Remember Marc Rudov? He's the frequent Fox News guest who thinks Hillary Clinton deserves to be called a "B-word," ridiculed a study on housework as the product of a "gyno-versit[y]," insists that "girls just love to expose themselves," among other things.
Maria Shriver, you have two sons and two daughters. Do your sons like hearing from you that they're growing up in a woman's nation? I doubt it. What will their friends say? Nothing flattering. What will your daughters think about their brothers - and all men? Isn't your TV program just as destructive as those that once prompted mothers to teach "life in a man's world" to their daughters?
Rudov is just getting warmed up. He then declares that all "laws and policies that confer upon women unilateral rights and protections in rape, reproduction, abortion, custody, child support, domestic violence, workplace practices, and immigration" are "unconstitutional" because "[o]ur legal system is designed to be blind to specific groups," yet such laws get passed anyway because "spineless men fear retribution from feminists and sexual retaliation from their wives for writing, passing, enforcing, and adjudicating gender-neutral laws."
Rudov then blames American women for the current state of American men:
Men are fast becoming slacker dudes and permanent blue-collar workers. This is because highschool programs favor girls; college-enrollment stats prove it. Not only are women dominating at the undergraduate level, they are receiving more than 50% of degrees in law, medicine, and business. At UC Davis 80% of veterinary grads are women. The trend of female domination is growing unabated.
Is this a problem? You betcha. A society of marginalized men is a weak society. Whom will these highly educated women marry? Slacker dudes? I don't think so. Given that 40% of American children are born out of wedlock, marriage isn't a big concern for many women. Too bad. Every study of teenage pregnancy, drug usage, alcoholism, gang membership, crime, and school dropouts points to the lack of fathers at home. Women file 70% of divorces and choose single motherhood as a lifestyle.
Then, it's back to bashing Shriver, claiming that she's "compounding the omnipresent wedge between men and women" and that "any men who rally your cause are pathetic eunuchs - proof of your thesis."
Yet Rudov did find one bright spot in his alleged emasculation:
In canonizing women as strong, smart, talented, and self-reliant - and they are - you have done men a big favor: terminated all justification for women to receive alimony and child support. You are the alimony terminator. We love you. This is fantastic, as Arnold would say.
And so, America is now a Woman's Nation, a matriarchy, a gynocracy. Women are in control. They no longer need, and therefore cannot require, men to support them financially - at any time, in any way, for any reason. Otherwise, they'd be hypocrites, wouldn't they?
Sounds like Rudov needs to decide whether he's upset that women are taking over or relieved because he's no longer expected to do anything for them.
CNBC's Darren Rovell has some funny ideas about what it means to be an American.
Over the weekend, Meb Keflezighi became the first American to win the New York City Marathon since 1982. But CNBC's Darren Rovell isn't impressed. Darren Rovell doesn't think Keflezighi is really an American.
On his Twitter account yesterday, Rovell wrote "NYC Marathon winner Keflezghi may be a citizen, but can't count as American."
Rovell explained his bizarre views in an article on CNBC's web site:
It's a stunning headline: American Wins Men's NYC Marathon For First Time Since '82.
Unfortunately, it's not as good as it sounds.
Meb Keflezighi, who won yesterday in New York, is technically American by virtue of him becoming a citizen in 1998, but the fact that he's not American-born takes away from the magnitude of the achievement the headline implies.
"Technically American"? No: Keflezighi is American. Not on some technicality or by virtue of a loophole. He is, simply, an American -- and he isn't any less American simply because he did not share Darren Rovell's great good fortune to have been born in the U.S.
Keflezighi's country of origin is Eritrea, a small country in Africa. He is an American citizen thanks to taking a test and living in our country.
Nothing against Keflezighi, but he's like a ringer who you hire to work a couple hours at your office so that you can win the executive softball league.
Well, actually, he isn't anything like that at all. Keflezighi is an American. He immigrated to the U.S. in 1987, when he was 12 years old, and became a citizen in 1998. He has lived in America for 22 years and been a citizen for 11.
You know many "ringers" who start at age 12? You know many people who consider 22 years of residence the equivalent of working "a couple hours at your office"? I didn't think so.
The positive sign was that some American-born runners did extremely well in yesterday's men's race.
If any of them stand on the top step of the podium in Central Park one day, that's when I'll break out my red, white and blue.
Now there's a guy who loves his country.
Here's an excerpt from a 2005 Sports Illustrated profile of Keflezighi:
Meb's story begins in Eritrea a quarter century ago. Russom Keflezighi was the father of five young children (Meb was number 4), husband to a pregnant wife, Awetash, and a hunted member of the Eritrean Liberation Front, a civilian organization seeking independence for Eritrea from Ethiopia. "By 1981 the enemy was very close," he says. He would often sleep in the woods outside his village to avoid detection.
His wife urged him to leave the country rather than be jailed or killed. In July 1981 Russom walked out of his village in tears and headed for the border with Sudan, nearly 100 miles and seven days away. Two years later he moved to Milan, Italy, with the aid of an Eritrean woman who had borne him a daughter, Ruth, before he married Awetash.
Russom worked as many as four jobs at once and sent money back to Eritrea. At home the Keflezighi boys dodged violence every day. "We saw body parts on the highway," says Meb. "But it was the only life we knew." In 1986 Russom brought his family to Milan and then--14 months later, sponsored by Ruth, who was 19 years old and living in the U.S.--to San Diego.
In California, Russom worked tirelessly. He did not let his children take jobs. "I told them, 'You will have a better life if you study,'" he says. The family grew to 11 kids. Today the six oldest have college degrees, and the seventh is a freshman at Stanford.
UPDATE: Rovell apologizes. Sort of:
I said that Keflezighi's win, the first by an American since 1982, wasn't as big as it was being made out to be because there was a difference between being an American-born product and being an American citizen. Frankly I didn't account for the fact that virtually all of Keflezighi's running experience came as a US citizen.
This is where, I must admit, my critics made their best point. It turns out, Keflezighi moved to the United States in time to develop at every level in America. So Meb is in fact an American trained athlete and an American citizen and he should be celebrated as the American winner of the NYC Marathon. That makes a difference and makes him different from the "ringer" I accused him of being. Meb didn't deserve that comparison and I apologize for that.
In other words, Rovell wrote a column smearing Keflezighi without bothering to do 20 seconds of research to find out if his central premise was correct. That's some good journalism!
Rovell also writes:
I never said he didn't deserve to be called American.
Oh, really? What about when Rovell wrote that Keflezighi "can't count as American"? How about when he wrote that Keflezighi is only "technically" American? Or when he analogized Keflezghi's American-ness to a "ringer" who works "a couple hours" in an office?
UPDATE 2: Keflezighi's fellow UCLA alums over at Bruins Nation are not amused:
The first point I'd like to make is that Meb did more than just "live" in the country. For the most part, he grew up here. Last time I checked, the University of California, Los Angeles contains three words that identify itself with the United States, so he was educated here. And being a citizen thanks to "taking a test" is no small feat, considering that there are reports circulating that a mere 3.5% of American High School students would be able to pass that same test. I'd like to know if Rovell could pass. I know I have my doubts.
What I'm really wondering what ... Revell would say to the parents and wives and children of dead American soldiers who died in battle defending this country after becoming naturalized citizens. I wonder if they would tell them "Thanks, but it's not as if they were real Americans who were actually born here."
I not only rejoice in Meb's win because we are both Americans. I rejoice that I live in a country that allows great men like Meb to become citizens and then proceeds to treat him no differently than those whose families came over on the Mayflower.
Last night if you went to this link, you would have seen this Wall Street Journal story headlined "GOP Health Bill Gives Insurers More Leeway":
This morning, however, if you attempted using the very same link, you'd find an entirely different story, by an entirely different reporter, under an entirely different headline.
Why did the Journal replace an article that simply pointed out that the yet to be released House GOP health care plan would benefit insurers with a piece about how House Democrats were working to deal with the issues of "abortion" and "illegal immigrants" in their reform plan?
If you run a search for the headline of the original Journal article, you'll get a bunch of links directing you to it, though none of them actually send you to the original story. The links are either broken, to different stories or direct you to the new Journal piece focusing on House Democrats.
For the better part of four years now, the crack bias sleuths at NewsBusters have had something of a monopoly on really awful media criticism. If you wanted to read some of worst, most puerile carping on the alleged transgressions of the mainstream media, all you had to do was head over to Tim Graham's place and read about MSNBC's biased promo announcers, Andrew Sullivan's unforgiveable foreignness, and the Washington Post's anti-"Wolverines!" slant. And let's never forget Matt Lauer's terrorist neckwear.
But it looks like Andrew Breitbart's BigHollywood.com is looking to dethrone NewsBusters as the premiere source for asinine right-wing media criticism, and they made a compelling case with one of their "featured stories" this morning which documented the absurd liberal bias in an episode of Sesame Street that aired two years ago.
Just let that sink in for a moment...
So, in the spirit of one of Sesame Street's many iconic characters, let's count the ways in which BigHollywood.com embarrassed themselves this morning:
Add one more soldier to the Left's war on Fox News: Oscar the Grouch.
Later in the episode, Anderson Cooper from 4th place CNN, guest stars as a reporter for GNN. He interacts with "Walter Cranky" and "Dan Rather-Not" - Muppets representing real-life liberal news personalities - and they talk about "Meredith Beware-a" and "Diane Spoiler." But no affectionate nicknames for Fox News personalities; no Spill O'Reilly or Brittle Hume - nope, and the only disparaging characterization of real-world news is reserved for Fox: Fox is a POX. It is trashy. They didn't even attempt to try "MessyNBC."
The message is clear, I can't even sit my kids in front of "Sesame Street" without having to worry about the Left attempting to undermine my authority.
The fact that this is a re-run from an episode written during the Bush Presidency only reinforces that this is nothing new. The Left has been doing this for years now. All of us have seen it and felt powerless to mention it, because if we do, we're ridiculed and dismissed (thank you, Mr. Alinsky).
"Sesame Street" can awkwardly slam FoxNews from the comfort of their stodgy old PBS studios... Meanwhile, we have the cool kids on our side: Dennis Miller, Greg Gutfeld, Andrew Breitbart and yes, even Glenn Beck. And our cool kids are pointing out just how boring, lame, predictable and lazy the other side has become.
And so forth...
I'd like to think that this is satire of some sort. I really would. But we've all seen how earnestly idiotic these folks can be.
No matter what Bill O'Reilly, Mike Allen, Kathleen Parker, Clarence Page, Michael Wolff, David Gergen, Ruth Marcus and an army of media pundits insist, the cold facts are clear: in the two weeks following its public dispute with the White House. Fox News' ratings did not "soar" or "spike" or "go through the roof."
Instead, the ratings flat-lined.
As I note in my column:
The chattering class wanted to claim Fox News' ratings were going up, up, up. They wanted to suggest that the White House critique had massively backfired. But now we know that's fiction. So when are the pundits going to start posting their retractions?
Full column here.
Here's a "fair and balanced" promo Fox News has been airing all week for its Tuesday election coverage:
On his Twitter account, former Bush adviser Karl Rove writes: "I'll be on Fox & Friends tomorrow at 8 AM and most of the day for election coverage" and "Live Desk, Your World, Hannity, O'Reilly, FBN w/ Cavuto, and Fox Election Special at 10 PM."
While promoting his Fox News appearances, Rove also pushed people to contribute to candidates, writing: "Visit www.doughoffmanforcongress.com to contribute"; "Corzine spending more than $20 mm attacking Christie. RGA is fighting back. Give now so they can stay on air http://tinyurl.com/ylruh22"; "GOP Comeback begins in NJ and VA with RGA. Give now to help them stay on air. http://tinyurl.com/ylruh22."
So let's get this straight: Fox News' top "Fox News political analyst" is actively encouraging people to defeat Democrats. And that top "Fox News political analyst" will participate "most of the day" for Fox's "fair & balanced" coverage. Rove, by the way, routinely appears by himself, unchallenged, in his role as election analyst - as he's already done on today's Fox & Friends and yesterday's On the Record:
No active follower of politics should see Bush's Brain as anything other than a partisan Republican hack. Then-Fox News executive John Moody said of Rove: "Are we getting a Republican spin? Of course. But that's what he's there for. There's no attempt to conceal that."
So there it is. Fox News' "fair and balanced" political coverage will feature self-described "Republican spin" - again, often by himself and unchallenged - from its top political analyst who also happens to be actively soliciting for Republicans and conservatives. We report, you decide.
In the third sentence of his 1,220-word innuendo-filled column warning of voter fraud in the New Jersey gubernatorial election, The Wall Street Journal's John Fund writes that "if serious allegations of fraud emerge, you can also expect less-than-vigorous investigation by the Obama Justice Department."
The key word there is "if." Fund was obviously unable to come up with any actual "serious allegations" of voter fraud, so Fund -- as he does almost every cycle -- makes a series unserious fraud insinuations that are unconstrained by actual facts. In one passage, Fund writes:
Authorities in nearby Philadelphia know about such scams. In one infamous case, a key 1993 race that determined which party would control the Pennsylvania state senate was thrown out by a federal judge after massive evidence that hundreds of voters had been pressured into casting improper absentee ballots. Voters were told by "bearers" that it was all part of "la nueva forma de votar" -- the new way to vote. Local politicos tell me Philly operatives associated in the past with Acorn may now be advising their Jersey cousins on how to perform such vote harvesting.
That last sentence is a bit hard to follow. Let's break it down into more manageable pieces to fully appreciate what Fund is doing here.
"Local politicos tell me": Fund claims to have spoken to anonymous people who live in New Jersey and who apparently have some involvement in politics.
"Philly operatives associated in the past with Acorn": Fund's anonymous sources are purportedly telling him that unnamed people from Philadelphia who are apparently also involved in politics have -- at some point in the past -- had some undefined connection to ACORN, which by implication makes them inherently corrupt.
"may now be advising their Jersey cousins": Fund's anonymous sources purportedly tell him that the unnamed, allegedly once-ACORN-associated "operatives" from Philadelphia might be advising people apparently involved in New Jersey politics, but really, who can say for sure?
"on how to perform such vote harvesting": The advice that the unnamed allegedly once-ACORN-associated "operatives" from Philadelphia might be giving to the politically involved New Jerseyans centers around encouraging voters to vote by mail -- an activity that appears to be perfectly legal in New Jersey.
So just to recap: In a single sentence, Fund claims to have spoken to anonymous New Jerseyans somehow involved in politics who purportedly told him that unnamed Philadelphians, who are also involved in politics and who once had unspecified ties to ACORN, "may" (or may not) be giving New Jersey political operatives advice on how to do something that is apparently legal in New Jersey.
No wonder Fund apparently was so unconvinced by his own column that he felt the need to lie to Glenn Beck about is contents.