Look Up The Word Douchebag in the Dictionary and Piers Morgan’s Photo Will Be Next to it

This post really should have been up yesterday, but I was spending the day without a computer, unfortunately.

Wednesday night I was at work, minding my own business when a friend posted THIS on her facebook timeline.

I had to do a double take and go hunting through twitchy to see if it was real, since it was no longer on Piers’ twitter feed. No doubt deleted when he realized that he looked like a massive tool and not even his CNN time slot could disguise that fact after a tweet like that went public.

Of course Piers has consistently underestimated the power of the new media and his tweet had already been screen captured by John Nolte, over at Breitbart, and saved for posterity. Yet another reminder that, especially if you are a left-wing moron, once you put something on the internet it’s there for good. (You would think after the Anthony Weiner scandal that liberals might be watching what they post a little more, no such luck.)

Anyway, Morgan took personal offense at having his douchebaggery saved for future generations apparently.

And this exchange took place.

And Nolte updated his original post on Breitbart to include this note.

Piers Morgan responded to this article on Twitter, personally accusing me of smearing him and twisting his “obvious sarcasm.” I responded by asking how straight-forward reporting and quoting what he said constitutes twisting or smearing, and will update this post if there’s an answer.

For some reason Piers has yet to address how it is “smearing” to directly quote something someone said. My guess is the answer would be something along the lines of “but Jooooohn it’s not FAIR!” whined in a voice that could make even ME hate a British accent.

I almost feel sorry for Piers, since Nolte loves to expose him for the d-bag he is, through Morgan’s own words. Then again, he sort of deserves it for making light of a tragedy, whether he meant it in a sarcastic manner or not.

Here’s a good rule of thumb, if you don’t mean it, and it’s going to make you look like an asshole if people cannot obviously discern that you are being sarcastic, then don’t press send.

There should be an app for twitter that will read your messages back to you before you send them. If that existed, Piers might have hesitated. Maybe not — maybe he is an asshole with a chip on his shoulder and an agenda to promote, no matter who has to die to promote it.

He’s certainly been on a tear about gun control on twitter lately, judging from the tweets that twitchy is archiving.

Twitchy seems to think that he was obviously being sarcastic.

Morgan was being sarcastic, of course. But his ghoulish sense of humor and his tasteless timing failed to amuse.

- Twitchy

I don’t think there was anything obvious about it, no matter what he said in follow-up tweets.

Morgan was incredibly offended at Nolte, piling on accusations and outright lies. One in which he stated, essentially, that Breitbart would be ashamed of Nolte’s posting a photo of his tweet for the world to see (check in the dictionary next to “Hah! Not likely” for my reaction that one) and that he “admired” Breitbart.

That’s a tall tale from someone who said (and I quote, which Morgan hates apparently):

Morgan: “Andrew let me go to you, as I said before the break, you are notoriously evil about almost everybody so what do you think of the new politics where everyone just whacks everybody else.”

Breaitbart: “Well I don’t think you know me Piers Morgan. I think we maybe spent eight seconds together.”

Morgan: “It was a long eight seconds.”

- Townhall

Oh well, it’s not like Morgan doesn’t have a penchant for ignoring the facts, or his own past words, when it suits him.

Maybe, as Nolte supposes in this article, it’s time for CNN to understand that Piers is just one of the many reasons their ratings are tanking.

These are your complaints? Really? I’d like to know who “they” are…

So I found a list of complaints from the Occupy Wallstreet protesters, it was on Bill Ayers blog. *eye roll* Why am I not surprised?

I know I said I wasn’t going to talk about these guys anymore, but this list is just too ridiculous to ignore.

I have to say that I’m very anti-disestablishment when it come to this group, that is to say…I may have some problems with how the establishment is run, but that’s no excuse to destroy the establishment entirely…and that’s what these people want.

And these complaints are so much less than useful.

So let’s get this mocking off to good start.

First of all, I’ve left out a few lines at the beginning and end that I simply didn’t care about. I’m here to mock their, so-called, complaints.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

“Corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth”

I think they just don’t understand Capitalism. After all, a corporation can make any product they want, but they cannot force a person to buy it. If you choose to give money to a corporation, which, I would venture to guess, that all of these protesters have done, then you are giving your consent to that corporation to take that money.

“We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.”

First of all, you are protesting the wrong people if you have a problem with corporations “controlling” the government through economic power. As long as the government has powers that the corporations would like to exploit, this is going to keep happening. Fix the government, don’t attack the corporations for doing what corporations do…try to make a profit.

And another thing, of course corporations put profit over people. Last I checked, corporations were not charities. They are places of business where turning a profit is their main purpose for existing. And out of a need to keep good employees motivated they will give bonuses for good work, insurance to employees, and certain perks to draw in the most gifted people for the fields the corporation is concentrated on. Poor treatment will lose them good workers, but the only reasons a corporation has for treating their employees well is their profit margins. Take that away and you are destroying the very reasons why the business exists.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

Okay, who is they? The Occupy Wall Street complaint list mentions “they” several times. Who “they” are is never established, which make it rather hard to argue against their complaints, but I’ll give it a shot…operating from the idea that “they” means Wall Street, since that’s who they are protesting.

What do they mean by “illegal foreclosure process”? I can’t even begin to imagine. Do they mean the fact that mortgages were sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because the banks were losing money because people weren’t paying back their loans? So sorry, it’s not the banks faults that the government pushed them to make loans to people who didn’t deserve them in the first place. The banks were merely trying to make the best of a bad situation and if you took on a loan that you couldn’t afford because you, foolishly, believed that you just had to own a house as part of the “American Dream” that is hardly my fault or the fault of the banks.

You are protesting the wrong people. Move over the Pennsylvania Avenue and go after the real people responsible.

They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.

Who gave them those bailouts? Oh…right, the White House again. They didn’t “take” the bailouts, they were given to them (in some cases forced to take them and not able to return them now) by the government.

As for the bonuses, yes that was stupid, but hardly a reason to stink up the entirety of Wall Street, quite literally.

They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.

Once again, they list no proof to go along with their complaints. Making it very hard to refute their point. If you aren’t willing to give me hard facts, I tend to dismiss your complaints.

But, here, I’ll give it a shot. I have to assume what they mean, because, as I said, there are not facts given. I’ll assume, since these are liberals, they they feel corporations aren’t hiring enough minority workers. I honestly don’t care as long as they are hiring the right people for the jobs.

Affirmative action, in schools or the work place, is just so much bullshit. That’s all I can say here. No one should get special treatment, negative or positive, because of their race, gender identity, gender, or sexual orientation. There is a reason that there isn’t a giant rainbow flag on my resume, because the fact that I’m gay is not important.

They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.

Uh, well…the government has made it more and more difficult for small farms to succeed by creating tougher interstate commerce laws, trying to make it illegal to grow backyard gardens, raiding farms that sell raw milk, etc, etc, etc. However that has nothing to do with Wall Street and everything to do with the fact that our federal government is taking far too much power and getting a bit drunk on it.

They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.

If they are hiding the practices then how do you know about them?

Still no proof, just a vague complaint about “they” and animal cruelty. I’m starting to think that concrete evidence is a foreign concept to these people….or specific names of corporations.

Because I don’t know what they mean by “cruel treatment” I can’t argue, but I will say that I do not think that animals are, in any way, as important as humans. Though truly awful animal cruelty should be stopped, it really depends on what they mean. See my article about PETA to get a better picture of how I feel about animal “cruelty”.

They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.

If you actually mean that they are stripping the unions of the right to be bullies, then yes. I’ve actually known people involved in strikes here in my city, a good portion of those I talked to were not happy with going on strike, but were forced to by the unions, putting their jobs and livelihood on the line.

Who is the bully then?

Competition for better pay is healthy. No one should take their job or their paycheck for granted. Having a job does not mean you get to slack off and keep expecting pay raises and job security. For some reason that’s what unions seem to do though. Specifically the teacher’s union. Don’t even get me (or The Conservative New Ager started on them.)

They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.

Once again, you are blaming the wrong people.

First, The universities are going to keep raising prices as long as the government will continue subsidizing the cost of school. I’m going to link to TCNA’s blog once more because he’s already written a great piece on the subsidization of college tuition.

Secondly, no one held a gun to your head and made you take out that loan. I bitch about my loans, but I also know I will pay them back one way or another. I bitch because I feel I’m not getting much out of the classes I’m paying for.

Thirdly, if you get a degree in something useless (yes, there are useless degrees) that was your choice. Do yourself a favor and wait to go to college, wait until you have at least a basic idea of what you want to major in and what that degree can be used for…and if that degree is going to give you a big enough return to repay your loans and live comfortably.

They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.

And those jobs overseas haven’t helped other countries at all?

Also, if you are going to insist on taxes their profits through the roof why wouldn’t  they take their money, labor needs, and products to a different country who will actually appreciate them?

They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.

I think the idea there, I could be wrong though, was that if they are going to pay taxes like the rest of the citizens, that they have certain rights.

So you want them to not be treated as humans, the answer is easy…stop taxing them.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.

And until Obamacare is gone they will continue to do so. Obama’s healthcare plan is bad for the economy and bad for businesses.

They have sold our privacy as a commodity.

Come on now, why should you have a problem with that? I mean, you are perfectly happy using facebook, twitter, google+, gmail, etc. And all of those use your personal information to make money. Names, email addresses, your likes and dislikes. All being sold to make them a buck. If you don’t like it, stop using the internet.

They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.

Really? Because I haven’t seen this happening. I mean, look at Wikileaks. Julian Assange, the founder, has done some truly horrible stuff in my opinion and I wouldn’t even consider him “press” or  journalist, but he hasn’t been arrested or grabbed by the military or government (which were both hurt by the information leaks that Assange’s group has been a part of) and thrown in a deep dark hole.

They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.

Here’s another on that I can’t deal with because there isn’t any proof.

I’m beginning to think that proof isn’t high on their list of important things…

Besides, allowing faulty products to remain on the market would do the opposite of making profit. The longer the product stays on the market, the higher the chance that a class-action suit will be filed because of injuries and damages. It’s in the companies best interest to take dangerous and faulty products off the market and fix the problems.

They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.

Okay, now I must be confused…because now you’re talking about the Democrats and Obama right?

Right?

Please tell me that is who you are talking about. Because if you are talking about Wall Street, a place where it is completely against their best interest to destroy the economy, you are just trying to hurt my brain.

They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.

I think I already talked about this earlier.

Oh yes, here we are.

“you are protesting the wrong people if you have a problem with corporations “controlling” the government through economic power. As long as the government has powers that the corporations would like to exploit, this is going to keep happening. Fix the government, don’t attack the corporations for doing what corporations do…try to make a profit.”

And guess who raked in the most Wall Street donations than any other President?

That’s right, Barack Obama, the President who seems to be sympathetic to the Occupy Wall Street cause.

Well of course he seems sympathetic. He really needs their votes next year.

They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.

Because creating medicine that will extend people’s lives and raise their standard of living is totally in the best interest of corporations.

And these companies spend years and thousands of man hours researching new drugs and medicines. Where is the proof that they have turned a substantial profit.

I’m seriously getting sick of this lack of citations.

They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.

Admittedly, some of this could be true. Though companies that cover up faulty bookkeeping usually end up pulling an ENRON sooner of later and the FDA tends to keep an eye on that whole “ingredient” issue. Also…if the oil spill could be covered up, it clearly wasn’t a very big one and the only way a workplace accident can be “covered up” would be settling out of court with the injured party…or killing them. So I suppose if we are talking about the mob the second option might happen, but I feel fairly confident that that situation is rare.

They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.

CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC. What do these names have in common, besides being alphabet soup?

Oh yes, they are the names of major networks…most of which are major news networks, major liberal news networks.

Fox, one name, the name of a, supposedly, horribly conservative biased news network.

Are they saying that the liberal news networks, the ones that supply them with support and should be against Wall Street as much as they are, are being controlled by Wall Street.

Whoops.

They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.

Wall Street has?

Wow, who knew.

And here I thought that the courts decided who was guilty and innocent. I thought that cases in which we were trying to convict someone and put them on death row tended to take years and years to settles, with evidence all over the place.

They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.

What is this? The 18th century? When is the last time America (or a European country for that matter) had a colony?

I don’t even know what else to say to this one.

They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.

I suppose some collateral damage in foreign wars had occurred, that happens unfortunately. However I think “torture” and “murder” are completely incorrect words, and loaded ones to boot.

And yet again, there is no proof for this claim. When using such loaded words they should provide proof.

They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government ontracts.

WMDs? Really? I doubt that. The United States doesn’t make many of those these days. If you are talking about government weapons contracts, well…once again this is the wrong place to be protesting. As long as the government is giving out contracts, there will be companies to take them.

Move it along guys, these complaints are nothing and you could be doing a lot more with your time.

Saudi Women will be able to vote in 2015, but still can’t drive or have a bank account.

Saudi King Abdullah has given the kingdom’s women the right to vote for first time in nationwide local elections, due in 2015. The king said in an annual speech on Sunday, Sept. 25, 2011 before his advisory assembly, or Shura Council, that Saudi women will be able to run and cast ballots in the 2015 municipal elections.

-The Blaze

You know, it’s always nice to see a country take it’s first steps out of the dark ages.

Though I sort of have to wonder at the order the Saudis are taking these steps in.  After all, in Saudi Arabia women are still not allowed to have their own bank accounts, live normal life without the guardianship of a male, or drive a car.

Saudi women’s rights activist Wajeha Al-Huwaider called the announcement “great news.”

“Women’s voices will be heard finally,” she said. “Now it’s time to remove other barriers like not allowing women to drive cars and not being able to function and live a normal life without a male guardian.”

- CNN

In fact, in the case of the driving issue. A Saudi woman, Shaima Ghassaniya, has been sentenced to 10 lashes for driving.

Strangely, there is nothing in official Saudi law that stipulates that women can not drive. It is only a religious law, Sharia, that makes it illegal. One must wonder then, why a woman would be punished by the government for breaking a religious law?

Oh, right. Saudi Arabia is as good as a theocracy, even if not in name.

The Associated Press writes

In Saudi Arabia, no woman can travel, work, marry, get divorced, gain admittance to a public hospital or live independently without permission from a “mahram,” or male guardian. Men can beat women who don‘t obey them and fathers or brothers have the right to prevent their female relatives from getting married if they don’t approve of her suitor.

“Right now, women are harassed and they get dragged to courts and nothing has changed in this respect,” said Aboul Khair, who himself has been referred to court after challenging the social restrictions women face as well as other issues. His trial has yet to start.

When I read things like this, despite the new right given to Saudi women, I have to scoff at people who claim that Islam is full of tolerance and equality. The religious law of Islam is what creates this inequality in Saudi Arabia, yeah…lots of equality to be found here.

Edit on 10/02/11 @ 12:46am:

While I can’t say I’m King Abdullah’s number 1 cheerleader, I have to say he’s been making some of the right moves lately. I mean, if it’s pissing off the Islamic religious leaders in Saudi Arabia I have to feel they must be right on some counts.

On top of allowing women to vote in 2015 he also pardoned the woman mentioned above, Shaima Ghassaniya, from the punishment of 10 lashes that she was to receive for breaking an Islamic religious edict that prevents women in Saudi Arabia from driving.

At least that’s what reports have indicated.

Affirmative Action Bullshit and You CAN actually still write objectively while holding personal opinions on a topic

I have a feeling that my Beginning Journalism class is going to be the topic of many rants on this blog, this will only be the first.

Yesterday one of the deans came in to finish giving a lecture on “What is News”. The things that make a story newsworthy, important elements of journalism, etc. etc. if you have ever studied journalism you know the drill. If you haven’t studied journalism, but you have a shred of common sense you can understand the concept. It’s a Freshman level class, I’m the oldest person in it….partly because I’m a sophomore and partly because I’m old even for a sophomore. Ugh.

Anyway, one of the things that we talked about was the differences between the people who are commonly the editors in charge of major newspapers and news networks, as opposed to the rest of society. Now I’m not quoting the dean verbatim, I completely admit that, I was not taking detailed enough notes at this point in the lecture to do this. I will tell you the gist of what he said in his lecture and go from there.

The first point I want to address is one that he made when he said that Journalism would be a very tough field for us if we held any strong political beliefs in either direction. Now I will fully admit that my bias (and my knowledge of the majority of Journalism outlets) heard that as “you will have a lot of trouble in this field if you have any strong conservative political beliefs.” You can believe what you will about media and journalism bias that skews the field ever to the left, but I believe it is there even if you don’t.

The dean made this point because my school of Journalism teaches “objective journalism” in which you report the facts of the story, what really happened, where and to whom and how and why…if you can discern the why objectively. This is done in such a way as to remove personal bias from the equation. I like that sort of News reporting…it’s sadly not available on most major news outlets anymore *coughCNNcough* though the News shows on Fox (not the opinion shows, there is a distinction) still manage it quite well.

Now I’ve never pretended that this blog wasn’t biased. You read a few posts and you will realized pretty quickly that I’m a conservative first and foremost and a gay women somewhere far below that on the list.

I don’t write objectively on this blog. Now I do try to make sure I check and double check my facts because I strive for accuracy in my writing, but I will call Liberals idiots, I will call Islam evil, I will call pretty much everything as I see it…usually through the lens of my bias. Now do I think that my bias is the correct and rational way to think? Yes, most definitely. Why else would I think that way?

So I do have some very strongly held political views. Does that impair my ability to write objectively? No.

If you are a good journalist you will know how to separate your biases from the facts and still be able to write objectively. So I can write an objective article about Obama while somewhere, locked in a closet in my brain, my conservative self is rocking back and forth muttering “this President is a moron, this President is a moron” over and over. It can be done.

If you are reading this and shaking your head, saying it can’t be done. That you couldn’t possibly write about something objectively if you felt strongly about it. If that’s the case then you have one of two problems, you are either a very bad writer or you are very weak minded…possibly both, hopefully only the first one…you can be trained out of that one.

The second point he made was one that, upon looking back at it, completely contradicts the previous statement about not holding strong personal biases on “big issues”. He said that there was a need to “diversify” the pool of journalists and editors working at major news outlets (paper and media) because without more females, or homosexuals or people of minority background, the news will not be “understandable and clear” to those who read it.

Wait.

I thought the whole point of journalism was to not write using your bias. If you are writing something one way, only because you are a women, or black, or gay, then isn’t that writing going to be biased in that direction?

Oh wait. I forgot.

This is the liberal media. The only direction something is allowed to be biased in is toward the “minority”.

Another point, harkening back to post I made about how I didn’t realize I had a separate history from the rest of the world just because I was gay. History is history and news is news people. If it’s important to one group it should be important to every other person living in that area as well.

Stories about gay rights do not just affect gay people. I don’t need a gay journalist to write those articles, because, theoretically, the journalist writing it should be so objective that I shouldn’t be able to tell if they are gay, straight, asexual, or poly-sexual. Unless it’s an editorial, I don’t give a crap about their personal opinion on gay rights. I want to know the facts, minus their opinion on conservative or liberal politics or the morality, or lack thereof, of gay marriage. Besides, gay rights are not any issue that only affect gay men and women. It is a civil rights issue and it does affect the nation in general. We should all be keeping ourselves informed about the topic.

Do you think that women’s suffrage only affected women? No, it had widespread affect on men, women, children, corporations, and the government. That’s why it doesn’t have to be written about by a woman, for women. It’s important, it’s news, it’s for everyone.

There is no need to “diversify” the journalism workforce, there is a need to hire good journalists, objective journalists, no matter their race, gender, or sexual orientation. “Diversifying” the workforce is just Affirmative Action all over again and I bet you can guess how I felt about that. I want to know that I got my job because I’m good at what I do, not because I’m gay and female and the news outlet needed to fill a quota of “minorities”. I want people to get jobs because they deserve them, not because they “need” the job because they are an “oppressed minority”.

And anyone with a conscience and a scrap of dignity should feel the same.