Cenk Uygur is a moron; Clueless, creepy and downright disturbing

Seeing how you don’t hear about this guy from anyone else, I figured I might as well lay into Cenk Uygur. The host of TheYoungTurks (TYT) syndicated internet show, he has been scraping the bottom of the barrel for quite some time. After losing co-host Jill Pike in July of 2007, followed by Ben Mankiewicz leaving shortly thereafter, his show was cut from Air America Radio due to poor ratings. After being picked up by XM/Sirius Channel 167, America Left, they were dropped and picked up again. For the most part, it seems this partisan hack spends the majority of his time keeping his show’s “head above water”, struggling to remain relevant by attracting scores of uneducated teenagers, the type that speak about making an impact in politics then don’t show up to vote come election day.

I could spend the rest of this blog post talking about his irrelevancy, about how it took his Youtube Channel four years to get 100 million views, while those he criticizes, like Glenn Beck, have millions of viewers and listeners on a daily basis, but let’s get down to the point. After wasting my time sitting through his videos, reading his nonsense on the Huffington Post, I can tell you that he doesn’t know what he is talking about. A little information can be a dangerous thing, and it is obvious that he has only that. I will pick a handful of his videos and posts and deconstruct them to show just that, so that even the most devoted TYT enthusiast can see that Cenk Uygur is simply wrong. It’s not “blasphemy”, it is the truth…

Part 1: Glenn Beck, Nazis and Cenk’s nonsense

Finished watching? If you can’t stomach it, I don’t blame you. It doesn’t surprise me that he doesn’t know about the treatment of the Jewish people under the Nazi regime, but what do you expect from a man who denied the Armenian Genocide? The Nazis did more than kill the Jews, first they stripped them of their basic rights by passing the Nuremberg Laws in 1935. For those who don’t understand what Glenn Beck is saying, let me start with this…

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me. – Pastor Martin Niemöller

Glenn Beck’s referenced this poem to point out that under tyrannical rulers, there will always be another political enemy to be targeted. It isn’t a secret that the White House has set its sights on the Fox News organization, not after Robert Gibb’s comments and Anita Dunn’s rant on CNN. For this administration to actually attack a news organization for stories which aren’t favourable to them should raise some eyebrows. Now I don’t agree with Beck on this, I actually find myself in agreement with David Gergen and Gloria Borger on this, that it isn’t a smart strategy and that they can only lose a fight with Fox News, but it doesn’t mean there isn’t merit to compare this to other such incidents, not with what the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) “Diversity Czar” Mark Llyod has been saying. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez has taken action against media outlets critical of him, as the Open Source Center reported in August. While the reference may be a tad extreme, it does go to show that this government is acting in a way which is counter to the teachings of the country’s founding, a point purposely ignored by Cenk during his nonsensical rant with airhead Ana Kasparian. You have to ask yourself, where did Cenk find this twit?

Part 2: Cenk’s delusions on Afghanistan

Now I found this post on the Huffington Post rather offensive since he purposely ignores that Canada and its NATO allies took the lead in Afghanistan in 2005. This from The New York Times,

NATO troops that will replace American soldiers in southern Afghanistan next spring are planning to conduct counterinsurgency missions against Taliban fighters and other militants despite initial opposition from some alliance members, American and allied commanders said Friday…

…Britain and the Netherlands will join Canada in assuming control in the south, along with a much smaller contingent of American support troops. Maj. Gen. Jason K. Kamiya, the senior American ground commander in Afghanistan, expressed optimism on Friday that all three allies would heed pleas that they not limit troop operations.

Such restrictions, called national caveats, have severely limited the kinds of missions allied forces can carry out in Afghanistan and Iraq, and have been a source of frustration for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his top regional commanders.

With NATO moving into the south, the Pentagon has said it will be able to reduce the overall number of American troops in Afghanistan to about 16,500 troops from 19,000 now. The United States will still have the largest number of foreign soldiers in Afghanistan, and will keep control of the country’s eastern sector, the scene of many firefights and skirmishes along the mountainous border with Pakistan…

How is it that a leftist tool like Cenk didn’t read this article or watch any of the coverage about this on CNN? In 2005 NATO was called in to free up American soldiers in Afghanistan and continue the counterinsurgency operations in the country. By this time, America had given up leadership in Afghanistan to its allies, so from that point onwards, it was the responsibility of NATO to maintain stability in the region. How is former President George W. Bush to blame for this? Cenk purposely leaves this out, citing an article from the Washington Post which doesn’t even discuss allied troop numbers, let alone how many of the 64,500 International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops are American. The number this twit is referring to is most likely the number of non-ISAF American troops are stationed there. Why is this important? Because Iraq was a US-led Coalition effort while Afghanistan was a NATO effort. The reason for the higher US troop levels in Iraq, aside from the 2007 troop surge, was because it was THEIR WAR, not NATO’s. Let’s not forget that the Afghan forces themselves exceed 100,000 troops, while Iraqi forces number only 60,000 (armed and trained). With all the allied troops in Afghanistan, it would be foolish for America not to redeploy some of their forces to Iraq to reinforce its struggling military. Come on Cenk, do your research.

So after getting this wrong, this moron rambles on about how the Bush administration let Osama bin Laden get away, citing opinion pieces he wrote previously about his belief that they would have captured this man by now if they cared. I don’t think prior nonsense you yourself wrote is proof that George W. Bush didn’t care about Afghanistan, not when he is the one going over to that war zone to visit the troops. Not only that, but this talk about Tora Bora is nonsense, an outright lie. They didn’t know bin Laden was there, as Cenk would like his readers to believe, they only thought he could be, and after overrunning the Taliban in the region (that’s right, they did go after Osama), they couldn’t find any sign of the terrorist leader. Instead of debating whether or not the previous administration cared about catching Osama bin Laden, let’s talk about a shift in strategy. After a few years pursuing the al Qaeda mastermind, experts realized that killing him wasn’t going to destroy the terror organization. Aside from his son (who may or may not be dead already), there are a number of potential replacements, including Ayman al-Zawahri, to take up the mantle. Cenk doesn’t seem to care about this as he rants about how Dick Cheney is “downplaying the importance of capturing Osama bin Laden” by repeating what the experts have told him. So why was capturing Saddam Hussein different from capturing bin Laden? Because Saddam was actually an identifiable leader of a state government, and that his capture and execution would in fact mean something, especially to the country he terrorized for decades. There is the different between cutting off the head of a snake versus cutting off one of the heads of the hydra.

This article doesn’t address any of the real issues with the war in Afghanistan, like the Pakistani support the Taliban has, what will become of the mission when NATO allies reach their pullout dates or how the new rules of engagement are hampering the soldiers’ ability to fight. All it is is simply more raving from a moron suffering from the later stage of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS)… Pathetic…

Part 3: Cenk’s continuing BDS, passing opinion off as fact.

This moron’s post, “Presidents Kill, Especially Bush” is among the worst anti-Bush columns I have ever read. Cenk comes out swinging like Mike Tyson with just as much regard for decency as the former heavyweight champion. This moron says Bush doesn’t have a conscience, calls him a terrible person, and say that the former President “shows sick indifference to the lives of others”. Really? His proof is a story about a wedding being bombed in Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province.

At least 20 people have been killed in a missile strike by coalition forces in eastern Afghanistan.

Locals in Nangarhar province say the group was a wedding party and most of the dead were women and children.

But the US has denied this, saying those killed were militants involved in previous mortar attacks on a Nato base…

…Coalition media officer Capt Christian Patterson told AFP they had received no reports of civilian casualties.

“It was not a wedding party, there were no women or children present,” he said.

In a separate incident on Friday, 15 civilians were reported to have died in a missile attack in Kunar province…

Once again, the TYT host leaves out a few facts. CBS also covered this story, pointing to statements from the military claiming that this is more militant propaganda and that they didn’t bomb a wedding. Could it have been possible that this story is legitimate? Of course, but it isn’t as if we haven’t seen terrorists making up stories to shape public perception on the war. In a time where stories aren’t getting the proper verification, one should be cautious about what they are getting from the news media. Instead of doing this, Cenk throws caution to the wind, claiming this suspicious story as proof positive that former President Bush is a terrible human being. Okay, I’ll see your wedding and raise you a funeral bombing…

An airstrike believed to have been carried out by a United States drone killed at least 60 people at a funeral for a Taliban fighter in South Waziristan on Tuesday, residents of the area and local news reports said.

Details of the attack, which occurred in Makeen, remained unclear, but the reported death toll was exceptionally high. If the reports are indeed accurate and if the attack was carried out by a drone, the strike could be the deadliest since the United States began using the aircraft to fire remotely guided missiles at members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the tribal areas of Pakistan. The United States carried out 22 previous drone strikes this year, as the Obama administration has intensified a policy inherited from the Bush administration…

Intensified Bush’s strategy? Doesn’t that mean that Obama is going further than the former President in killing civilians, as per Cenk’s twisted reasoning? The former President and his intelligence officers made it known that they didn’t feel right about bombing funerals, refusing to pull the trigger even if they found high priority targets at Taliban funerals. What does that say about President Barack Obama’s appreciation for life? Once again, following your reasoning, the man in power now must be war criminal for making a decision like that. If that isn’t enough, what about the President not responding to General Stanley McChrystal’s request for more troops? He doesn’t seem to care about the soldiers dying in Afghanistan since instead of even reading the report which was submitted in late August, Obama ran off to Copenhagen to give a speech to the IOC.

In America, a family is sitting around the kitchen table when they get the news that their family member was killed in a fire fight because this President refused to give his soldiers the support they needed. How can Obama even sleep at night knowing his indecision is killing Americans? And why won’t he act? Political reasons… I can play that game too Cenk… Moron…

Part 4: Cenk’s obsession with a 14-year-old boy’s sexuality.

If anything, this is the most disturbing video I could find from the TheYoungTurks. 14-year-old Jonathan Krohn is still very young, so there is a reason why he has a higher voice than the average political pundit, but Cenk and Ana don’t seem to realize this, nor do they bother actually addressing any of the points he raises (Social Security is going broke Cenk), discussing instead about why is lips are so pink and of course whether or not he will have sex before he is 22. Yes, that’s right, these two perverts are obsessed with whether or not 14-year-old Jonathan Krohn will be having sex soon. As I discussed before, I find it downright disturbing that anyone would sexualize a child, so it is fair to say that I was pretty angry while watching this video. This is just one more reason why TYT won’t be getting a show on MSNBC, because even that network, as awful as is it, has enough dignity to not stoop this low. THEYOUNGTURKS (TYT) BOYCOTT blogged about this story and here is what one commenter, Richard Wagner said,

I saw that clip. He said that the kid is so nerdy that he will never get laid. I thought that was pretty pathetic…I canceled my subscription and haven’t watched them since…there are other liberal sites I can get my liberal fill in everyday. No more tyt for me.

Is it any surprise that Cenk’s ratings on Air America Radio were so low? Common sense dictates that you don’t talk about little boys and sex at the same time, especially in jest, but I don’t think he nor Ana realize this. Instead of sounding like smart and savvy political pundits like Jonathan Krohn does (both Fox News and CNN had this kid on, so you know these two losers were pretty jealous), Cenk and Ana come off as sexually disturbed individuals picking on a defenseless little kid. The only thing that can be said about these two is that they lack even the slightest shred of morality, that their is no line they won’t cross. Sooner or later, it is Cenk who will be sued and it definitely won’t be something to laugh at…

Part 5: Cenk’s anti-gay bigotry and his desire to be sued

As if his obsession with the sexuality of a 14-year-old-boy wasn’t creepy enough, here he is living out his gay conservative host fantasy. The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) just tore out Perez Hilton for this kind of nonsense, so what does Cenk think he is doing by repeating it? No one is being fooled by his “not that there is anything wrong with that” disclaimer before and after calling these conservative hosts homosexuals, it isn’t a pass on political correctness, let alone common decency. Instead of further discussing the content (or lack thereof) of this rant, how about we discuss the content of the statements?

In the late 1980’s, there was a revival of talk radio. The repeal of the FCC’s “Fairness Doctrine” by the Reagan administration had allowed editorial commentary to be broadcasted without the need to present an opposing view point, which allowed Rush Limbaugh to host his talk show from KFBK in Sacramento, California. His success brought about the modern talk radio market, which allowed for other conservatives like Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Glenn Beck to find their own success. Even Air America Radio owes its existence to Limbaugh’s pioneering, it was because of Rush that there is a market for any kind of political talk radio, something Cenk would know if he bothered researching it.

Rush’s influence is undeniable, and many people including myself, credit those like Limbaugh for our own personal awakenings to politics. My political beliefs were heavily influenced by Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin and Larry Elders, aside from my own experiences in Nantong, China as well as my time following Canadian politics. I will also admit that I am a fan of PajamasTV’s Bill Whittle and Joe Hicks, two pundits I encourage my modest readership to listen to. Just because you enjoy this sort of political discussion, it doesn’t mean you should have your sexuality questioned, especially by those who are confused about their own…

*****

I could go on and on, but I think I have made my point. Cenk Uygur continues to play the political game “without a full deck”, refusing to report the news honestly or with any sense of dignity, instead substituting fact for fiction and mindless nonsense. Whether it is his Bush Derangement Syndrome, his sexual perversions or simply the fact that he doesn’t bother with the facts, it should be pretty clear that TheYoungTurks isn’t even worth the bandwidth necessary to watch their Youtube videos. Depending on how well this post performs, I might just write more on Cenk’s continuing stupidity…

An endless source of clueless, creepy and downright disturbing material… Mind-boggling…

Roman Polanski’s Plight

UPDATE: I will keep this post unchanged because I believe it would be dishonest to do otherwise, but I want it known that I didn’t know about his actions thirty years ago until last night, and I will definitely not ignore his statement recently about young girls. I hope this man is thrown in a cell with an inmate who doesn’t have a problem “administering” even the lowest forms of “prison justice”… Disgusting…

*****

I have mixed feelings about this, and while I don’t condone the sexual assault of a 13-year-old, I have trouble supporting the efforts to prosecute Roman Polanski. I know this has been Ed Morrissey’s “axe to grind” for the last few days, reading his first post and now his second post criticizing those who don’t want to see the film director put in jail. Call me naive, but I really think this was the result of the brutal murder of his wife, Sharon Tate and his unborn child by Charles Manson and his followers. The media blitz, the constant reminder of what he had lost, the publicity stunts by Manson’s supporters, etc had taken their tole on Polanski. Reports of his excessive drinking in the years following should show us that this man wasn’t of sound mind. He admitted as much in his autobiography Roman by Polanski,

Since Sharon’s death, and despite appearances to the contrary, my enjoyment of life has been incomplete. In moments of unbearable personal tragedy some people find solace in religion. In my case the opposite happened. Any religious faith I had was shattered by Sharon’s murder. It reinforced my faith in the absurd.

If you ask me, it does sound like he is still serving a self-imposed sentence. I don’t know how the statute of limitations would apply here, if it did at all, but I feel there is more than enough here to at the very least hang the jury. With all the other offenders out there, with all the crime being committed by truly evil men and women, I don’t see why we should bother with prosecuting Roman Polanski. I fail to see what there is to be gained by this…

I would like to know what good will it do society to see a man who has suffered like he has locked up? Is this the legal victory we are looking for in an “age of immorality”? What do we have to gain by uncovering these ugly wounds? I am waiting for Morrissey’s response to these questions… Pitiful…

UPDATE: I said I had mixed feelings about this, and here is why. As Allahpundit pointed out, this isn’t about preserving “art”, this is about the legality of it. It doesn’t surprise me that the Hollywood community is upset by this, but the reasons they are giving for keeping him out of jail is, for the most part, a little ridiculous. Do I think that this arrest is ill-advised after 30 years? Yes, but it isn’t because of Polanski’s contributions to the film industry.

The more I read about this incident, the more I am confused about what is going on here. According to Patterico, he already plead guilty thirty years ago, so that would mean that the statute of limitations doesn’t apply. Does this mean though that there will be a new trial or will it simply be a hearing to pass sentence? If it isn’t the latter, I would advise against it since Los Angeles juries are well known for being irrational.

Since this crime was well before my time, I know very little about what happened. If it was as heinous as some have been saying, it doesn’t sound like the actions of a troubled man. On the other hand, having not dealt with the brutal murders of my wife and unborn child, and the media circus which follow, I really wouldn’t know what is and what isn’t normal behaviour. The problem I am still having is what is the purpose of reopening this thirty year old case? What is there to gain by locking up this man?

You are going to have to give me a better answer than “he is a fugitive from justice”. As a somewhat religious man, I know that just because he has escaped the American courts, doesn’t mean he has escaped God’s judgment… Confused…

UPDATE: What did I say about celebrities not getting it? “Rape-rape” Whoopi? Ed Morrissey has the video up of Goldberg’s stupidity on the view. There are only a few things that can be said in Polanski’s defense, like his emotional state at the time of the crime, the fact that his career suffered because of this, and that his arrest comes thirty years after the crime was committed. This isn’t about his “dedication to art”, this isn’t about the heinous crime he committed, it is about him “fleeing justice for so long”. Why not debate that point?

Once again, what is there to be gained by dragging him and his victim through the courts after thirty years? Can a conviction be gained if his prior plea is thrown out? I would prefer not to take a side in this debate, but those on the right of this issue have failed to answer any of these questions. You have to give Morrissey and the rest of the anti-Polanski crowd credit for their dedication to seeing justice done, but this whole ordeal doesn’t sit well with me…

Let me know what you think, even if you don’t really know what to think at all… Confused…

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin is weighing in on Anne Applebaum’s blog post which failed to mention her husband’s political connection to this mess. Patterico has more on Applebaum’s dishonesty if you are interested.

I can’t wait for this fiasco to be over, but knowing Hollywood trials, that isn’t going to be anytime soon…

UPDATE: Guess what? Not so confused anymore. Michelle Malkin has a post up about what Roman “Rapist” Polanski said about how everyone would want little girls the way he does. This from Micheal Deacon at the Telegraph,

If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!

I can tell you that I don’t like young girls the way he does, and it is just creeps me out that this guy would sexualize a child. As for the questions I asked earlier, I can answer them now. The reason why he SHOULD be prosecuted and locked up is because not only hasn’t he truly paid for his crime, but he had no remorse for the heinous act he committed over thirty years ago. Also, with Polanski behind bars, his victim can now truly find closure on the event which changed her life so many years ago. Finally, any jury that hears this statement won’t have trouble sending him to prison, especially if even one or two of the jurors have daughters. Does he even have a soul? Outrageous!

For all those celebrities signing the petition that is floating around, ask yourself a question; Do you really want to defend a man who drugged and viciously sodomized a 13-year-old girl?

UPDATE: More from Allahpundit on the Roman Polanski fiasco. After getting caught trying to forward her husband’s political agenda, Anne Applebaum comes out with another misguided post about how it is the victim’s fault she was raped. Huh? Let me explain…

As Allahpundit pointed out, nowhere in the transcripts is there this “proof” that it is the girl’s fault. She didn’t give permission to be photographed in a jacuzzi, but even if she did, that doesn’t mean she gave Polanski permission to drug and rape her. I really don’t understand what Applebaum is trying to say here, but it seems that knowing what we know now, they have no other way to defend a man who committed such a horrible offense. Why else would they take this approach?

With even the French people turning against Polanski as I have after learning the disgusting truth, his support is dwindling and getting desperate… Pathetic…

UPDATE: Another post from Ed Morrissey, this one concerning what Hollywood does and doesn’t tolerate. So they won’t forgive Elia Kazan for speaking out against Communism, but they will forgive Roman Polanski for drugging and raping a 13-year-old? Talk about their perverted perceptions… Mind-boggling…

UPDATE: And the fiasco continues. Allahpundit has a post up about the unusual support Polanski is getting from feminists. Do they understand that they should be standing AGAINST a man who drugged and anally raped a 13-year-old girl? Pathetic…

The Story of Stuff: A Must NOT WATCH Crockumentary

Lee Doren at HowTheWorldWorks has put up a few videos relating to what could only be described as blatant indoctrination of elementary school students. I don’t care who Annie Leonard thinks she is, but she is obviously not educated. Her “crockumentary”, The Story of Stuff, is more than misinformed. She speaks as if we don’t even recycle, let alone plant trees, among many other things. This passes for intelligence? Pathetic…

I could go on and on, but watch Doren’s critique. I have no patience for rewatching this liberal arts funded garbage to analyze it…

You have to hand it to Doren, he had the patience to sit through this and correct one misleading line at a time. I am hoping that more and more people would be able to see these simple truths pointed out by Lee, but with the way schools have become more like “reeducation camps”, I fear we might lose many young minds to this uneducated indoctrination. Just the other day someone criticized me for supporting the privatization of both Air Canada and Petro-Canada by former prime minister Brian Mulroney because, as per my education in economics, I only saw the quantitative gains for this decision. What is wrong with this? Well according to the mental midget, because I can only see number values, like cost to Canadian taxpayers and the revenues brought in by Petro-Canada after being privatized, I don’t understand how things “feel”. Does that make sense? Of course it doesn’t, but this is what this history major was being taught… Pathetic…

P.S. As for World Car Free Day, I drove my Pontiac G6 around Ottawa (nothing like a nice LONG drive to clear your mind). What do you environmentalists think of that? Roads and streets were made for vehicles, which are used to transport us, so how is giving up our cars and protesting a return to “normal” life? Seeing how the average travel time to work in North America is thirty minutes by car, longer in larger cities as those in rural areas (ex: it takes my parents 45 minutes to drive from our home to their work), I don’t see how it is even possible to say that walking or biking to work is a viable means of travel for the majority of us. Mind-boggling…

UPDATE: Lee Doren was on Glenn Beck’s show this afternoon discussing his critique of Annie Leonard’s nonsense…

I have to disagree with Beck on this one, I don’t think greed failed at all. Simple human desire points us in a direction, but those leading were the politicians, the same ones who passed and then supported such policies like the Community Reinvestment Act. They failed to control their own desires, whether it be greed or a misplaced empathy, and that is what “got the ball rolling” with the market collapse.

UPDATE: Seems Annie Leonard has a Wikipedia page. Right there in the first line, it states that this eco-nut is a admitted socialist. Does this surprise anyone? According to the article, “Little Annie Lunatic” has also done work for a collection of environmentalist groups like Greenpeace International, well-known for their anti-capitalist views, as well as their support for eco-terrorism. It is no wonder Annie’s The Story of Stuff doesn’t make sense, the video is simply a culmination of the indoctrination she received bouncing from one radical group to another. What else can I say?

Simply put, this radical is simply an unsuccessful Carol Browner, just as deranged but lacking serious political support. Pathetic…

UPDATE: I will have to say that Annie Leonard’s lunacy have gotten under my skin. The fact that this nonsense is taught to elementary school children really upsets me. Now I could let this go, but I feel it is necessary to weigh in on this and point out what I found wrong with her “crockumentary”, things which Lee Doren might have missed…

1. The materials economy is simply the process of turning natural materials into primary products. This isn’t a new idea as “Little Annie Lunatic” would like us to believe with her constant references to the 1950s. Centuries ago, well before the post-Second War boom, you had the mining of raw metals which were melted down to be made into a variety of different products. While not as efficient, the same system was there. Take for example early Canada, where fur and lumber were our primary export. These raw materials were used to make fashionable attire and warships for France before they lost the colony to Great Britain during the Seven Years’ War. There is NOTHING sinister about this process since even the most basic agrarian societies use this method.

2. This idea of resources being finite is over exaggerated. You can open up a CD or DVD case to find a recycled logo imprinted or carved out of the inside cover. You can also pick up blank or lined white paper to find that it is recycled too. What “Little Annie Lunatic” has purposely left out is that we have become far more efficient with our use of resources. Not simply that, but as Doren himself points out, there are even resources available that we ourselves haven’t identified yet because we don’t know how to use them. Who knew even fifty years ago we could harvest wind and solar energy? Pathetic…

3. This idea that the economic process of the materials economy doesn’t take into account “outside forces” like people. How do I address such stupidity? For starters, people (labour as we say in economics) are an important resource. They aren’t an “outside force” at all. You need labour for this process to work, and contrary to “Little Annie Lunatic” is saying, these people do matter. Are some more important than others? Yes, those who work hard are more valuable than those who don’t, but that is how our economic system works. Those who work harder are rewarded for it while those who don’t aren’t. It is no surprise that an admitted socialist would have a problem with this idea.

4. It’s the governments job to take care of its people. This statement screams “nanny state”, but what do you expect from a socialist like her? While Doren does a great job of addressing this as a misinterpretation of the Constitution, but I would like to add my own thoughts on this. Our social and political systems grant us the freedom to live a fairly unobstructed life, but that doesn’t mean that we are entitled to whatever we so choose. It isn’t “life, liberty and happiness”, we are allowed to achieve personal satisfaction is we choose to pursue it. People like “Little Annie Lunatic” would prefer to overtax those who have worked hard and achieved success instead of pushing the uneducated and unemployed into the workforce so they themselves can their own success.

Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built. – Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States of America.

5. Extraction means exploiting the Earth’s resources, which means “trashing the planet”. Huh? This statement is extremely offensive to me as a Canadian because lumber is one of our primary exports. Does this woman have any idea of how this industry works? Obviously she doesn’t. As Doren points out, we replant trees. For example, Outland Reforestation has been up and running since 1985 to replace forests that are cut down due to logging. The beautiful thing about organizations like this is that they not only protect the environment, but provide jobs for thousands of people year round. I knew many students who paid for their university educations through such work. Not only this, but any materials we mine that can be recycled, we do. Whether it be paper, metals, plastics, etc garbage has become a resource. There are new and innovative ways to reuse these materials which “Little Annie Lunatic” wants to say are unusable. More of a socialist than an environmentalist it seems. As for wildlife, even as our cities expand into their territory, many of these creatures are adapting quickly to their new surroundings…

As shown in this video, black bears don’t have a problem with their new surroundings. Matter of fact, the animal’s population has exploded because they are eating our leftover food, getting larger and having more cubs. Nature isn’t as fragile as this lunatic would like us to believe.

6. We are using more than our share in resources? I keep hearing this quote, and it still doesn’t make sense to me. While the points Doren made on how effectively North Americans use resources are great, I would like to look at this lunatic’s idea of Western consumption being a bad thing. Who do you think buys the majority of the goods produced by these developing nations? We do. It is because of our “greedy” lifestyle that you do see development in these poorer nations. Look at the success of China if you have trouble understanding this. Most of the newer good you have in your home were most likely manufactured there because our “greed” has created a large manufacturing industry, which provides jobs for millions of Chinese people, which raises their standard of living. Contrary to what “Little Annie Lunatic” and others as misguided as her are saying, that is a good thing.

7. “Our stuff that got on somebody else’s land”? Excuse me, but we don’t steal natural resources from the third world, we trade for them. It isn’t simply about trading capital and technology for labour and resources though. When a Western company wants to mine for materials or drill for oil in a foreign country, they pay that country’s government for the right to do so, on top of whatever other costs are imposed. On top of this, many of these companies use local labour, providing jobs for the country’s poor, which is far from being exploitation. Once again, please explain to me how putting money in the pockets of the disenfranchised is a bad thing? Pathetic…

8. Toxic chemicals? First off, what does she mean by “toxic chemicals”? Explain to me what isn’t “toxic”, since it seems her definition is far to broad. “Poisoning” our products isn’t an important part of the production process, contrary to what “Little Annie Lunatic” is saying. Matter of fact, when certain goods are found to be unsafe, they are quickly recalled and pulled off the market. Now are their hazardous products out there? Yes, but as Doren says, it is all about risk. You wouldn’t drink drain cleaner would you? Of course not, but according to this lunatic’s reasoning, because it is dangerous if consumed orally, we shouldn’t produce it. As long as products are being used as intended, her nonsensical ravings are simply that of an alarmist. As for chemicals affecting her brain, it is obvious that this lunatic had abuse drugs in her youth. Pot paranoia anyone?

9. Moving from the country into cities is a bad thing? I agree with Doren completely on this point, that this romanticism with peasant life has to stop. For anyone who believes otherwise, how do you think we developed? Look at what is happening in China is you don’t believe me. Peasants move out of the rural areas and into the cities, taking jobs in factories to earn money. This money is than used to send their children to schools to get an education, to have opportunities they wouldn’t have had if their parents had stayed in the countryside. Didn’t think about that one did you “Little Annie Lunatic”? One point this mental midget ignores is that urban areas don’t just provide employment opportunities. In the cities, these people have access to better schools and advanced medical care which they wouldn’t have had if they stayed in countryside. There are more benefits I could discuss, like the overall quality of life in the urban centers versus rural areas, but I think I have made my point. If anyone needed proof that these radical environmentalists want us to give up our way of life and live in mud huts, there it is.

10. Externalizing Costs? This I believe is the only mistake Doren makes in his entire argument against this “crockumentary”. It isn’t because his definition is wrong, it isn’t, it is because he fails to understand how warped this twit’s mind is. To “Little Annie Lunatic”, when she says externalizing costs, I am pretty sure she is discussing the environmental costs for producing a product. According to environmental economics, we must take into account the cost of the damage done to the environment when calculating total costs. Simply put, every plant and animal has a monetary cost associated with repairing or replacing it. Returning to her argument about how the water and land are contaminated, this mental midget is trying to say that companies are forcing the clean up onto a third party, mainly the government via taxpayers. Because of this, the “real” price of the products we buy is higher than that found on the label. Problem with this argument is that companies that are found polluting are not only heavily fined, but since their crimes are publicized, they will be punished a second time as conscientious shoppers will refuse to buy their products. Even if they don’t pollute, companies still have to pay hefty fees for the processing of their waste as per government mandates. This is the kind of nonsensical thinking is behind cap-and-trade, that we must tax companies and their consumers based on what is believed to be their level pollution. I could go on and discuss how a radio can cost $4.99, and why pollution in developing countries like China shouldn’t be blamed on us, but Doren does a great job covering most of this.

11. The golden arrow of consumption? Every good fictional story needs a villain, and “Little Annie Lunatic” provides her audience with this nonsense. Consumerism is NOT something “sinister”, a belief this hypocrite is trying to push. Don’t think we didn’t notice the iPod at the start of the video or her “GAP-esk” wardrobe. As for the importance of consumerism to our way of life, she’s ALMOST right but for the wrong reasons. Former President George W. Bush told Americans to shop not simply because he wanted to show these barbarians the resolve of the United States, but because the September 11th attacks had a serious impact on the economy. The best way to combat such problems is to get the system working again, not because the “golden arrow” should be properly worshiped even in times of crisis. Leave it to this waste of a carbon footprint to use this national tragedy to forward her perverted agenda. It is at this moment that she loses any credibility she has…

12. “Thrifty” is good? Excuse me, but since when is scrounging a good thing? I do my best to reuse older products I have, I also don’t spend money on the newest gadgets simply because it is the “hip” thing to do (looking at you and your iPod “Little Annie Lunatic”), but there are limits. Just because my parents and their parents didn’t have the luxuries we take for granted, it isn’t because they didn’t want them, it was because they couldn’t afford them. As Doren points out, we are wealthier now and can afford far more goods than past generations. Not just this though, the price of products has dropped significantly because of the efficiencies in production which also allows us to consume more. Instead of wasting time constantly repairing older shirts and pants, it is now more efficient (time being used efficiently) to simply purchase new clothes. As for her rant about computers, just because she hasn’t bought a new monitor is the last ten or so years, doesn’t mean her co-worker shouldn’t either. It doesn’t make sense to argue that a lower quality of life is a good thing, but this is what this radical is doing…

13. Proof of a grand consumer driven conspiracy through high-heel shoes? This has to be proof that she is either NOT a woman, or she is complete oblivious to the countless other reasons why women purchase shoes. While it is true that heel sizes can change from year to year, they also vary from style to style, type to type, as well as the purpose (whether the occasion is casual or formal). The main reason though that we do see such a difference in female footwear is personal preference. My aunt is very rarely found in anything other than stiletto heels, shoes which are usually only worn for formal occasions. I know many younger girls who feel more comfortable wearing wedge heels, while others won’t wear anything but simple three-inch lifts. If her argument is solely based on this idea that a woman’s desire to be fashionable is the only driving force behind shoe sales, and that it is easy to tell who is keeping up to date with the latest fashion is by comparing heel width, why is there such a difference in preference? Also, contrary to what she says, many women will not wear certain heels because of the well-documented health risks associated with them. Did she even bother using Google in the supposed ten years she spent researching her ill-informed position? Doesn’t seem like it. This argument is simply stupid and demonstrates that “Little Annie Lunatic” lacks common sense.

14. More stuff but less time for things that make us happy? Aside from the fact that happiness is an extremely subjective judgment, how can she say that what we own cannot make us happy because it interferes with social relationships? My friend and I spend hours upon hours playing a variety of video games together, and I can say I am far happier when I am shooting up the Locust Horde in Gears of War or killing terrorists in Army of Two and Rainbow Six Vegas, than I am simply talking with him about various issues, political and non-political. Friends are people who you can enjoy your leisure time with, people who you share common interests with, and these interests can be as environmentally friendly as planting trees or as “sinister” as shopping. When I lived in Nantong, there were only three things you could do, eat, sleep and shop, and had Chinese friends who I spent hours with bouncing from store to store, checking out the latest in bootlegged DVDs and CDs. I was far happier doing that than I am listening to this mental midget tell me how horrible my lifestyle is. One has to wonder whether or not she gets joy out of making us depressed… She’s obviously mentally disturbed…

15. The system isn’t working? How is our system is failing when it is raising the standard of living for all participants? During my time in Nantong, China, I personally witnessed the failures of the system of government she advocates, while seeing how important capitalism was to raising their standard of living. Just because this system hasn’t achieved “true recycling”, it doesn’t mean it has failed. Every day we find more efficient way of using resources and more effective ways to recycle. If we were to implement the radical changes “Little Annie Lunatic” is proposing in this video right now, who do you think would suffer the most? Those living in developing countries, but that’s great isn’t it? I mean, wasn’t it this headcase that was preaching about how great their lives in abject poverty were? This kind of thinking isn’t “progressive”, it is regressive. Once again, this lunatics is making it clear that she won’t be satisfied until we are living in mud huts under a socialist regime. Don’t believe me? What about her comment at the end of the video about “Uniting the world’s workers”? She is quoting Karl Marx. Do I need to continue?

*****

I have a very hard time ignoring this lunacy. Sure we could simply dismiss her nonsense before even watching this video because of her political background, let alone the fact that this project was produced with the support of liberal arts colleges (Do you want fries with that degree?), but since so many people already believe this nonsense, it is important that we address each point and show why it is wrong. Like I said above, I could go on and on about what is wrong with this way of thinking, write out entire blog posts about each issue she raises to truly discredit this lunatic, but I think Doren’s original critique, along with my comments, should be more than enough to convince the average person that Annie Leonard’s video isn’t worst the DVD it is recorded on… Downright pathetic…

Jimmy Carter Escapes Mental Hospital; What else can I say about this racist?

I would have said that the former president had gone senile, but I am pretty sure we all know that by now. So, have we all seen the video yet? No? Okay, for those who haven’t…

Brian Williams deserves to be lumped in with Jimmy Carter for this one. The NBC anchor didn’t question this nonsense, giving the well-known antisemtie, as Alan Dershowitz would testify to, a platform to preach his hate. I slammed Canadian disgrace George Stroumboulopoulos for doing the same thing on his CBC show, The Hour, back in January, and I will continue pointing out those who don’t seem to understand the damage this does every time he opens his mouth. Don’t think this emboldens the radicals? This from a uncoverbrother, a person who commented on the video above…

FINALLY! a white person of influence is stating the obvious about SOME of the opposition to obama and his agenda. the opposition isn’t entirely about due to racism, but the viciousness and outright disrespect that is seeping in, is definitely because the president is PART black.

whoever was the first president of color would’ve experienced it and if this is as bad as it’s gonna get, then it’s a blessing. preach jimmy!

This sounds tame compared to what those at the Huffington Post are saying about this…

Jimmy Carter is dead right — as usual. The entire Tea Party movement is racist. The American right is going insane. This phenomenon is worse than a mass nervous breakdown — it is massive anti-social behaviour fueled by paranoia wrapped in xenophobia and inserted into its core of rabid racism.

and…

Former President Carter is spot on.

The tea baggers are like the K//K//K// without the sheets. It’s the same old story. These middle class and working class whites are being manipulated by powerful interests such as insurance companies and banks. The teabaggers have been hookwinked to march and vote against their own economic interests and blame it on a black man.

Bob Dylan sang it much better almost 50 years ago. Racists are “only a pawn in their game”.

What kind of lunatic actually believes this? BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE…

President Jimmy Carter,

Well done, Mr Carter you have just told the truth the total truth behind the tea baggers, and Mr Obama is a uniquely gifted man who will rise above this.

The USA is a deeply racist country and like it or not the elephant is out and is snorting.

and…

“Carter called Wilson’s comment “dastardly” and said the president should be treated with respect.”

Former President Carter knows a thing or two about being disrespected.

He’s suffered the slings and arrows of the demonic republican’s for decades, and still, he remains Christlike.

God Bless you Jimmy Carter.

Christ-like? Leave it to a group of God-haters to compare this disgrace to Jesus Christ. Does it bother them that Osama bin Laden has praised Carter’s latest book? I have to somewhat disagree with Allahpundit, that I do believe a fair portion of those on the left actually believe what the former president said, especially since I quoted a few of the more insane things being said at the Huffington Post right now. I could continue discussing this lunacy, but I am drifting off-topic…

When Carter gives a speech, he rallies the radicals and does serious damage to those he targets simply because he was a former president. It doesn’t matter that his administration was plagued with one problem after another, that many historians have called his presidency a failure, all that does matter is that in 1976 Americans made the mistake of electing him to America’s highest office (sure they voted him out in a landslide, but the damage had already been done). So when Carter says these ridiculous things, instead of being put in a padded room, he is applauded. You then have those like Roland Martin at CNN echoing his lunacy, discussing how a white man from Georgia would know about racism and that the Republicans are trying to bring back the Jim Crow laws, ignoring the fact that it was the Democrats who initially enacted them. Forget that this is a false appeal to authority, race-mongers like Martin will take Carter’s words and use them to bolster their argument. Pathetic and downright disgusting…

If this was about race, why are prominent African-Americans like Larry Elder criticizing President Barack Obama? Leftist, socialist, etc aren’t being used to hide racist feelings, they are criticisms of the Obama’s political position. Once again, the majority of people don’t hate him because he is black, they hate him because he is “red”… You want to see racism? LOOK IN THE MIRROR! We don’t care what colour Obama’s skin is, and people who do believe that this is all because of race should be put in a padded room with Jimmy “I hate Jews” Carter… Pathetic…

UPDATE: I slept on it, and I feel it is important to address the remarks of Democratic Representative Hank Johnson yesterday…

As Allahpundit said in his post about this, it is easy to see that all this talk about this being an era of “post-racialism” is garbage. Forget that the Ku Klux Klan was considered the militant wing of the Democratic Party at one time, forget that for decades Southern Democrats held close ties to this organization, even turning to it for political support to win elections (something Democratic Senator Robert Byrd admits he himself did), Johnson wants people to believe that the Republicans were the ones wearing “white hoods” back during the Civil Rights era. Does it matter that this man doesn’t even have his facts straight? Mind-boggling…

Whether it be Jimmy Carter or a growing number of Democrat politicians and supporters, it is clear to see that it isn’t the Republicans who are the racists. Need I repeat myself? We don’t like this administration because of their political beliefs, not the colour of their skin… Do I really need to say this when we criticize Nancy Pelosi, Carol Browner and Barney Frank for the very same things? Pathetic…

UPDATE: I got to hand it to Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey on this one. I know I would usually link to the post and comment on it, but I will post the entire article right here for my “modest” readership to enjoy.

If Jimmy Carter believes that the “overwhelming” portion of criticism towards Barack Obama is due to racism, does he also believe that the overwhelming portion of criticism towards Israel is anti-Semitic? Wouldn’t that apply to a man who hangs out with people who target Israeli citizens for terrorist attacks? After all, Hamas regularly issues anti-Semitic harangues and smears, and yet Carter has no problem cozying up to them and claiming that their criticism of Israel is legitimate.

From now on, using Carter’s own logic, we should note each of his remarks on the Middle East by saying they come from “Jimmy Carter, known anti-Semite.” Two can play this game.

Couldn’t have said it better myself… Marvelous!

UPDATE: More from Ed Morrissey, this on Maxine Waters redefining what terms are to be considered racist. I might be ignorant of the latest “Beltway lingo”, but when is calling ObamaCare by its name racist? What is this nonsense? Can we not even mention the program we are critical of? This is just another way to silence dissent, to label those who even dare speak of government programs as racist. What should we expect from the Democrats after their antics of late? Disturbing and downright pathetic…

UPDATE: Allahpundit has posted on the White House’s response to Carter’s ridiculous comments. Just because they disagree with this assertion that all most criticism is racist, it doesn’t mean that will be the end of the story. As Allahpundit points out, President Obama is going to have to seriously address all this talk of racism coming from his party. Expect to see some serious distancing from this racial rhetoric, especially since it isn’t helping win support for ObamaCare. As a few people have pointed out, while Barack himself hasn’t stooped to labeling his opponents in this debate as racists, he has supporters willing to do so. Just because he isn’t directly involved, doesn’t mean he can be given a pass, not unless he is willing to denounce this lunacy and punish those in his own party who have been pushing it. I don’t expect the latter, but it would be a sign of good faith if he at least pointed out that this labeling has gotten out of hand… Pitiful…

UPDATE: Got to hand it to Ed Morrissey for digging this up. According to Dennis Freddoso at the Washington Examiner, Jimmy Carter is no stranger to anti-black racism, matter of fact, it helped him win his 1970 campaign for governor of Georgia. As Stephen Hayward’s The Real Jimmy Carter explains, the former president might as well have been wearing a white hood…

- Carter’s top campaign staffers were spotted distributing grainy photographs of Sanders arm-in-arm celebrating with two black men. Sanders was a part-owner of the Atlanta Hawks, and in the photograph he was celebrating a victory with two players who were pouring champagne over his head. Carter’s leaflet was intended to depress Sanders’s white vote.
- The Carter campaign also produced a leaflet noting that Sanders had paid tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr.
- Carter criticized Sanders, a former governor, for preventing Alabama Gov. and notorious segregationist George Wallace from speaking on Georgia state property. “I don’t think it was right for Governor Sanders to try to please a group of ultra-liberals, particularly those in Washington, when it means stifling communication with another state,” said Carter.
- I have no trouble pitching for Wallace votes and black votes at the same time,’ Carter told a reporter. Carter also said to another reporter, “I can win this election without a single black vote”.
- Upon receiving the endorsement of former Democratic Gov. Lester Maddox, Carter responded by praising the life-long segregationist: “He has brought a standard of forthright expression and personal honesty to the governor’s office, and I hope to live up to his standard.” Maddox had not only refused to serve blacks in the restaurant he once owned, but he had also greeted civil rights protestors with a gun, and made sticks available to his white customers with which to intimidate them.
- The campaign paid for radio ads for a fringe black candidate, C.B. King, in an effort to siphon black votes away from Sanders.
- Then there was the radio commercial in which Carter said he would never be the tool of any ‘block’ vote, slurring over the word ‘block’ so that it could be mistaken for ‘black.’

Wow! This really explains a lot now doesn’t it? What about what was said at the Huffington Post? For those old enough, are you still proud you voted Carter? Are you proud you supporter a man who bragged about getting elected without a single black vote? It seems that Carter doesn’t just hate Jews, but also African-Americans. If they are still supportive of the former president after this bit of information, I guess we really do know who are the real racists… Hilarious…

Glenn Beck’s 9/11; Eight years later and no progress

A hat tip to Patriots and Heroes for this video. I will have to say that I am almost as passionate about the September 11th attacks as Glenn Beck, losing my temper on a group of mental midgets in a Introduction to Politics discussion group who were trying to prove that the United States was to blame. It is the reason I have stayed away from politics courses and those who major in this degree program. Spending money to learn how to hate your country and ignore the lessons of the past is a complete waste. It doesn’t matter what country you call home, when the planes hit New York City, it might as well have been Toronto. They attacked all of us, and we mourned together at the events of that day. As a Canadian, I am deeply ashamed at what I hear from those on my side of the border who still don’t understand what this day means. Americans are our brothers and sisters, and when they are hurt, we are hurt…

I do agree with Beck on this one, that politics has gotten in the way of moving both our countries forward. Whether it is the reconstruction of the Twin Towers, or efforts to combat terrorism, there are those within our countries that want us to forget what happened eight years ago. What is this nonsense we see from Barack and Michelle Obama? This is downright disturbing, and if anything should tell Americans that this poor excuse for a man, let alone a president, that he has lost touch with them, this is it. Did we see him in New York City mourning on Friday? No we didn’t because he doesn’t feel the way he should about this occasion, and that downright disturbs me…

Let’s not forget what they did to us and let’s not forget why are soldiers still fight… Time to do what must be done to move forward, and not let political correctness or sheer ignorance stop us… Pathetic…