Israeli official offended at the term “swine flu.” Bonus stupid points: Suggests we call it the “Mexican flu” instead. Because there’s nothing stigmatizing about that!
Study suggests some conservatives think Colbert is one of their own.
So yeah. This was probably a bad idea.
Scott Horton runs down torture myths and reality.
Retired cop shoots himself in the leg at a bar. In 2001 he was fired, then reinstated after allegedly threatening to kill his wife and locking himself in an SUV with a .38-caliber handgun. In October he retired early after being suspected of drunk driving. In 2008 he was named the town’s “Officer of the Year.”
This entry was posted
on Monday, April 27th, 2009 at 1:47 pm by Radley Balko
and is filed under Police Professionalism.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
Anything that denies the goodness of bacon has serious issues.
I think we sould rename it super predatory jew flu so the Isreali’s will actually something to complain about.
I’m curious if conservative satire of liberals (does it exist?) would confuse leftists.
Right now I’m left with the impression that conservatives don’t seem to have a sense of humor, for whatever reason.
How about “Divideth the hoof and cheweth not the cud flu”?
Are the Israelis offended on behalf of the flu virus? I’m confused.
Notify NYC, a pilot electronic service intended to quickly provide emergency alerts to New Yorkers who sign up for them, did not prove particularly effective.
Text messages and e-mail messages explaining the flyover were sent out at 10:38 a.m., after the exercise was already scheduled to end. “The community was startled, and would have preferred advance warning,” said Catherine McVay Hughes, vice chairwoman of Community Board 1 in Lower Manhattan.
So, um, do they think actual terrorists are going to give advance warning? That sort of defeats the purpose, que no?
“I’m curious if conservative satire of liberals (does it exist?) would confuse leftists.”
The best example I can think of offhand is ‘King of the Hill,’ which has quite the track history of mocking and satirizing liberals. I’m not sure how the left interprets that.
If the terrorists fail to complete their TERACT – HS 201 form and submit it to the Action Approval Administration (AAA) 15 days in advance of any strike, the terrorists are going to be in real trouble.
The Israeli is a cabinet minister (Minister of Health). He’s not offended by the term — it’s that he’d rather not speak of pigs. I doubt his preferences will have actual effect on other Israelis. Having ultra-orthodox ministers does sometimes lead to bizarre situations.
“Study suggests some conservatives think Colbert is one of their own”
Proving once again that conservatives, generally speaking, aren’t much into irony. Color me suprised.
I think they should now give that retired cop a community service medal or something for shooting himself.
I found that nearly all of the criteria for being “Officer of the Year” was met: shot and killed a carjacker, threatened to kill his wife, locked himself in a car with a gun, shot himself in the leg, arrested for drunk driving (just outside of his jurisdiction, I would note – otherwise it would never have been known). Isn’t that kind of behavior what police medals are for?
SusasnK “arrested for drunk driving (just outside of his jurisdiction, I would note – otherwise it would never have been known).”
Great point!
There is a conservative attempt at comedy on Fox New called Red Eye. It is hosted by a gay man slightly less flamboyant than Elton John. In all fairness, conservatives probably don’t realize that he’s gay.
Does Eve know?
The only problem I have with saying King of the Hill satirized liberal’s is that none of the people made fun of on King of the Hill were real. They were all characters created for comedic intent, so if you use them to make an ideological point your argument is attacking a straw man. The same goes for South Park, Man-Bear-Pig was funny as hell, but it didn’t have anything to do with the real problems concerning climate change. They simply turned Al Gore into a character and then made fun of that character.
The difference is that Colbert makes fun of real political figures using their own words against them. He doesn’t have to make them seem crazy or outlandish, they do it to themselves.
But from what I saw of King of the Hill it seemed to make fun of both sides of the political spectrum. It was a great show that never distracted itself with trying to make too serious of a point.
Stephen Colbert and Sacha Baron Cohen were good for a few yuks doing their “undercover” pieces, tricking people into making fools of themselves. But once the novelty wore off, their continued use of ambush mockery has not only lost its charm, but is often a type of bullying. When you have writers, producers, camera crews, etc., just how hard is it to trick people? And, why should you feel smug and superior for having all that power to use on an unsuspecting rube? It’s a bit like winning a political debate with a 15 year-old kid. So what?
Colbert is pretty good at improvising, and some of his commentary is pretty clever. But he’s painted himself into a corner, always being “on.” He can never let the mask slip and just be himself.
Jon Stewart is still way funnier, especially when he simply shows the target of his ridicule in his or her own words, then looks at the camera with a WTF expression. I’m just disappointed that he, Colbert, and late night talk show hosts all seem to be pulling their punches when it comes to Obama. This guy is a disaster, who is nearly as stupid as his appointees (Napolitano being the most absurd, to date), but they don’t have the balls to say the emperor has no clothes.
you know i was agreeing with you Elliot up until, “This guy is a disaster, who is nearly as stupid as his appointees…”.
Really dude? I mean there are a lot of ways to describe Obama, but stupid is not one of them. Idealistic maybe, unrealistic maybe, but the man is not stupid by a long shot.
And to call him a disaster is something else entirely. He shut down Guantanamo, lifted the ban on stem-cell research. He helped win back some international goodwill at G20, but to be fair so long as anybody other than George Bush showed up the Europeans probably would have loved that person too. I’m not happy that hes unwilling to prosecute those responsible for torture, but his appointee to the Dept of Justice is. I didn’t approve of the bailouts, but to be fair that ball was rolling before he even came to office. A disaster is a couple solid years of failure, not a 100 days of mixed results.
I don’t really see Colbert or Stewart pulling punches on Obama, they have called him on a lot of the stuff that hes already gone back on when he was on the campaign trail. They’ve been particularly critical of him on the torture issue. Aside form that there’s not too much to criticize, I mean hes only signed one bill so far. He hasn’t actually done much yet. Because he has to move at the speed of congress which, unless they’re declaring war, is a snails pace.
He hasn’t done anything to prove himself a great president, but hes by no means a disaster, yet. I just wonder how so many people have such strong emotions about a guy that has been in power for so little time.
Colbert was at his funniest when he did the voice of Phil Ken Sebbin on Harvey Birdman-attorney at law
Obama is stupid. He has no regard for individual rights (he never, ever refers to them). He is trying the very same collectivist policies which have failed all over the world. Not only is he chipping away at the freedoms which made America special among the world, but he’s burning down the future, economically. Yes, Bush and Republicans were spending like fools before, but he’s already spent $9 trillion, a good portion of which is going to reward failure.
He hasn’t really “won back” international approval if you read the headlines. Europeans make fun of him, too. Chavez hands him an anti-American book and gets the rube to smile for the cameras. Ha ha! Stupid American! Either Obama keeps playing the fool for them, or he asserts American interests, and then he’s going to be reeking of sulphur. Just watch.
Your time restriction of two years might make sense if he didn’t manage to fit in $9 trillion in a few weeks.
Oh, I get it. You’re doing the satire schtick. Haha, you had me going there. But the, “there’s not too much to criticize” line was just too much. OK. Go back to your LGF, you silly Republican.
“He has no regard for individual rights (he never, ever refers to them). He is trying the very same collectivist policies which have failed all over the world.” Do you really believe that? From where I’m sitting I have to take what your saying as literally as possible. Be specific, what has Obama said or done that makes you believe that has zero regard for individual rights?
And where did you get this 9 trillion figure? I’ve seen a ~800 billion bailout which he was not the sole supporter of, and was in the works before he even took office. I’ve seen 3.5 Trillion budget with a wide range of figures quoted for what the deficit is. National dept was 11 trillion come the end of last year, I don’t see a 20 trillion dollar debt today.
All I’m saying is that its unreasonable to judge his entire presidency, his competence, and his worth as a human being on the last 3 months. It’s one of these ridiculous double standards that is being produced in partisan politics. He does too much in the first quarter and hes a socialist that is ruining the country. He does too little and hes letting America fall into a depression. What is the balance of presidential activity?
What would he have to do for you to approve of his presidency? Too many people I talk to say ‘nothing’. Its clear that their opinion of him is based on personality or political party and has nothing to do with what he does or doesn’t accomplish. All I’m doing is withholding judgment until the next election.
During the primaries, I recall hearing some commentator point out that Obama never talks about individual rights. Ever since then, I’ve listened. Not once, ever, have I heard that man mention individual rights, overtly or implicitly. It’s all about obligation to your community, coming together, the ever-nebulous “change” and cutting up the “pie” more fairly. There’s never any acknowledgment of the individual’s right to go his own way and do his own thing.
Forget left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, red vs. blue, Democrat vs. Republican…this is all about individualism vs. collectivism. the proposition that you own your life vs. the assertion that the group owns it. If you’re worried about whether Europeans like us, then I fear you don’t understand what sets America apart from them and the rest of the world: individual freedom. Individualism made this place special, and it’s exactly what current political trends are eroding away, in this mindless rush to be more like the European hives.
For the $9 trillion figure:
You say, “He does too little and hes letting America fall into a depression.” I would never say such an idiotic thing. Government interference prolongs economic downturns.
You ask, “What would he have to do for you to approve of his presidency?” Scuttle the government and get an honest job. Unfortunately, the last time a president had enough voters behind such a proposition was Reagan, and he threw it away (which is why he deserves none of the praise conservatives heap upon him).