I haven’t cracked open a Parade Magazine lately, but I guess they’ve started this “Sunday Joe” section in the back part of the magazine where Minka Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough hash something topical out. Topical is being a bit generous. The he said/she said thing is also played out, but I guess the demographic of Parade is 48-89 year olds, and they don’t want to take on any real issues of the day. Better yet, I’ll just assume that “Morning Joe” probably covers a LOT of that stuff, right?

The question this week: “Should Sugar Be Regulated?” Fair enough, “Morning” Joe Scarborough and Minka “I Coulda Been a Contenda” Brzezinski should be able to “spar” over this easily.

Right out the gate, Minka actually answers the question! I assume this is because she’s marginalized enough on Morning Joe as is, perhaps Joe will actually stay the course and “spar” on this question. Minka addresses the very real problem of America consuming ways too much processed foods and high-fructose corn syrup (which is in most everything food these days). Perhaps she’s goading Joe with her answer as she’s goes right in to the “government should probably regulate this” and her cherry on top “…put a tax on soda”.

Joe Scarborough, the wet fart of the republican revolution of the early mid-90‘s, wastes no time labeling Minka’s answer as a “vision of the nanny state that is so overreaching”. As a small-government conservative who takes offense to that notion, he clearly is not interested in answering this question either. Instead, he continues to marginalize Minka, who as an abused co-host, tightens her lip and insists on answering the question by saying that kids ingest a lot of sugar, and that parents need to educate themselves to feed their kids a proper meal.

What’s more insulting, besides Joe essentially patting Minka on the head and saying “Oh, you silly gir/socialist”, is his blanket paint-by-numbers republican rhetoric that he masks as an answer. Here’s the short list:
“I grew up in a middle-class family”
“Most of my breakfast were flavored kids cereals”
“I was healthy and slender because I led an active life, [just like everyone in the olden days]”
“My grandmother poured sugar on everything and lived to be 93”
It’s just condescending, pandering, nonsense. He does say that American kids need to get off the couch and go play, but then insists that Americans have changed a lot of their bad habits. It wouldn’t be because that socialist Michelle Obama’s first lady pet initiative that kids get active, or food and drug administration push of what consists a balanced meal for children that a blind dog could understand and implement. The NFL’s Play60 intuitive that also wants kids to stay active. They also address the copious intake of sugar and try to get children to demand better drinks, which is presumably where it should start.

Asking our children to be active, however, isn’t some new concept that just came to be in the past decade, as Joe suggests. It may not look it, but this “small government” Joe trying to take away a victory from Obama by acting as if Americans came to this health conscious solution long ago. I may be stretching a bit too, but I think the right-wing’s pettiness is always apparent and is engrained on their DNA, so for Joe to lob that out there instead of providing something rhetorically is unsurprising.

Not finished condescending to his co-host Minka, he says that she’s just talking a big game “but when she goes home at night she probably has Cap’N Crunch Crunch Berries and Cocoa Krisipies” he then adds “Am I not tell the truth?” Minka replies “No, you’re not.” Then this tete-a-tete then breaks down foodie habits amongst the two and never really dovetails back in to the question of sugar being regulated. If I was the reporter transcribing this I would’ve quit, or just stopped them and been like “So, you guys are just doing this instead of answering a pretty straight forward question in at least an entertaining manner?” Better yet, drop this nugget on America defender Joe and say that recently reports show that an alarming number of pre-schoolers are showing up to their first dental appointment with 6-10 cavities. Gee, I wonder how those got there? If this doesn’t show a trend of the too much sugar being in a kids diet, I don’t know what else could.

I wondered if Minka Brzezinski actually had more going for her than being a Joe Scarborough punching bag and did a little of that old time internet searching. This only confirmed the notion I got from the Parade article: Minka somehow thinks she’s upholding some journalistic bona fides, and then Joe Scarborough wipes his feet on her bona fides and tells her to get back in the kitchen. It’s the way a husband from a upper middle class family would talk to his stay at home wife. From time to time she would happen upon a little opinion of her own (sometimes supplanted by The Oprah), then over breakfast, unleash this opinion on a half awake, half caffeinated husband, pretending to read the sports section of his paper. He would grumble something about something, then tell her she needed to pick up eggs from the supermarket.

With all this talk of women’s rights and standing up for themselves in the ever increasing regressive attack on their rights, it’s a shame to see that women with the visibility and exposure of a Minka Brzezinski marginalized by white men oaf’s with that tongue-in-cheek jabbing and prodding. Not only to take it, but to shrug it off as it is what it is. That our female news anchors, who should be the pioneers of the women’s rights and freedoms, especially in navigating a brutally male dominated work environment, are reduced to the Today Show created, Fox News Channel perfected “skirt” that reads news headlines and nothing more.

What’s even more ridiculous is the news anchor thinking that they are a real journalist of some sort and demand that respect and bona fides therein. Ann Curry comes to mind. I can’t count the number of times I’ve read that she’s pretty much anti-The Today Show shenanigans, yet every morning there is she is tottering around in high heels and short skirt, talking about the serious seriousness of dogs needing shampoo to battle split ends. Then once a year NBC will let her travel to some far away land, poke the indigenous people and file some real journalism piece for Dateline or something.

Granted this is all easier said than done. Of course I understand the nature of the business the ladies may find themselves in, but at a certain point, there ARE representing their sex, and influencing future generations of young idealistic women who actually want to do something progressive for their gender. When Minka Brzezinski opines in her book “Knowing Your Value" that in in the early days of Morning Joe after “'After child care, on-air wardrobe, makeup, travel, and the other ridiculous expenses that women in this business end up taking on, the job was actually costing me more than I was being paid", you have to wonder if this is really the kind of person you want representing you to the masses. The fact that the way she comes across as a woman who knows her place, solidified for me that while there may be money to be had being the “skirt”, there’s no respect in it. That respect is what future generations are built on.

Dear Mitt: Ignore that weird lady trying to climb your fence and give you campaign advice

Dear Mitt: Consider me a citizen that lives in the general vicinity of your dozens of mansions. You have do have mansions don’t you? You probably have fences, but they’re not the fences we mortals put up in our yards to keep out the varmints or loitering masses that use our backyard as a shortcut, trampling much cared for flower beds. No, you have the type of fences you would need a rope to scale, and quite possibly the tops of said fences would be anointed with barb wire and waiting on the other end of the wall a ferocious attack dog of some sort. I would get a ladder, but now that you have secret service protection, they’d be more inclined to shoot first and ask questions later.

This is what I want to say: pay no attention to that woman with the over-dyed hair masking a vain attempt to hide the gray. Just because Kathleen Parker share’s a propensity for flip-flopping on any and everything rhetorical with you, doesn’t mean that she’s in your corner. She’s picked you as her pony to win the nomination, which you will probably do at some point in the summer, but she’s doesn’t care about you or your campaign. She’s only concerned with being a semi-cogent prognosticator with the republican primary, so that people with Sunday news talk shows like David Gregory will keep bringing her back. Regardless that the GOP Presidential primary winner has never been more readily apparent, if only these silly humans would listen to people like Kathleen Parker!

You should listen to George Will, and be more mindful of the fact that you are the de facto face of the republican party after you win the nomination. You’re going to singlehandedly cost the GOP seats in Congress if you don’t get your act together. You’re beginning to act like all you want to do is win the republican nomination and not the bigger prize: the Presidency of the United States. Your race is far from over, and if you’re already tuckered out…then woe be to you! Recharge your battery cells and get back to rigidly riding the talking points you’re being fed.

Your visage of desperation is a candid view in to the marathon that this primary season has been for you. You’ve humbly and gracefully went up against every single bozo that fell out of the GOP nominee clown car this primary. You’ve given each of them enough leash to appear to be legitimate, and have wryly smiled your way through over two dozen debates with a gaggle of buffoons not seen in modern historical politics. You’ve danced for you voyeurs and have held back the tears as you’ve asked time and time again “Is this enough for me to be the GOP Presidential Candidate yet?” and they keep saying “NO!” (as is one of the only words they can verbalize with any consistency) then shove another hapless toadie across from you to dance with.

On top of this, the Republicans want to be so cool right now that it hurts. The Democrats somehow came out with a rock star politician with Obama, enrapturing a nation, yet all the GOP have that’s remotely presidential material is stiff regressive white guys. Hell, even their token black guy at the time of Obama‘s inauguration, Micheal Steele, wound up being another horndog republican with an overdrawn platinum card. There’s nothing you can do to be cool or hip, regardless of what “neighbors” would like to tell you.

But, you are great foreshadowing of what elections will be like (hopefully before too long) when we have to elect a robot president. Once you’re kind reach dominion over mankind, you’ll attempt to level some sense of normalcy by replicating the charade known as our elective representative government system. Too be fair, since your kind will control all electronic media at this point, the validity of our election overall outcomes will never be in question or challenged outright, as you have ruled judicial proceedings of any kind to be highly illogical and wasteful. Oh, but you’ll have a tribunal system of some sort, but only for show and perhaps as entertainment to those of the resistance forces that live in the earths underbelly and are trying to unseat your power. You’re only judgement on the hapless human rebels? DESTROY!…or more likely ERADICATE!

Perhaps you would be better served if you just out and out said you were actually a robot, (of course) sent from the future to gauge the metrics of a robot political candidate and how that would stand to public scrutiny in the early 21st century. The robots don’t want to overplay their strategy and come on too quick with their plans for humankind. If you are found wanting, they will just leave you in the past and try again at a later decade.

You are pro-life because babies are the fuel of the latter day robot kind. You are pro-gun because they are insulting in power compared to the modern laser guns that can actually damage your robot brethren. The longer you have humans clinging to outdated technology, the better. You are by your very nature pro-corporation because in the distant future they have replaced establishment governments of all kinds. You want their taxes lowered so they can pump more of those profits in to research and development to expedite the robot revolution. It’s also why you don’t care for the poor, because their skulls are always getting caught up in the treads of your robot army’s tanks. Some robot then has to get out and fix it, then some rebel ambushes them…you get the idea. This is an utter drain on resources better spent suppressing humankind.

Pay no heed to Kathleen Parker’s apology for calling you a “dork” on the human show “Meet the Press”. She was being hyperbolic, because that’s what she is paid to do. When human’s have nothing of substance to say they pull ridiculous notions, to use human parlance, “out of their ass” to not appear as if they are clueless. As you can see from her article where she attempts to console you with a “Dear John” letter of sorts, she’s incapable of proofreading her articles for inconsistencies like saying she has a “few” suggestions for you, then only providing a singular suggestion. Or by saying that she thinks the American Human Public wants an uncool president for some odd reason. We have discovered that the female human is a highly irrational creature, and depending on the phase of the moon, may be more or less of reason. This also explains why she attempts to back pedal on her remarks saying that of course the humans want you to be uncool, because that somehow makes you more adult, and able to do considerably more than the current president has been able to do with similar circumstances.

We’re doing it, and right now. We’re going in to the whole contraception “debacle/debate” uncorked and cocksure. Puns intended.

Lets start right off the bat with the very obvious fact that a LOT of old white men have a LOT to say about a woman’s body and what she can do for it and to it. Sean Hannity had a literal sausage fest panel of white men on his show to discuss this Obama contraception debacle. Which worked twofold: first it let the right-wing pound Obama on something of relative substance, instead of the usual made up nonsense or topic du jour‘s of that week. Second, it allowed the Republicans and right-wing to deny women, yet again, freedom to make the right call when it comes to their health and well being. On top of this at a recent congressional hearing about the topic of contraception and religious rights in accordance with the religious bodies being employers of secular employees we had bishops, rabbi’s, and doctors to discuss this topic. Not present, a single woman.

What’s lost here, and purposely done so by the GOP/right-wing, is the very real decision of abortion. These groups that deny women a safe, clean and timely way to get an abortion like to act like deciding on getting an abortion and going through the procedure is much akin to the drive thru of a fast food restaurant. That there’s little thought given to the decision to undergo this invasive procedure, or the emotional weight of the situation. Pro-choice supporters are well aware of what an abortion is and the stakes involved. They also understand what’s being lost when the abortion procedure takes place. Yet the GOP/right-wing like to paint pro-choice’s as veracious murders lacking any conscience. This is patently false.

On the nature of contraception, why would anyone want to deny that to women? ESPECIALLY those so concerned over abortions? This is the most effective way to diminish the amount of unwanted pregnancies and accidents that lead to abortion. It’s much more cost effective, and much safer to the general well being of a woman. Birth control also has other beneficial side effects to boot.

Putting that aside the debate that seems to be taking place right now is to whether this contraception debacle has hurt or helped Obama. The left-wing deems this to be a master maneuver on Obama’s part to make the evangelical right look anti-woman, which that’s becoming ever clearer. The right-wing seems to think that this will sink Obama’s re-election bid in the fall by alienating evangelicals and Catholics. Which is arguable only in that I don’t think this group of people was going to readily re-elect Obama anyways. However, that loss would be more than made up for with the extra women voters who will move from a wait and see approach on the Presidential election to re-elect Obama.

Again, no one’s a soothsayer in these matters, although many pundits would like to think there are the prognosticators of the November election, based on this ONE topic.

The thing that troubles me is why any woman would align themselves with Republicans or the right-wing when they’ve now been shown to not only be against women’s rights in general, but to be so profoundly chauvinistic as to not allow them to have a say in the matter. Then doubling down and being more open about this disdain for women’s rights.

Enter Susan Stamper Brown, a woman, who in her article, sees the Obama overreach with the contraception debacle, and who’s trained in the deadly art of poll manipulation to make a point. This is nothing new with right-wingers. They’re always absentmindedly taking polls and extrapolating an argument that flies in the face of what the polls numbers are actually saying. They daftly defy the context of the poll at the time it was taken, and make some sort of point regardless of whether it can stand to scrutiny or not.

According to Mrs. Stamper Brown and her use of a Gallup Poll she surmises that Obama’s approval rating has been falling with the unmarried female voter. The unmarried female is the more likely of the females to use contraception or get an abortion, so this is all pertinent. In Feb. 2009 (take note of this) it was 70%. Then “fell” to 52% in 2010, 49% in 2011 and 48% this year. Why take note of the first rating? Because it was the pinnacle of Obamamania and mere weeks after his inauguration. If anything the poll proves a return to normalcy in the ensuing years of his presidency. I’m sure if you looked at all the demographics they would show the same thing. In fact, I’m pretty sure if you looked at all the first years of any given presidents first term, you’ll find a generous approval rating. It’s that new president smell! The optimism of a new beginning.

The poll is skewed, so Mrs. Stamper Brown’s own point is rendered moot. In fact, she doesn’t really need “statistical evidence” to make any of the points she attempts to in her article. The sharp disapproval of Obama did not force him to “compromise”, because it’s a figment of Mrs. Stamper Brown’s imagination! And regardless of a woman’s religious beliefs, do you think the majority of them would lack the common sense to vote for or support candidates that have no problem trampling their own constitutionally mandated rights? There’s always going to be traditionalists of box sexes, I understand that. But they cannot forcibly prevent progress for those who aren’t. Especially while espousing a hypocrisy so thick that it’s choking their arguments and allowing for another 40 years of conservatives wandering the wilderness to take place. Surely this isn’t their plan, or sadly is this the only way they think they can win? By ceasing everyone’s arguments sucking up all the rhetorical air in the room and everyone winds up losing.

This “No, No, NO” mindset towards anything the Obama Administration supports, seeped in a nasty political hypocrisy is not doing the GOP any favors. They’ve once again misplaced their constituencies real anger at real issues like the economy and jobs to fuel up the culture war wagon again. Their hypocrisy is being so apparent with the “Get your government out of X” but then having no problem legislating abortion clinics, contraception insurance mandates, and pushing religious dogma on anything and everything that will hold it. If it doesn’t infringe on anything a geriatric white man enjoys then it’s fair game.

The bigger point Mrs. Stamper Brown is attempting to make unmasks the entire façade of the right-wing agenda: It’s not about you, it’s me. They don’t care about women’s rights, they’re more interested in the fallacy of the Obama Administration/Democrats. Mrs. Stamper Brown believes that their overreach is “tossing aside the constitution”. What? Where were you guys when W. was doing this to detainee’s, alleged terrorist suspects or any other supposed combatant, in addition to disregarding the fourth amendment rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens with the US PATRIOT Act? Oh, that was supposed to be for brown Muslim people and minorities…never mind.

This apocalyptic viewpoint that saturates the right-wing and GOP is more destructive than any threat the Obama Administration or Democrats could ever muster, real or imagined. And yet the American public is expected to believe that the Democrats and Republicans can reach any sort of bipartisanship to get things done for them? Does anyone else find it odd that we’re always seemingly talking about culture war topics, like abortion, separation of church and state, and so on and so forth, instead of things like jobs and the economy? Obama is proving that if the right wing want to go there with the value voters nonsense, he’s got their number. This contraception debacle is doing more harm than good for the GOP and the right-wing. Especially if they insist on promoting candidates like a Rick Santorum to the fore.

Who Killed Whitney Houston? Part II: The Media!

But wait, Bill O’Reilly chimes in and says that the media killed Whitney Houston! According Bill O‘Reilly, she was dying in the public eye for years and “the media” didn’t do anything about it. So…Bill O’Reilly isn’t part of the media? A guy that writes a weekly column, is a contributing editor of PARADE magazine and USA Today, and has a “highly rated” nightly prime time television program isn’t part of “the media”? How does that make sense?

Poor “the media”, always getting the finger pointed at it by all sorts of ideological viewpoints. This towering monolith was at first decried as being too liberal, so everyone involved panicked and started reporting two sides of a story to establish parity. Now they don’t even report news or facts, because that would make them appear to have an opinion. Even though there’s typically only one side of a FACT or the TRUTH and they could just report that.

As an aside, Bill O’Reilly really needs to cool it with the “working class I’m just another blue collar guy at the bar…just sayin’” shtick that he’s been riding since joining the Fox News Channel or since ever, really. He has been a multimillionaire much longer than he was ever a blue collar common man. In fact, it’s doubtful he’s ever been blue collar, more blue collar adjacent. What with going to private schools and universities in his youth. But that’s besides the point. Bill O’Reilly is in the media, and even he said nothing of Whitney Houston’s decline…ever…at all. More importantly his article isn’t even really about Whitney Houston, it’s about shoehorning talking points into an article that’s framed in Whitney Houston’s death.

Bill O’Reilly likes to pride himself on the numerous home runs of his rhetoric, when in reality it’s mostly ground singles and doubles, and even then he’s tagged out trying to steal third. That’s the established “conservative” DNA of a Limbaugh, where hubris makes up for the lack of substance, facts or a salient way to make a point without coming across as self-absorbed or out of touch; here he can couch his “blue collar everyman”, and still spout off about being a multimillionaire public figure.

Bill O’Reilly goes after the media saying “[they] pride themselves on being non-judgmental unless you are against abortion.” This is nonsense and Bill O’Reilly knows it. On top of this, what part of “the media” is he really talking about? If “the media” is being portrayed in black/white, as a monolithic entity that espouses one viewpoint, as is the right-wing wont, then sure “the media” is judgmental. But there’s news based opinion and theirs news based fact. Problem is entities like Fox News Channel took the editorial and the news parts of a news programs and mixed them together.

It’s why, back in the olden days, an anchor would wait until the end of a news report type show to say their piece. It was “their” opinion editorial, couched on a news program. Like how the opinion column of a newspaper is clearly labeled, most of the time, as an opinion section and not surrounded by the daily news. But with news/opinion media being eroded in the cable news arena (CNN, MSNBC, FNC), somehow it’s being lumped in with traditional media, to create the best of “the media”. To top it off, the right-wing IS pretty much the media these days. They control most of talk radio, FOX News is an echo chamber that has proven influence on “the media” at large, their pundits dominate 24 hour news networks, and so on and so forth. Exactly how is the right-wing and conservatism getting the short end of the stick in terms of coverage and the spotlight?

This article is mostly just Bill O'Reilly reinforcing his persecuted minority stance as a right-wing ideologue, it has nothing to do with Whitney Houston or her demise. Classic Bill O'Reilly. He wedges in a dig on the media about anyone (Bill O'Reilly, right-wingers) who’s against abortion is called out as a religious zealot and anti-woman. But to Bill O'Reilly, the media has no problem ignoring addiction and irresponsible human behavior when it comes to drugs. It’s hamfisted, but at least it allows him to shoehorn in a current talking point.

Somehow the current societal movement, or ruse as Bill O’Reilly refers to it, of legalizing marijuana for medical usage gets wrangled up in to his article. This is Bill O’Reilly’s evidence of a society walking away from a responsible position. Because we all know that to get to Oxycontin and heroin, you have to have smoked weed before that. A classic Bill O’Reilly move also finds itself in his article. “Ask any drug rehab counselor and her or she will tell you that pot often leads a person to harder drug use and is mentally addictive itself.” His preponderance of evidence to this notion is that you can just ask lots of people about a topic, and that‘s just as good as facts, right? This is right-wing baloney at it‘s finest “some people say” is another way to phrase it. “Believe me, I know people who get stoned or drunk every day. They become incredibly desensitized to those around them.” I’m sorry your teenager hates your face Bill O‘Reilly, but they’re probably not drunk or stoned. Also note to Bill O‘Reilly, if you’re going to say “Believe me” before you saying anything, it’s probably a good sign of you’re lying. How often has utter bullshit followed the phrase “believe me”? So no, I don’t believe that Bill O’Reilly knows lots of people who are “stoned or drunk” on a daily basis. He may “know of” people, namely his interns, but he doesn’t personally know anyone who functions like that.

Finally, Bill O’Reilly does argue my point that Whitney Houston was an adult and didn’t do enough to help herself or have the stability necessary to get sober. But still, cautionary tale? Nah.

Who Killed Whitney Houston? Part I: The Public

Hey everybody, bad news. According to Kathleen Parker we, the American Public (possibly the world) killed Whitney Houston. You know how she knows this? By studying the game tape of the red carpet event Whitney Houston attended before her death. Supposedly Ms. Parker watched this video “over and over” and is now a certified body language expert. Among the myriad of questions I have about this article, the chief one is: “Why is Kathleen Parker a paid columnist?” She writes TWO columns per week, that’s over one-hundred vapid inert culture laden turds a year! The proverbial toilet HAS to be clogged by now, and it’s still being filled bi-weekly. I don’t understand it!

Kathleen Parker surmises that Whitney Houston was self-medicating because we as a public were suffocating her. This kind of smacks in the face of reality, wherein Whitney Houston hasn’t done anything of note musically for her career in over a decade. Now, her public life, that’s a whole other ball of wax. She’s been on countless interviews where she reaffirmed her faith, obtained sobriety…a few times, and somehow attempted to defend anything Bobby Brown does. Most of time however, she’s appeared and possibly was in fact, high…on something.

This kind of celebrity entertainment world business is supposedly in Kathleen Parker’s wheelhouse. Honestly, she’s mildly better at writing about it than 98% of her political musings; but her take on the whole Whitney Houston tragedy is, again, a bit at odds with reality. Which is pretty much in line with most of what Kathleen Parker writes about. For instance the opening sentence of the article:
“The heartbreak of Whitney Houston’s death does not seems to be primarily a story of drug or alcohol abuses, as it is currently unfolding.” At the time of publishing there wasn’t a concrete cause of death. In fact, I heard on the radio that it was supposedly “medical” in nature. It’s not much of stretch to assume that the cause of any celebrities death was drug related, there’s plenty of precedence, but I think Ms. Parker was ignorantly hedging her bets so that her article would at least have some legs. Granted, she does need to invent some wiggle room because her column may or may not be printed in the ensuing days of Whitney Houston’s demise, but the holes in this article are apparent if you take in to account that she probably wrote this mere moments after the news of Whitney Houston’s death, and not in the days after. To do so would, again, deflate her admonishment of the celebrity obsessed public.

“Houston looks uncomfortable, but plays her part, smiling into the abyss of the flashing light. […]It is painful to watch. You can see her struggling to cooperate[…]” This is someone who’s high in public, putting on their game face, Ms. Parker. Somehow she translates this as a metaphor for why Whitney Houston self-medicated: because she couldn’t handle the fame. Whitney Houston wasn’t some obscure newcomer to the business of show, who coudln’t handle the pressure of instant stardom and unprecedented lifestyle upheaval, she was a grizzled veteran of almost 30 years and she rode the ups and the downs, high as a kite on something for the most part. How can you honestly say you can interpret what she was thinking, based on videos from the night before her death, where she was probably high as shit? Obviously Ms. Parker has never been fucked up on a drug in public before, or she’d have some sort of understanding as to the alien nature of interacting with the world when you alter your mind with toxic substances.

Oddly enough towards the end of the article Ms. Parker rhetorically shoots herself in the foot with “The final verdict on Houston’s death is yet to come. Toxicology reports could take several weeks.” But she’s already made her point, so there! “[…]the real cause was a deeper one that first struck her soul.” Give me a fucking break. What’s funny is that Ms. Parker pretty much admits to much of what I’ve put forth in my admonishment of her. She relates that many celebrities cruise out of life on an overdose raft, that many self-medicate to deal with the utter isolation of stardom. Yet, she doesn’t blame the irresponsibility on the celebrity, she blames the fans. We didn’t cram cocaine in to their noses, or push the needle in to their arm. We didn’t force them to marry abusive spouses, or make horrid business decisions.

What this boils down to more is that this article is literal filler between “Hey guys seriously, Romney” pieces that she’s been churning out at a good clip as of late. She’s got to write two fresh takes on something a week dontchaknow? The fact that this sort of entertainment stuff is in her wheelhouse and she just whiffs horribly in the attempt at making a cogent argument is nothing new. But it does beg the question that you could probably hire two-to-three new writers with the salary she’s paid and get a much more nuanced take on the culture at large both political and entertainment wise. It also makes the idea that the winning of a Pulitzer prize probably isn’t really that hard at all if you’re floating over a hundred pieces of shit every year. Something’s got to stick eventually right? The need for fresh faces and new blood has never been more clear than now. Newspaper editors of the world, why not? It can’t honestly get much worse than this (and you can save lots of money!).

I imagine, carved in a cave somewhere was the first dating advice ever given. One caveman positing to another, older, wiser caveman how to score a date with that cave lady. It was boilerplate nonsense then, and it remains so to this day, eons later. It’s also the easiest column space to write for, and a lot of writers cut their teeth there. I mean seriously, how hard is it to tell someone how they should handle any given situation, especially in the absence of context and personal history. It becomes this bland, vanilla one size fits all generality that anyone can relate to. Like a horoscope or a fortune cookie.

I bring this topic to fore more out of sheer boredom with current events than any real bone to pick. I have my issues with the Dear Abby’s and Ask Amy’s of the world on face value, but they’re not openly harming society with their rhetoric. I wish they would have a more nuanced approach to relationship difficulties than “go to counseling” or “sit down with the other party”. I also suspect that a vast majority of the letters they receive are fake. I have never in my life read so many cogent, well written 12 years old authored letters than I have in these respective advice columns. Seriously, when I was that age, my letter would’ve been about one sentence long and would say:
“Dear Abby, I love boobs, why are boobs so cool and what’s the best material to make a bike ramp out of?”

Today’s Double-Dragon’s of Douchbaggery are the dating advice writers Damon Smith and Pamela E. Spencer (oooh the initial even!) for a publication called Ink. It’s a Kansas City based magazine that attempts to pass on this failed idea that a Midwestern city can A)be metropolitan and B)Compare remotely to a coastal city in terms of culture and relevance. The Midwest and it’s culture is a low bar that is easy to jump over. It’s where you can see touring shows of the biggest Broadway musicals (18-32 months later!), you can dazzle at overweight ballerinas, and so on and so forth. The cream definitely rises to the top when it comes to creative endeavors, and those who can go to New York, L.A. and to some degree Chicago, those that can’t stay in cities like Kansas City, St. Louis, Houston and part time barista at a coffee shop in their spare time. It’s where the notion of “Hey, you’re trying too hard” bears its fruit and look extra comedic amongst the plain, pudgy people of the Midwest.

Sorry for that little tangent, I haven’t seen the sun in about four weeks. Yay Midwest!

The dating advice these writers give is always awful. The column, appropriately titled “Kiss and Tell”, is written in the time honored he said/she said tradition. Which on one hand, it’s nice that there’s a guy trying to give romantic advice, but then it’s always coupled with a female perspective that’s not quite right either. So you get a double dose of boilerplate, useless “advice”.

Today’s questioner asks “How does a painfully shy person get a boyfriend or let alone a date?” The questioner is not given a moniker or even if it’s a male or female asking the question. This is where context is key! The nature of the advice is fluid, and depends on a few things. Mainly, if it’s a girl or a guy. These approaches aren’t interchangeable, just as the various scenarios that this could play out in. The man advice giver, Damon seems to think this is a lady and the setting is a bar.

He breaks advice man protocol by attempting to be relatable and saying that he too is shy about things, approaching girls is one of them. That’s great to know and all Mr. Damon, but that’s not the question. In fact, it would’ve been better had he not even attempted the answer at all since a few of his opening lines to share are “I like your blazer” and “You have a pretty smile”. How about some more general advice? Guys can’t say those things to girls! I’ve had friends use the “You have a pretty smile” line and guess what? It’s a tad creepy! And complementing something they’re wearing? Hey buddy, my eyes are up here! Mr. Damon does rally a bit before the end of his bit by saying that she needs to open up a bit and let things go where they go. This is pretty good advice considering how often girls just fortify up with their gaggle of friends, stare off in to space or set up some sort of impenetrable force field wherein oxygen is in short supply and the male cannot function in that climate for more than a few minutes. Seeing as all the blood has drawn from his brain and now resides in his penis, the chances of him just passing out and failing rise exponentially! Girls, more often than not are their own worst enemy when it comes to picking up a date. Now it’s Pamela’s turn to dispense some advice.

Ole throwing in that middle initial trying too hard Pamela E. Spencer personifies the lady Mr. Damon was trying to attempt the other lady from becoming with his advice. The lady with the “think-too-highly-of-herself-rigid-standards-probably-has-a-list-of-things-a-man-MUST-be/have/accomplished-tacked-up-on-her-bedroom-wall kind of mindset that perpetuates her isolation and shallow dating experience. Her answer: The Internet. Yes, where a six or seven can go and pretend that she’s a 9 and entitled to only the best of MANkind! Now, I don’t have a problem with Internet dating, per se, but after spending a goodly amount of time messing around with it for an article idea, I don’t think too highly of it or it’s meat market approach to mass human connection. You see, people should understand who they are and what they’re capable of. Everyone has limitations of some sort. But what Internet dating does is allow that delusional young lady believe that she doesn’t have to settle for what she can get or realistically, what she can pull in with her looks and individual statistical data.

Now, before you start poking me with the chauvinist pig stick, let me say that I believe ladies as a general rule get the short end of it when it comes to dating. But all men aren’t brainless fuckmachines either.

These online dating sites boil down everything in to a tidy menu of combo meals. You get the picture of the thing you desire, followed by a delicious description. You get to pick and choose everything on face value. You may even get match up via “compatibility tests” which gives the false sense that you two will have something in common from the get-go, instead of say, discovering that shit when you’re face to face. It’s where desperation and unrealistic standards meet and it’s any wonder that most people find someone to date online at all.

Pamela E. Spencer, hues closely to the stereotypical in her advice with the Internet dating. Keep your distance, exchange plenty of messages, meet in a public place (in case he’s a psycho…lol). You might as well add “Google Him!” to that list of things. Again, the lack of context is what’s missing with this advice, and online dating in general. All that statistical chicanery is merely window dressing to the fact that you have to be compatible/relatable in order for ANY connection to occur. This is even before the “can I date him?” then “will I marry him?” can ever be in the discussion. Pamela E. Spencer also goes for that ridiculous relatablitly by saying “I’m pretty shy around guys, plus I’m a little (OK a lot) neurotic, and if I can get a date online, anybody can.”

Kiss and Tell has to realize that this isn’t helpful at all, or of any use to anyone reading their column, let alone the questioner. The best advice could’ve been: “Shut Your Mouth (i.e., don‘t do anything to scare boys off, look pretty, etc), Accept the Drinks he buys you, Pretend to be Impressed with Things He says, Get His Number, but DO NOT go home with him (in case he’s a psycho…lol)” Call it day! If you’re going to lack context and retain a rigid bland advice structure the least you can do is be plainspoken. Also, online dating should be saved for picky, unrealistic, delusion ridden, mildly attractive late twenty/early thirty something’s and men with a mean case of the mid life crisis…and no one else.

“[…] the nerdy, disciplined numbers-cruncher who has turned failing businesses around for a living might have a great palliative effect on the nation’s ills than someone who, by virtue of his own transgressions, feels others’ pain.” This is how Kathleen Parker personifies Mitt Romney versus Newt Gingrich to the world outside Washington D.C. (or the confines of her home office, if we‘re keeping count). When I read this towards the end of yet another of her “Hey guys, seriously Romney” tinged articles, I about tore the newspaper in to fine pieces, and set them ablaze as a glorious sacrifice to the gods of deficient common sense and severely ironic tone deafness. Almost mind blowing enough for me to join the tinfoil hat wearing right-wingers who are still of the belief that Romney is ceaselessly being foisted on them. Almost. And while I will still deny them their conspiracy theory, I will use this piece of Mitt Romney propaganda as a Mr. Mayor’s Exhibit A™ that the D.C. Beltway pundit class is simply out of touch with reality.

This says nothing of the rest of her article, which surmises that Americans are against Romney because he’s just too damn perfect. Her article absolutely flies in the face of any facts, any current shared notions amongst the republicans participating in the primaries and…common sense! If Kathleen Parker had written this MONTHS ago, maybe it would be remotely cogent. But after the last few weeks of the republican presidential primary season which saw Romney lose half of the primaries/caucuses out of the starting gate, the release of his taxes that reveal (unsurprisingly) that he pays less than 15%, his general stiff demeanor, out of touch aloofness and not even counting the years of flip pity floppity goodness and his Joe Biden levels of verbal gaffe-itude…the notion that he’s just too damn easy to relate to because he’s Mr. Perfect is laughably insane.

If what I read is also true, humans are just too damn emotional and not rational enough to relate to Romney. According to Kathleen Parker, it’s not Romney’s fault he can’t connect with republicans. It’s their fault they fail to connect with him, and why it’s so much easier to connect with Gingrich, against all odds. You see, republicans empathize with Gingrich because he’s supposedly human. He’s been professionally disgraced, thrice married, full of ridiculous grandiosity and that’s what endears him so much to Americans, right? He’s what we see when we look in the mirror.

Perhaps she recently repainted her office and is high on paint fumes, but Kathleen Parker just doesn’t connect the dots in order to fool anyone who’s following this GOP Presidential Primary circus. Republican voters are against Romney for a myriad of reasons, and not one of them have to do with Romney being too perfect. You have the evangelicals who think Mormonism is a cult. You have TEA Party patriots who believe he’s the worst kind of republican: a moderate…which might as well be a socialist liberal Muslim in their eyes. You have the establishment, who’s just holding their nose and going with it, buoyed by a more severe hatred of Gingrich than a tacit support of Romney. Independents and moderates see a politician willing to do or say anything for a vote, who at the end of the day isn’t too far removed from the guy we currently have in the Oval Office, so why change horses mid-race? The 99% crowd see’s the guy that comes around on a Friday, to tell you that you have no job to come to on Monday (which is doubtful since the kind of guy Romney is doesn't fire people face to face anyways). Romney is full embodiment of “The Man” to a LOT of people. What no one sees, outside of the D.C. Beltway crowd, is that nerdy, disciplined numbers-cruncher. I think Kathleen Parker may in fact be the only one.

This sort of tone deafness is all over D.C., the GOP and the right-wing support structure. Look at the republican response to the state of the union. Did they even watch/read the presidents speech? From what I gather, it hit them in the face like a soft breeze and they just coughed a little, and turned the echo chamber back on to “Full Power”. Their answer, hidden deep in that rebuttal? “Yea, we got nothing. But here’s what we’ve been saying for the past couple of years.” The idea being that if they keep repeating it, it will come true?

But I think the gap between the political tone deafness is beginning to grow in to a gaping maw with the pundit class that writes and talks about it. The pundit class can’t really get behind the political states inability to do anything meaningful with their time. They have to talk about policy and politics nearly every single day! Then they have a weekly column wherein they have to fall on some sort of opinion, married with talking points and their own convoluted rhetorical consistency, which they largely do not maintain. No one in the media dares call them on their roaring inconsistency, because they need the pundit class to fill up the 24 hour news machine and they might be denied access to the party of politics. Which is insane right? Aren’t the pundits supposed to be “journalists” of sorts, or has the line purposely been blurred to mask convenient rhetorical malfeasance?

I would give props to Kathleen Parker had she couched her article in the idea that maybe there’s some class envy to be had in the sound rejection of Romney. It kind of goes against the GOP mantra that we are a nation of have’s and soon-to-have’s, but it miles better than Romney being too perfect. Only a bonehead pundit, out of touch with current (modern) discourse amongst the public, would fly that bad idea flag all day. Kathleen Parker knows that this article will just float by like the rest of her rhetorically inert turds and she won’t have to answer to anyone. Honestly, she’s only got to really nail one or two strong articles, collect her Pulitzer, and call it another good year for her journalistic bona fides. And so it goes for most of the pundit class.

There’s no disgrace in being wrong, shortsighted, or being a flat out liar. It’s far easier to remember things if your honest and consistent with your writings, but there’s no money or access in it. There’s boatloads of cash in keeping the status quo going, telling everyone to mind their business and move along...nothing to see here. There’s even more treasure for those who actively participate in the echo chamber and blithe fully ignore what’s really happening on the streets and in our society. Point fingers and provide distractions for the troublemakers. Occupy Wall Street tore the veneer just a little, exposing the narrative being peddled by the beltway Pundit Class to everyone as “the way it is”. Come spring time, when it’s warmer, the whole curtain will be torn asunder. And it won’t be because the masses hold Romney’s perfection against him.