulter worse than he would have a Mr Hussein, a Mr Amedinejad, or a Mr Medvedev.

He dares to call the legal scholar “goofy”, and “sophomoric”, and feigns concern over whether people can really take her seriously or not. Let’s see: Ann can command the largest book advance of any conservative writer up until this point in time, and Harry is so wise and hip that he thinks no one takes her
seriously!

NEWS FLASH TO HARRY: You’re an idiot. You don’t know when to give up. The joke was on YOU. You should have conducted an informative interview of this
major thinker in America today, but you tried to make it about you and how you’ve read 150 pages in one night, and can’t find a reason to buy her book.

Here’s another tip, Harry: don’t try to speed-read one of Ann’s books. I know that you’re used to cramming the night before a big interview the next day, but this isn’t the same mind that you’re normally picking through. This time, you might not be dealing with an author of a pet grooming book, or whatever
you normally stay up for.

Then the interview takes kind of a surreal turn: Harry had the producers type up a quote before the objective interview, and now was his big chance to cry
and whine that Ann called him insane. He apparently had been anticipating this moment for some time, because, without provocation he gets a steely look in his eye, similar to what you may find at your average mental hospital, outstretches his arm at Ann again, then swells up with indignation at her as he declares:
“One of my friends was gunned down in Denver. He was a talk show host. I’ve been to the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. I’ve looked hate in the eye.”

What??? You arrived at the Murrah Building after it had been destroyed–how did you encounter the hate that commited its destruction, Harry? You’re
deluding yourself if that’s the only two examples of your “seeing hate up close”. Ann was right–you’re certifiably insane.

And whoopee if you’ve “looked hate in the eye.” Does that disqualify Ann and her perspective? Have you even asked her what SHE might have lost in 911?
What about the rest of her life? Are you so cocksure, Harry, that your trauma of supposedly knowing Alan Berg when he was killed and having stood at a place where something bad happened trump Ann’s experience? Why even bring up those deep wounds that you carry with you to this day?

In his twisted little mind, standing at a place in Oklahoma City and proclaiming to have known Alan Berg qualify him to know that Obama could be assassinated.

Does his mind seem more squirrely to you like it does to me? Too much time spent in front of the mirror and camera have caused the same detatchmet syndrome that afflicts Dan Rather.

From this display which was most certainly scripted on Smith’s part, you can tell that nothing valuable is going to be learned here, today. Other, of course, than the fact that as time goes on, Ann is like a fine wine, getting better with age.

When Ann finally grasps the depth of this attacker’s intelligence, and how shallow it is, she laughs. Harry thinks that Ann’s book has only the amount of legitimacy that could be afforded the comment about CBS anchors, namely Harry Smith. Once he heard that she had a line about him in her book, that’s all he needed to know. Book stinks–her bad!
(In psychological texts, it used to be called “egocentric”, most easily illustrated in infant behavior when playing peek-a-boo. Much the way that a baby thinks the parent has disappeared when his eyes are covered up, this interviewer can’t see the larger truth in a book when blinders are applied to his eyes in the form of a simple comment about CBS anchors.)

He says, “You make your point at my expense”, and then you realize the emotional impact that Harry is infected with. Ann’s larger point [and her entire book] HAS to be illegitimate because it is carrying along with it a smaller truth that CBS anchors are crazy, you see.

Harry can’t accept anything past the charge, “you’re crazy”. This prima donna put on his clothes this morning, being told that “you look so wonderful”, by all that surrounded him as normal. He wasn’t ready for the voice in the crowd that yelled, “You’re wearing no clothes, Harry.”

WFMU's Terre T With Her "Cherry Blossom Clinic" 01/03/09

Have you ever noticed that most people who can't support their claim usually rely on crutch phrases and drawn out effects as a defensive tactic? For instance:

ANNCR: Ok, there is a politician who is the RNC chairman who wants to run with his campaign theme song being, "Barrack The Magic Negro". And I'm just like, you want to be the head of the RNC and you...want to use...that song...as your theme song! And I'm just like...HELLO!

Ok. "Hello", what? What is your point? What is in the song, if we may push back the darkness a bit, here?

That is the equivalent of what happens in this exchange from a Terre T's Cherry Blossom Clinic program from Saturday, Jan 3rd, 2009. It was broadcast on WFMU public radio station, and you can listen to it here.

If you notice, this break is more or less a team break, with someone named Sue or something in the background adding her idiocy. They are both cackling about a parody song that first appeared on Rush Limbaugh's highly successful show. It was performed by the immensely talented Paul Shanklin, and you can listen to it here.

As you listen to the first stanza, you can't help but hear the singer ("Al Sharpton") say that "the LA Times called him that ["Barrack The Magic Negro"] 'cause he's not authentic like me".

Well, if you had even an ounce of objectivity and intelligence, you would realize that Paul Shanklin's song here, which is being shrieked at by the Left as a Republican statement, is no more than a parody of the very words from the African American Wing in the Democrat Party!

Read this original excerpt from a David Ehrenstein of the L.A. Times, in which he demonstrates a cognitive problem distinguishing real life from movies. He starts this article, which ran almost two years ago, by speaking of this new Senator from Illinois, claiming that Barrack is the Magic Negro of postmodern folklore:
"The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. "He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist," reads the description on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro .

He's there to assuage white "guilt" (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest." (source)

The joke is on you, Terre T, and your troll-sounding partner, there. In a more perfect world you two might not be so ignorant, and you'd know what is really funny about this entire flap, but you're too smug and prejudiced in this life, caste to make these stupid comments for the world to hear.

"They can dish it out, but they can't take it". Just WHAT exactly can we not take??? We're the party of rock-ribbed discipline and sacrafice, theirs is the party of Dionysian excess, and that co-host says something like that? In fact, it seems like quite the non-sequitor. The claim is that when protested about using a parody as a campaign song, that we come back with the explanation, "Oh come on, take a joke. It's funny!"

Yet the charge from that annecdote is that "they can dish it out but they can't take it." According to the dizzy claim made by Ms Politically Stupid, Terre's reporting of the Republican response makes the GOP retort sound like a mature consideration of the charge, then a simple, understandable explanation: It's a JOKE.

How does 'Lighten up, it's a joke', qualify as "Not being able to take it"? Frankly, Ms Politically Stupid #2, or, "Sue", sounds like she's seen her better days. Isn't it ironic that she can sneer and condescend against Republicans for perceived racism, yet blithely cackle and mock the hip-hop culture as a white girl who, tee-hee, has been given the Wu Tang Clan nickname of "Antagoniza", just to prove how "down with the struggle" she is. In truth, the closest she's ever come to black people is when she has to ride the subway.

She's so stupid that she doesn't see her own racism while decrying the racism in an entire half of America.

But, she's on the public station of fame in New Jersey, WFMU, carrying on as most of the smug, self-assured, know-it-all punks in college do. They hear existentialism, nihilism, and postmodernism all day from the Lords Of Your Future, known as professors, who forget just how artificial and surreal their surroundings, their job, and their work really is. Too many of them take themselves way too seriously, and the propoganda of Leftist collectivism spreads like a cancer, manifesting in class envy, victimism, and general hate of The American Way.

The two women on this break are quintessential Leftists I've run into at college and elsewhere in life: Worshipping secularism as their moral authority, proclaiming cultural relativism as the optimum formula for mankind, while ridiculing anyone who follows the traditions of this country. 'Smugness' best describes it for me, and it seems to me that one day these people will be made to answer for their mockery.

Inga Barks Fills In For Mark Levin

Score another one for talk radio fans: Inga Barks is a rising star whom we (hopefully) will be enjoying for years to come. She's smart, pretty, and fun to listen to on the air.

And anyone who can step into Mark Levin's show and pull it off with poise and grace is a great talent for sure. To mix the serious with fun is the hardest of entertainment, but the ones who do it daily (Rush, Beck, [sometimes] Colmes, Shearer, [old] Hendrie, Imus, etc), are the best of the best, yet they will never garner the praise they deserve simply because their medium is one that appeals to the minority of our nation: the thinking, imagining, among us Americans. Radio is theater of the mind. It has to exist in competition against television, mainly. The actors we see every night on tv only have to get ramped up to perform maybe two dozen times in a year.

Radio announcers have to get mentally ready to perform every day.

OK, Enough Already, Dick

Ok. Do I have to be the bad guy, here? Let me just say it: Dick, it's time to go. I noticed it a few years ago, one of the few times I cared to watch the network coverage of...anything.

The slurring, the pinched face, the obviously awkward delivery all point towards the retirement home, methinks. Why not? He's got enough money to get the best there is in assisted living. He can host their talent shows or something. He'll be fine.

But no, he thinks that the world is just unable to face a next year without confirming it, every second of the way, with America's Oldest Teenager, Dick Clark. He must think that he's doing us a favor by getting drugged up enough to be wheeled into place for his painful 90 second splash.

But it hurts to watch him. It's unfair to the viewer who tuned in to see hot chicks pointing out how special and awesome it is to be in Times Square on New Year's Eve. Why bring down the vibe with a cutaway from the eyecandy to this slobbering prune?