Kathy Griffin on ‘Glee’ Bashes Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell, Depicts Tea Partiers as Homophobic Birthers
March 15, 2011 No Comment
As NewsBusters reported in February, vulgarian comedienne Kathy Griffin was cast to do a guest stint on the hit series “Glee” portraying a Palinesque Tea Partier. The advanced billing turned out better than the reality, for on Tuesday's show, Griffin mocked Palin and Christine O'Donnell while depicting Tea Party members as homophobic birthers (video follows with transcript and commentary): KATHY GRIFFIN AS TAMMY JEAN ALBERTSON, TWITTERER AND FORMER TEA PARTY CANDIDATE: Before we start, I would like to say I am not a witch. But, um, I think it's fair to ask: Do we have written proof that these kids were born in the United States of America? LORETTA DEVINE AS SISTER MARY CONSTANCE, NUN AND FORMER EXOTIC DANCER: For a nun, I'm pretty liberal. But I'm barely a nun. In fact, I just joined because I needed a place to live. GRIFFIN: Bless you! DEVINE: The convent is the one place I knew I could stay off the pole. But my question is this: That Dalton Academy, is it a gay school, or is it just a school that appears gay? BILL A. JONES AS ROD REMINGTON, GADABOUT: Could I add a dash of Rod to this lady soup? My hairdresser is a gay, and for fifteen years, he's been with his partner, also a hairdresser. I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to marry and raise a family of beautiful wigs. DEVINE: I liked the duet the two boys from Dalton sang. GRIFFIN: Oh, boys shouldn't do a duet. The last thing we need to do is send a message to children that “Gay is okay.” It is not a legitimate lifestyle, and last time I checked, it's not in the Constitution. JONES: What about that song about Jesus? GRIFFIN: Well, that should win. DEVINE: Uh, uh, uh. No, no, no, no. Now, that is just cheap pandering. I didn't even like to be pandered to when I was a stripper! JONES: Those New Directions had it going on. Those songs were fresh. GRIFFIN: Those songs were terrible. I am sorry, but I'm a politician, and when I lost my last election — and there will be a recount — I didn't go around singing about being a loser. I twittered that Obama is a terrorist. DEVINE: Oh, no, you didn't! GRIFFIN: I had to. It's a fact. DEVINE: Oh, oh, gee. JONES: Okay, ladies, I've heard enough. Let's vote. Once again as full disclosure, I'm a big fan of this show. However, the writers and producers took a lot of shots at conservatives and religion in this episode that are likely to further alienate right-leaning viewers. In just this one and a half minute segment alone, numerous disgraceful stereotypes of the Tea Party were shamefully displayed for millions of folks tuning in for some light-hearted entertainment with hopefully some redeeming social commentary. The producers even went out of their way to make sure that everyone knew Griffin's character was a Tea Partier by doing a still-frame shot announcing as much: Was that necessary? Next came the Catholic bashing by introducing a nun that was a former exotic dancer: Was making a mockery of nuns specifically designed to further alienate religious conservatives? And how about the entire homophobic discussion between these three judges? Certainly, it was no coincidence that a Tea Partier and a nun exhibiting such fears took place in the same show that gay characters Kurt and Blaine (Chris Colfer and Darren Criss) had their first kiss. Less obvious might have been more subtle jabs at prominent conservatives. Griffin's “Obama is a terrorist” comment might have been a swipe at Ann Coulter who in June 2007 was accused by numerous left-wing websites of saying this during an interview with Fox News's Sean Hannity. The homosexuality is “not in the Constitution” remark might have been aimed at Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia for his September 2010 comments about the 14th amendment not protecting women and gays from discrimination. Add it all up, and the folks involved in this episode seemed to be going out of their way to offend the Right Tuesday evening. As a fan of this program since the pilot was first aired almost two years ago, I am very disappointed. This show has been groundbreaking in a lot of ways, and indeed has offered some social commentary that's stretched the boundaries of decency and good-taste at times, but also does what I think is an admirable job of portraying some of the realities facing American teenagers in the year 2011. Without question, it is at times done with an in your face style that as NewsBusters has reported is often way too overtly sexual for a show about high school students airing at 8 PM on a broadcast network. But this was the first episode where I felt the folks involved were going all out to ridicule a good percentage of America – including me. Even sadder, this segment happened moments after the female lead sang a heartfelt song about her feelings for the male lead, which was followed by her fellow singers performing a marvelous number about the villain in the show. In the end, the glee club protagonists may have come in first in the fictitious competition they performed at Tuesday evening, but this episode – which at times seemed a cross between MSNBC and NPR – is sure to be considered a loser by right-thinking people across the fruited plain.
Continue reading …
enlarge Credit: C&L NCAA C&L’s NCAA March Madness 2011 It’s March Madness once again and I’m bringing back C&L’s NCAA 2011 Tournament. It’s easy to join and free. Just click on our March Tourney pool here. On the left hand column it says “Enter Picks,” so click on it, fill in your user registration and you’re on. If you have any problems just leave them in the comment section. I chose this platform because an unlimited number of people can enter. Once the tournament starts on Thursday, I’ll see how many joined up, but the winner will definitely receive a prize. I’m thinking an IPod Nano or something. If we have a big number of entrees then I’ll up the amount of prizes. Anyway, it’s for fun and for free.
Continue reading …
enlarge Chernobyl – look strangely familiar? Click here to view this media With the latest set of ominous news coming out of Japan in the form of the Nuclear Power plant explosions and threatened and/or occurring meltdowns, I’m reminded of the Nucler Power Plant disaster at Chernobyl and the news that was and wasn’t given at the time. The accident, as we all know now, happened on the 26th of April 1986 – but as you’ll hear with these news excerpts from April 27-May 5, 1986, very little if any information was actually given regarding the severity of the disaster. I realize there is a conscious need not to set off widespread panic, and that is understandable. But sometimes the lack of truthful information can be as damaging in the long run. Ironically, even after the true nature of the disaster was disclosed, most news broadcasts chose to bury the disaster news into the third or fourth story. And that was disturbing in the months following Chernobyl. Fortunately, during this current crisis in Japan there is constant news and questioning. However, the non-disclosure of factual information seems very much apparent and that is something that one can only draw Chernobyl-like conclusions to.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media [h/t Heather] Lawrence O’Donnell has a few questions about Michelle Bachmann. He cannot find answers for them, so he’s asking for our help. Here they are in short form, but be sure to watch the entire video, because it’s great. And so tonight, I surrender. Since I have no answers, I will leave you only with questions. Question One: How ignorant is Michele Bachmann and how did she get that way, and remember, this is a graduate of Winona State University and Oral Roberts University’s Coburn School of Law. Law school graduate. So do not overlook her academic achievement in trying to explain this. Doesn’t make it any easier to explain. And two, where does Michele Bachmann find her shockingly ignorant staff? And three, perhaps most important of all, what explains the rank ignorance of the 52% of the voters in Minnesota’s 6th Congressional District? Here’s my answer. It’s short, sweet, and proven. That 52% in her district are likely Fox News viewers . Her staff? Maybe former Fox News writers for all I know. I know from personal experience that Fox News fries brain cells and makes you dumber or crazier if watched for more than a few minutes a day without a skeptical eye. By the way, Bachmann is about to announce her run for the Presidency. She thinks women will gravitate to her like they did Hillary Clinton, because in her very own words, the Tea Party is made up of Republicans, Independents and Democrats who just hate the direction the country is heading. Yeah, sure it is. Click here to view this media Ignorant? Or compulsive liar? Full transcript follows: One, how ignorant is Michelle Bachmann’s staff? And two, how ignorant are Michelle Bachmann’s voters?… They don’t know that Lexington and Concord are in Massachusetts. How and where did she find Congressional staffers who don’t know that? Who are these people that work for Michelle Bachmann? Who wrote that speech for her? Where does she find these people? There are many, many ignorant Members of Congress and many ignorant Senators, but they are protected all day long from revealing most of their ignorance by staffs who are hundreds of times smarter than they are. Perhaps all of Michele Bachmann’s staff come from her district, which may be the most ignorant Congressional district in America. In 2010, 52% of that district voted for Michele Bachmann to represent them in Congress. Now she had already proven time and time again to her district and to America that she is unworthy of representing any congressional district in America. But 52%, the same percentage in that district who voted for John McCain voted for Michele Bachmann in 2010. What makes those voters so ignorant? For starters, they are whiter than the average district. 92% white, in fact. But that explains nothing. Missouri’s 8th Congressional District is 91% white and has been represented by Jo Ann Emerson since 1997. We do not have a litany of imbecilic comments by Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson. In fact, we have none. If we’ve missed any please submit them to our website MSNBC.com and we’ll see if they compare to Michele Bachmann’s. The median income in Michele Bachmann’s is $68,000, which is roughly equivalent to the median income in Barney Frank’s district — $66,000. So, the money explains nothing because Barney Frank’s intelligence and expertise in public policy, not to mention his wit is second to none in the House of Representatives. So those income levels in Michele Bachmann’s district are not the explanation for why her voters are so ignorant. And so tonight, I surrender. Since I have no answers, I will leave you only with questions. Question One: How ignorant is Michele Bachmann and how did she get that way, and remember, this is a graduate of Winona State University and Oral Roberts University’s Coburn School of Law. Law school graduate. So do not overlook her academic achievement in trying to explain this. Doesn’t make it any easier to explain. And two, where does Michele Bachmann find her shockingly ignorant staff? And three, perhaps most important of all, what explains the rank ignorance of the 52% of the voters in Minnesota’s 6th Congressional District?
Continue reading …This past Sunday, President Obama wrote an op-ed for Gabrielle Giffords’ hometown paper, the Arizona Daily Star. Looking back on the tragic shootings in Tucson, he made it clear that we need to fix our nation’s broken background check system and keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people: That’s why our focus right now should be on sound and effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place. • First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that’s supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn’t been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states – but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better. • Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data – and therefore do the most to protect our citizens. • Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can’t escape it. Porous background checks are bad for police officers, for law-abiding citizens and for the sellers themselves. If we’re serious about keeping guns away from someone who’s made up his mind to kill, then we can’t allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else. This has been a long time coming, and I’d like to see the language bit stronger, but I can’t say I am not pleased to see the President stepping up and addressing this important issue. Already, Senator Chuck Schumer has laid out a plan, based upon a proposal by 550 mayors across the country who are part of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (for whom I consult), to stop terrorists, criminals and the mentally unstable from accessing anything up to and including assault weapons and .50 caliber bullets–ones that can take down airplanes–without so much as a background check. The House is set to introduce a similar bill. It is gratifying–in the wake of Tucson and police shootings that seem to only get worse every day–to see the President stand up and state his principles in the face of a debate that in the past has been dominated by those who are anti-law enforcement, and more interested in selling weapons than protecting the American people. The President has chosen the path that has the best chance of having an immediate impact in cutting down on the scourge of gun violence while taking into account the long-term safety and Constitutionally provided “general welfare” of the American people. Follow me on Twitter: @cliffschecter
Continue reading …
If only Larry O'Donnell could have restrained himself, he had an opening to take a deserved shot at a Republican. But they don't call him 'Crazy Larry' for nothing. And so on his MSNBC show this evening, O'Donnell couldn't resist going beyond the bounds, slandering “good Christians” as illegal immigrant murderers. A meat-head of a Kansas Republican state lawmaker named Virgil Peck had suggested that since shooting feral pigs from helicopters had proved successful, “maybe we have found a (solution) to our illegal immigration problem.” If O'Donnell had contented himself with pasting Peck, he would have been entirely within his rights.
Continue reading …
Migrants with at least £5m in the bank will have a shorter time to wait and entrepreneurs will get preferential treatment The super-rich are to be offered a fast track to settle in Britain under new immigration rules for high-value investors and entrepreneurs to be unveiled Wednesday. Overseas “super-investors” who are willing to keep £5m in a UK bank account are to be given the right to stay indefinitely in Britain after only three years, two years faster than the five-year wait imposed on every other migrant. An overseas investor who is willing to deposit more than £10m in the UK will win the right to stay even quicker, after only two years. The package of measures to attract the super-rich to Britain, to be unveiled by the immigration minister, Damian Green, at the London Stock Exchange, contrasts sharply with government plans to break the link with the right to settle for those who come to study or work temporarily in the UK. The rules for entrepreneurs are also to be relaxed so that they become eligible for permanent settlement rights in Britain within three years if they have created 10 jobs or achieved an annual turnover of £10m a year for their UK business. This is to encourage promising start-up companies who do not meet the investment criteria. Perhaps more importantly for the overseas super-rich, the number of days they can spend out of the country and still qualify for UK residence rights is to be doubled from 90 to 180. Alex Ruffel of Berkeley Law, who specialise in immigration matters for high net worth individuals, said she expected that the new rules will double the 275 super-wealthy investors and entrepreneurs who came to live in Britain last year. She also reports a recent surge in inquiries about coming to the UK from Middle East clients concerned at current developments in the region. The sliding scale for investors will start at those willing to deposit at least £1m in a British bank account which will secure them the right to settlement after five years, but they will enjoy an exemption from any English language test which now applies to most other routes. Further details are also expected to be announced for the new “exceptional talent” immigration route which will allow up to 1,000 migrants who have “won international recognition in scientific and cultural fields”, or have the potential to do so. Unlike this category there will be no limit on the numbers of investors and entrepreneurs who will be allowed in. Ruffel said that the decision to allow high-worth migrants to be out of the country for six months a year was one of the most important elements of the package: “Currently they have to spend nine months of the year in Britain to qualify for indefinite leave to remain or to extend their visa. This can be a problem for those who are very wealthy and are in business in several countries, including their own country of origin.” The shorter route for settlement will not necessarily mean that the super-wealthy will also get a fast track to a British passport as the qualifying periods for citizenship appear to be left untouched. Those who come will also have to pay UK tax on their British earnings. The announcement comes in advance of the final proposals to make deep cuts in the number of overseas students coming to Britain in order to meet the Conservative manifesto target of reducing net migration below 100,000 a year. The home secretary, Theresa May, told MPs last November that she wanted a new approach that was more selective and brought in more of those who would make a real difference to our economy: “We want to actively encourage entrepreneurs to come. As the prime minister [has] said, we will reform the rules for entrepreneurs so that if you have a great business idea, and you receive serious investment from a leading investor, you are welcome to set up your business in our country.” Immigration and asylum Damian Green Theresa May Entrepreneurs Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Migrants with at least £5m in the bank will have a shorter time to wait and entrepreneurs will get preferential treatment The super-rich are to be offered a fast track to settle in Britain under new immigration rules for high-value investors and entrepreneurs to be unveiled Wednesday. Overseas “super-investors” who are willing to keep £5m in a UK bank account are to be given the right to stay indefinitely in Britain after only three years, two years faster than the five-year wait imposed on every other migrant. An overseas investor who is willing to deposit more than £10m in the UK will win the right to stay even quicker, after only two years. The package of measures to attract the super-rich to Britain, to be unveiled by the immigration minister, Damian Green, at the London Stock Exchange, contrasts sharply with government plans to break the link with the right to settle for those who come to study or work temporarily in the UK. The rules for entrepreneurs are also to be relaxed so that they become eligible for permanent settlement rights in Britain within three years if they have created 10 jobs or achieved an annual turnover of £10m a year for their UK business. This is to encourage promising start-up companies who do not meet the investment criteria. Perhaps more importantly for the overseas super-rich, the number of days they can spend out of the country and still qualify for UK residence rights is to be doubled from 90 to 180. Alex Ruffel of Berkeley Law, who specialise in immigration matters for high net worth individuals, said she expected that the new rules will double the 275 super-wealthy investors and entrepreneurs who came to live in Britain last year. She also reports a recent surge in inquiries about coming to the UK from Middle East clients concerned at current developments in the region. The sliding scale for investors will start at those willing to deposit at least £1m in a British bank account which will secure them the right to settlement after five years, but they will enjoy an exemption from any English language test which now applies to most other routes. Further details are also expected to be announced for the new “exceptional talent” immigration route which will allow up to 1,000 migrants who have “won international recognition in scientific and cultural fields”, or have the potential to do so. Unlike this category there will be no limit on the numbers of investors and entrepreneurs who will be allowed in. Ruffel said that the decision to allow high-worth migrants to be out of the country for six months a year was one of the most important elements of the package: “Currently they have to spend nine months of the year in Britain to qualify for indefinite leave to remain or to extend their visa. This can be a problem for those who are very wealthy and are in business in several countries, including their own country of origin.” The shorter route for settlement will not necessarily mean that the super-wealthy will also get a fast track to a British passport as the qualifying periods for citizenship appear to be left untouched. Those who come will also have to pay UK tax on their British earnings. The announcement comes in advance of the final proposals to make deep cuts in the number of overseas students coming to Britain in order to meet the Conservative manifesto target of reducing net migration below 100,000 a year. The home secretary, Theresa May, told MPs last November that she wanted a new approach that was more selective and brought in more of those who would make a real difference to our economy: “We want to actively encourage entrepreneurs to come. As the prime minister [has] said, we will reform the rules for entrepreneurs so that if you have a great business idea, and you receive serious investment from a leading investor, you are welcome to set up your business in our country.” Immigration and asylum Damian Green Theresa May Entrepreneurs Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …