Posted on 05/04/2005 5:59:04 AM PDT by OESY
I'll get to First Lady Laura Bush's bawdy stand-up routine in a minute. But I want to highlight a related new book out about how young conservatives are shaking up the dominant liberal media culture. It's called "South Park Conservatives." My name is listed on the cover along with many other (mostly) right-leaning pundits, websites, and bloggers, but I must confess to having mixed feelings about the honor.
The best-selling book's author, Brian C. Anderson of the Manhattan Institute, writes a fun, breezy survey documenting the rise of talk radio, FOX News, the Internet, conservative publishing, and college Republican activism. Anderson's chapter on the success of conservative talk radio and the abysmal failure of liberal Air America to replicate it is incisive. Another chapter on the blogosphere (alone worth the price of the book) gives readers a useful history of the explosion of news, opinion, and political websites that have smashed the left-wing media monopoly.
But how did such a wide-ranging list of individuals and organizations -- Anderson's book cover includes the names of conservative-leaning Internet pioneer Matt Drudge and center-left journalist Mickey Kaus, the libertarian Tech Central Station, the culturally conservative WorldNetDaily, political upstart Arnold Schwarzenegger and political chameleon Andrew Sullivan, plus Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and myself, along with a feature blurb from Jonah Goldberg -- all get lumped under the umbrella term "South Park Conservatives"?
Anderson argues that Comedy Central's cartoon series "South Park" embodies the "fiercely anti-liberal comedic spirit" of the "new media" from Kaus to Coulter. The cartoon, he writes, reflects a "post-liberal counterculture" that is "particularly appealing to the young, however much it might offend older conservatives."
Well, I'm 34 and no fan of "South Park." I have many good friends who are indeed huge boosters of the show, but I find that the characters' foul language overwhelms any entertainment I might otherwise derive from the show's occasional, right-leaning iconoclastic themes.
"South Park" may be "politically incorrect." But "politically incorrect" is not always a synonym for "conservative."
My discomfort with "South Park's" increasingly mainstream vulgarity is not a matter of nitpicking. We're not just talking about a stray curse word here or there. As liberal New York Times columnist Frank Rich points out, "South Park" "holds the record for the largest number of bleeped-out repetitions (162) of a single four-letter expletive in a single television half-hour." That's probably about the same number of profanities uttered at John Kerry's infamous New York City celebrity fundraiser last summer, which Republicans rightly condemned for its excessive obscenities.
Rich is wrong about most things, but he's painfully on target in noting the incongruous pandering now taking place by some in the cool-kids clique on the Right. Conservatives criticize Hollywood relentlessly, but as Rich notes, "the embarrassing reality is that they want to be hip, too."
Which brings me to Mrs. Bush. She demonstrated at the celebrity-studded White House Correspondents' Dinner this weekend that you can entertain without being profane. Most of her humor was just right: Edgy but not over the edge. But her off-color stripper and horse jokes crossed the line. Can you blame Howard Stern for feeling peeved and perplexed? And let's face it: If Teresa ("I'm cheeky!") Heinz Kerry had delivered Mrs. Bush's First Lady Gone Mildly Wild routine, social conservative pundits would be up in arms over her bad taste and lack of dignity.
The First Lady resorting to horse masturbation jokes is not much better than Whoopi Goldberg trafficking in dumb puns on the Bush family name. It was wholly unnecessary.
Self-censorship is a conservative value. In a brilliant commencement speech at Hillsdale College last year, Heritage Foundation president Ed Feulner called on his audience to resist the coarsened rhetoric of our time: "If we are to prevail as a free, self-governing people, we must first govern our tongues and our pens. Restoring civility to public discourse is not an option. It is a necessity."
Lighten up, you say? No thanks. I'd rather be a G-rated conservative who can only make my kids giggle than a "South Park"/"Desperate Housewives" conservative whose goal is getting Richard Gere and Jane Fonda to snicker. Giving the Hollyweird Left the last laugh is not my idea of success.
No, I really wasn't paying that much attention to those folks. I had my own opinion where the basis was much different from theirs.
But apparently, because I don't apologize for what someone else wrote, that therefore justifies people attacking me? Do you want me to be like Bill Clinton and become apologist-in-chief for my side?
dirt, that's YOUR opinion; now, I'm sure that you wish that you could come on here and post your "opinions" and not have them challenged at all, but that's just not the way this forum works.
I'm sorry, sometimes it's hard to tell. And I don't spend enough time here to know all the characters!
:)
susie
Yes, I remain a bit perplexed, because I think I'm one of
the more "hip" females here, yet the mental pictures I drew
from the horse story, did not include the touching of the
horse's johnson! I mean, even a city slicker with an IQ
of 70 would know a horse from a cow LONG before any male
anatomy came into play. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh.
There was an old lady from Nantucket....
And I wasn't paying attention to people who you say were condemning your marriage.
It's one thing to challenge, Howlin. It's another to engage in some vicious attacks because someone follows the inferrence in the way the joke was told to its logical conclusion. You and your cohorts have crossed that line many, many times over the last few days.
Depends on the librarian. (So I'm an ex-librarian, I still have my library degree.)
He's an English comedian/actor; he's one of the funniest, wittiest people on the face of the earth, but you have to be intelligent to get his jokes.
He's from England, you know, where the history comes from? :-)
I didn't make that inference either. Until the Hankie Twisters made sure we all did make the inference.
Their minds are in the gutter. Their posts are in the gutter. And we're wrong because we weren't offended by a farm joke? LOLOL
Try imagining a city slicker milking a goat in the area between the goat's front legs. What would she be trying to milk?
It's a joke about some city folks not recognizing a mammary gland in a farm animal.
Even when city folks get lucky and find a mammary gland, they seldom get any milk out of the teats. City folks just keep squeezing here and there and nothing comes out.
That's why it's funny. The "masturbation" reference only occurs in a small subset of the listeners; the majority of us were laughing at these jokes before we even knew what masturbation was.
Eddie Izzard rules :)
Found the guy.
Now I'm going to have to work out if you've complimented me or insulted me!
:-)
You're the one who put the quid pro quo - that I need to apologize for what someone else wrote before posters apologize FOR WHAT THEY SPECIFICALLY WROTE.
I've had enough of your nonsense, Peach. You may have the last word, and have a happy life living within the sanctuary of your bogus indignation.
To you.
Tell me, when you see two oranges in a bowl, do you immediately think of breasts?
Indeed. You know, this story is getting awfully boring.
I know I cannot sit here all day again. Big doings tomorry.
Oh, believe me, it was a compliment. He's very, very witty!
If you ever get the chance, rent "Dressed to Kill." You'll love the humor (and probably HIS clothes.....LOL)
ROTFLMPJO! I bet Palladin does!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.