Nov
29

Two-Minute Townhall




Posted at 22:52 by Travis G.

townhallbaloo.jpg

Words over here, words out there, in the air and everywhere. Words of wisdom, words of strife, words that write the book I like.

Shorter Michael Medved: Hey, I have an idea! Perhaps conservatives should address growing middle class anxieties.

Shorter Kathleen Parker: Frivolous lawsuits are symptomatic of a bankrupt society, and they are also what makes America great.

Shorter Walter E. Williams: All self interest is equal, but some self interest is more equal than others. For example, corporations…

Shorter Tony Blankley: Hopefully, Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to Turkey will prove once and for all that Christianity can never be reconciled with Islam or the secular left.

Shorter Ben Shapiro: The flying imams have aided and abetted some future terrorist attack I just made up.

Shorter Linda Chavez: We have to stay in Iraq until the job is done. We just have to.

Shorter Terence Jeffrey: A side-by-side comparison of apples and public schools illustrates a clear need for vouchers.

Shorter Brent Bozell III: Propaganda is stuff you disagree with, right?

Shorter Jacob Sullum: As a libertarian, I believe anti-crime zones are mostly effective as political grandstanding.

Shorter Michelle Malkin: The Associated Press should promote their unreliability as relentlessly as right-wing bloggers.

Shorter William F. Buckley: I should hope the pope won’t concede too much to the dusky Turks.

Shorter Paul Greenberg: I was born the son of an immigrant shoemaker…

Shorter Maggie Gallagher: I doubt any good will come of Pope Benedict’s trip to Turkey, and I just hope he returns in one piece.

Shorter John Stossel: Are Americans cheap? I’ll ask some celebrities tonight on my new TV special…

Shorter Austin Bay: Being misled by an unreliable source is just as unethical as making up a source. Worse, even.

Shorter James J. Kilpatrick: Is anyone interested in copyright law? How about nude photos of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Anyone?

Shorter Lee S. Wishing III: I achieved a state of epiphanic grace last Friday at the mall.

Shorter Janet M. LaRue: The Concerned Women for America have taken up the fight to protect the word “Christmas.”

Shorter Jay Sekulow: My column on the ACLU’s assault on Christmas runs a little short this week because I used up all the inflammatory words.

Shorter Cal Thomas: Newly elected Democratics have already been corrupted by Washington. I say, bring on the next round of reformers!

41 Comments »

  1. Gavin M. said,

    November 29, 2006 at 23:01

    I need to do some new Townhall logos…

  2. Otto Man said,

    November 29, 2006 at 23:27

    As always, my money’s on Stossel and will stay there until he answers my request that he hold a full-blown, no-holds-barred interview with his mustache. That beauty can’t stay in the shadows forever. Come on, John!

  3. Kathleen said,

    November 29, 2006 at 23:41

    what happened to Sadly No!’s townhall page?

  4. steve_e said,

    November 29, 2006 at 23:52

    Hot damn, add some pizazz to that logo (besides the bear thing).

    First, no wimmin.

    Second, a gun.

    Third, add some poundage to those bodacious monochrome bods. Michael Moore may be fat, but Townhall doesn’t exactly cater to the John Galt Ubermenschs of America.

    This is all horribly gauche, but sometimes you have to pick up some small, crappy little logo and throw it against the wall, just to show the world that Sadly, No! means business.

  5. a different brad said,

    November 30, 2006 at 0:02

    Man, Ben Shapiro never met a bad argument he couldn’t make worse.
    The thing that bugs me about the flying imams is that TERRORISTS WOULD NOT ANNOUNCE THEIR PRESENCE BEFORE THE DAMN PLANE TAKES OFF.
    Sorry for shouting, but it’s just so
    fucking
    stupid.

  6. Kathleen said,

    November 30, 2006 at 0:07

    sometimes you have to pick up some small, crappy little logo and throw it against the wall, just to show the world that Sadly, No! means business.

    too funny.

  7. Duros62 said,

    November 30, 2006 at 0:22

    Thank you for reading TownHall so I don’t have to.

  8. TC said,

    November 30, 2006 at 0:34

    Dear, sweet spaghetti monster, I despise Cal Thomas, but that article was lame, even by his pencil necked standards.

    Did the sudden end of Republican God-Endorsed Permanent Majority hit him THAt hard?

    well, THAT’S all right then.

  9. mikey said,

    November 30, 2006 at 0:41

    Hey, diffbrad. The other thing about that whole deal is I saw a couple pieces of outrage over O’Reilly’s comment yesterday (Think Progress and Olbermann) where he was capping on crate and barrell over his stupid war on christmas, but nobody seemed to be pissed about his comment that “Imams couldn’t get handcuffed in crate and barrell for chanting and stuff”. Umm, in the America I vaguely remember, we didn’t “handcuff” anybody for “chanting and stuff”. Sheesh, why is war, killing and hatred america’s signature riff these days? We’ve lost our collective mind…

    mikey

  10. Sonic said,

    November 30, 2006 at 0:44

    Looks like Malkin’s latest faux outrage is shot down already

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15769.htm

  11. Kathleen said,

    November 30, 2006 at 0:53

    “Imams couldn’t get handcuffed in crate and barrell for chanting and stuff�.

    so…. is Crate and Barrell’s policy to handcuff people who say “Merry Christmas”? because that is really the only way this makes sense.

  12. Ken Houghton said,

    November 30, 2006 at 1:02

    Where’s your Dennis Prager posting? The L&T Shakes (well, The Heretik) is all over it!

  13. a different brad said,

    November 30, 2006 at 1:05

    Yeah, mikey, and Olbermann then mentioned how crate n barrel has a christmas ideas, or something similar, section on their website. he should brought up last year’s gem of the bill-oh online shop having a xmas tree ornament called a holiday ornament for your holiday tree.
    I think what ultimately galls me most about these hick americans being afraid of muslims is the arrogance of it. They assume they’re at risk, that jihadis want to kill them specifically. Yet they don’t see the comparison to their lack of interest in the deaths of iraqis and afghanis every day in places they’ve never even heard of. Do they really think all the evil muslims would be dancing in the streets if someone blew up a building in Topeka, or hijacked a minneapolis-phoenix flight?
    Also, do they really think 6 middle aged imams would be able to overpower an entire flight with an air marshal on board post 9/11 when everyone would resist?

  14. Edmund Schluessel said,

    November 30, 2006 at 1:58

    I achieved a state of epiphanic grace last Friday at the mall.

    Ew.

  15. Margaret said,

    November 30, 2006 at 2:00

    Could anyone even make sense of what George Will was trying to say?

  16. ifthethunderdontgetya said,

    November 30, 2006 at 2:14

    Well Margaret, you actually made me look up that loser. What a pile of stink!

    I think it’s projection: Webb certainly has conveyed what he is: a boor.

    A boor is both precisely what George Will is, and Washington could use a lot less of him.

  17. Smiling Mortician said,

    November 30, 2006 at 2:17

    They assume they’re at risk, that jihadis want to kill them specifically.

    Actually, diffbrad. that part’s fine with me. Since they’re already the type to desire permanent panic over something, let ‘em walk around in weird panic over their own individualized vulnerability to jihadis. What makes the world a sour and unlovely place is that they also assume that every Muslim is a “jihadi” — never mind that they really don’t understand the meaning of “jihad,” and they believe it means the same thing as “terrorism.” Sheesh!

    So a few guys praying before a flight but not in a Jesus-seal-of-approval way is prima facie evidence that the pray-ers are murderous bastards? WTF? Why do they think airports have chapels, for fucksake? People get nervous about flying and cope in the way that best suits them. Get over it.

  18. RobW said,

    November 30, 2006 at 2:58

    Remember folks. They lost the midterms because the GOP is not conservative enough.

    They really seem to believe this. We should all just smile and nod agreeably to that. It is a meme that ought to be encouraged. Please, by all means, swing your party further to the right.

    On the other hand… Maybe we should use reverse psychology? After all, they surely would do the opposite of anything we actually recommended?

    They do seem to know that their opposition (us) does not have their interests at heart when we recommend a political course to take.

    Now if only our own party leadership would get that…

  19. TC said,

    November 30, 2006 at 3:41

    Rob, You’re talking about Democrats here….

  20. Porgy Tirebiter said,

    November 30, 2006 at 3:49

    Thank you, Gavin, for providing this valuable public service.,

  21. mikey said,

    November 30, 2006 at 4:20

    I always said if I ever got a tatoo, it would be the Social Distortion dancing skeleton logo. Now I know that underneath that guy would have to be the text banner “A Baloo is a Bear”. In Daisy’s words, “I totally don’t know what that means but I want it”….

    mikey

  22. Travis G. said,

    November 30, 2006 at 4:22

    Where’s your Dennis Prager posting?

    I see Gavin’s got us up to speed on it now (hanx?), but Prager ran yesterday. See, I started doing these at my other site on Wednesdays, because that’s when they posted all the columns that run all weekend in my daily newspaper. The schedule’s a little different now that Townhall’s been revamped, but I stick to Wednesdays because I can’t possibly read everything that’s published there (no, seriously, you have no idea).

    what happened to Sadly No!’s townhall page?

    Well, Kathleen, I’ve been, like, super busy with all my various charitable – what’s that? Another beer? Don’t mind if I do…

  23. Smiling Mortician said,

    November 30, 2006 at 5:27

    Travis, what is this “other site” of which you speak? We won’t be ignored, Travis. I mean, we’ll happily buy you another beer or six if that’s what it takes, but . . . we mean . . . we love you and that’s a nice bunny you’ve got there. Shame if a pot of boiling water happened to it.

  24. mikey said,

    November 30, 2006 at 5:39

    Gotta go with the Mortician on this one, TG. You need to tell us where you are when you aren’t where you are when you are where you aren’t. Don’t make me load up, all “Commando” and stuff, with rippling biceps and HK G3s and shit. Just sayin….

    mikey

  25. Smiling Mortician said,

    November 30, 2006 at 5:46

    tell us where you are when you aren’t where you are when you are where you aren’t

    [spews a mouthful of decent Saint Emilion, recovers]

    Well, yeah, mikey. I guess you’d better load up. I’m already loaded, thanks.

  26. mikey said,

    November 30, 2006 at 5:53

    I dunno, Mortician, I do the “mindless stupidity” thing for laughs, but somehow I expect better of you…

    mikey

  27. a different brad said,

    November 30, 2006 at 6:12

    Well, Mortician, considering many, most?, of them hadn’t heard of muslims before 9/11 and their noted tendency to.. let’s put it generously and say generalize about non-white male christian americans, that unfortunate equation is hard not to expect.
    Personally, i wish someone would get real creative and take the movement conservatives or whatever we call dumb redneck bigots these days and turn them against an enemy so devious it’s imaginary. Like, say, mole men, an SN! fav.
    How can we be safe from the subterraneofascists if we make the mistake of assuming their mere lack of existences makes them no threat? Their entire fictional existence is dedicated to destroying america and eating little baby jebus when he comes back.
    We must have missiles ready in caves for the fictionally inevitable.
    I’d say the skrulls are a bigger threat but these dumb fucks are already weaponizing space.

  28. Smiling Mortician said,

    November 30, 2006 at 6:15

    Oh, no. Did I not successfully communicate that my spewing was in admiration for a perfect line? Gads, too much wine for me.

  29. Smiling Mortician said,

    November 30, 2006 at 6:19

    A mere lack of existence has never made anyone not a threat to these shmucks, diffbrad. (Actually, they’re not shmucks, they’re putzes — a distinction I learned by reading Born to Kvetch, a lovely exploration of Yiddish in all its glory.)

    Evidence? Satan. QED.

  30. mikey said,

    November 30, 2006 at 6:21

    Or has the scotch ‘n’ pot prevented me from doing the “self-depricating” act effectively? Only Gavin can photoshop the answer. In the meantime, I’m walking (’cause I really shouldn’t drive) over to a random vietnamese restaraunt and partaking, bigtime…

    mikey

  31. a different brad said,

    November 30, 2006 at 6:27

    An even better term is schmendrik, which i’m told means little penis. Tho putz works fine too.

  32. Smiling Mortician said,

    November 30, 2006 at 6:42

    My understanding is that schmendrick is in the same zip code with schlemiel (an unlucky person) and schlemozzel (an accident waiting to happen, usually to a schlemiel), whereas a shmuck is, literally, a penis — but in the sense that one might call oneself a shmuck for being momentarily stupid. One would apparently never call oneself a putz — also a penis, but referring to one who’s deliberately or aggressively obnoxious. Kinda like the difference between a dick and a prick. You can easily imagine someone saying “Jeez, I felt like such a dick,” but it’s less common to hear something like “Man, what a prick I am.”

    I am, however, a dilettante when it comes to Yiddish and would love to be corrected by someone who actually . . . y’know . . . knows something.

    Hey mikey, if you’ve not yet gone off to a randomly Vietnamese place, may I just say that had you shared your scotch and pot, I’d be much funnier and smarter at this point in the evening?

  33. ifthethunderdontgetya said,

    November 30, 2006 at 6:43

    Waaaht’s satin got to do with it?

  34. Smiling Mortician said,

    November 30, 2006 at 6:48

    mmm . . . forbidden satin . . .

  35. a different brad said,

    November 30, 2006 at 6:50

    You know more yiddish than i do, i just remember being told that by a friend, who’s a brooklyn jew and thus more of an authority on the matter than my upstate wasp self.

  36. Smiling Mortician said,

    November 30, 2006 at 6:53

    Hey, I’m a PacificNorthwester by way of Michigan. What do I know from Yiddish? I read books, is all.

  37. GinsbergFan249@aol.com said,

    November 30, 2006 at 14:06

    Hi!

    I wuz googling “nude photos of Ruth Bader Ginsberg” and i found ur site.

    could u please tell me where 2 find the nude pics of americas hottest supreme court justice?

    thx in advance!!!

    ginsbergfan249

  38. Marq said,

    November 30, 2006 at 14:26

    Great column, as usual, Travis. The Medved shorter particularly made me larf. And you think, he can’t possibly be that doltish, can he? But, I’ve made the mistake of reading the entire Medved column before, and yes, he can be. ::shudder::

    And Gavin-how long have you been screwing with the TownHall logo? It’s funny that you mentioned it in the first post in this thread, ‘cos I had just–finally–noticed it, and it had made me smile, as it was a nice, subtle touch. And I don’t think anyone had commented on it, or if they had, it just “whooshed” over my head. So I get down to the comments… and that’s what you’re talking about! Sheesh!

  39. Margaret said,

    December 1, 2006 at 0:29

    Ifthethunder, the column I referred to was about the Pope’s visit. It was so confusing.

  40. Patkin said,

    December 1, 2006 at 13:00

    My understanding is that schmendrick is in the same zip code with schlemiel (an unlucky person) and schlemozzel (an accident waiting to happen, usually to a schlemiel), whereas a shmuck is, literally, a penis — but in the sense that one might call oneself a shmuck for being momentarily stupid. One would apparently never call oneself a putz — also a penis, but referring to one who’s deliberately or aggressively obnoxious. Kinda like the difference between a dick and a prick. You can easily imagine someone saying “Jeez, I felt like such a dick,� but it’s less common to hear something like “Man, what a prick I am.�

    I am, however, a dilettante when it comes to Yiddish and would love to be corrected by someone who actually . . . y’know . . . knows something.

    Well, I don’t know about someone who knows something, but I got The Joys of Yiddish And no shame about using it. Now, a shmendrick is basically a no-account pipsqueak, like a shlemiel, but even worse. It can also mean ‘penis’, as most curses eventually do, but it’s mostly a form of derision by suggesting they’re not packing much of one. Fair use on Republicans, but it doesn’t quite meet the point of why they’re all just so… full of themselves.

    On the other hand, if we wanted a term that describes them well, shmegegge works quite well! It describes 1) an unadmirable, petty person. 2) a maladroit, untalented type. 3) a sycophant, a shlepper, a whiner, or a drip. All remarkably good terms for any wingnut you’re bound to come across.

    As for schmuck vs. putz. The way I describe it is, it’s the difference between prick and cunt. Schmuck’s pretty awful. It’s just an obscene word for an obscene sort of person. But schmuck also contains a sort of teasing quality in certain definitions of a dope, a boob, a clumsy, bumbling sort. It’s possible to say it playfully and not get a sock in the mouth.

    To call someone a putz though. Hoo. If you just get a sock in the mouth after calling someone a putz, you’re getting off light. It’s worse than schmuck, because it’s not supposed to have any connotation except penis. It’s more than obscene, it’s a pejorative. It of course means either 1) a fool, an ass, a jerk or 2) a simpleton or yokel; an easy mark. Admittedly, both good descriptors of the neocon cobags, but it is kind of bringing out the big guns for a leaking dinghy.

  41. mds said,

    December 1, 2006 at 23:21

    Not that anyone cares [self-pitying sniffling], but I feel honor-bound to continue my tradition of givin’ Jacob Sullum the love:

    As a libertarian, I believe anti-crime zones are mostly effective as political grandstanding.

    Really, is this like the dodge on CAFE standards? You know, the way that an auto manufacturer produces a two-seater that runs on gnats’ water in order to offset the big beast that annihilates gasoline the moment it reaches the fuel tank? The semi-reasonableness of Sullum’s columns reduces the net Townhall Crazy Score significantly and allows them to brag that they’re not 100% batshit insane.

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()