January 16, 2004

• Has anyone been able to determine whether or not Margaret Cho is or is not an "ignorant ass wipe"? :) We must consider that, in light of her declining career, Cho has chosen (a) to be increasingly politically provocative in her comedy, and (b) chose to share the results of that provocation, which leads me inexorably to believe that (c) this is exactly the response she sought. Vituperativeness seeks confrontation, and I think this ugly exchange highlights that neither side in the political debate has a lock on the willingness to put aside reasonable debate in exchange for namecalling and bear-baiting. After all, Al Franken or Michael Moore calling someone an asshole is neither more laudable nor less vicious than Bill O'Reilly or Karl Rove calling someone an asshole, despite if one happens to agree with them on the point.
• I personally love me some Margaret Cho. I disagree with the benevolent Mr. Fes, but the only evidence I have is watching her perform for years which doesn't carry much weight with someone who hasn't. There are a lot of things she said and written that have had a huge impact on me and the shows of hers that I've seen are hi-larious. I don't know about you, but a lot of those emails posted literally made me nauseous. I have a hard time believing she was seeking that kind of response. And honestly, this type of thing isn't a revolutionary switch in tactics for her. It's similar to what she's been doing all along. Thanks for the post! I'm excited to watch her two main specials on Showtime.
• Fes, have you even read the 'transcript'? It's hardly a vicious attack on GW. I'm asking sincerely because I might be a little too far to the left to pick up on it. FWIW - she's always been political. This is tame. Aside from that I have to tell you the last several times she's come anywhere near my area she's sold out. She's got a huge following. Personally, she's not my favorite. But I do like some of her stuff. The Bush/Hitler thing amuses the heck out of me. "I mean, George Bush is not Hitler. He would be if he fu**ing applied himself." Comedy Gold. Aside from politics and personal feelings about her style and whatnot - Does that give anyone the right to say such hateful racist, misogynist things to her? What does her being Asian, a woman, overweight or left-handed have to do with her rights to express her opinions. Not to mention that she's actually a natural born citizen of the US. I wish people would at least have the courtesy to craft a reasoned letter with thoughtful discourse on the issues instead of showing their hateful bigotry. Whew, I'm long winded lately.
• I am absolutely not trying to justify the Freeper reaction - it was exactly as you say: hateful bigotry, and - as a conservative but more so as a (hopefully) reasonable person who understands that diversity, of race and thought, is a strength rather than a weakness - I deplore it. Not only is it callous and small, it makes all those on the right look bad. However, you might be helping to make my last point (i.e., regarding calling someone an asshole) for me - you may agree with her and find it amusing when Cho compares Bush to Hitler (or, in this case, where she implies that Bush is too stupid to be as effective as Hitler was in, I don't know, Fascism I suppose, which would seem to be a fairly pointed sort of attack to me), or when she lumps all Republicans into a group and calls them "stupid" (which, in light of the fact I voted for some Republican candidates last election and registered Republican in the primary [one must either register D or R to vote], would seem to include me), etc., but those comments are also similarly callous and small. If ever you wonder, replace the name of the person being slighted with the person doing the slighting, and see if it continues to be amusing. It's an effective test. In the meantime, I'm not sure her comments deserved a reasoned letter, in light of the unreasoned nature of them, but the Freepers do themselves - and their cause - no good when they respond in kind.
• What bugs me is her penchant for painting the entire Right as being this way. This is the extreme right wing version of the nuts on Indymedia. Reasoned people don't *normally* use crass and obscene invectives to debate issues. They talk about it. This is screaming howler drivel. I no more support these letter writers than I do Cho's politics.
• None of which is to say that Cho (or anyone else for that matter) does not have an absolute right to say what she did. She does. I just don't see it as all that amusing (OK, a little), or worthy of response (darn Freepers! the next thing they'll be doing is standing on boxes in the square chanting 'nyah nyah nyah!'), and do think the entire incident was more than a little contrived (she now owes Drudge a favor, I think).
• Absolutely. Let her say what she wants. Personally, I find her comedy to be less funny than her politics, which are outright hilarious.
• I'm beginning to think this discussion is probably a quagmire for a couple of reasons. First, I could name at least five right-wing comedians/celebrities who do approximately the same thing in reverse [must. use. restraint.]--but what would that accomplish really? Part of the reason it's funny to the intended audience (in this case MoveOn, hello) is because they agree with the general principle of what's being expressed and because it's hyperbole and parody. So love it or hate it, she's not doing anything unreasonable or out of the ordinary. Second, I doubt we're going to find anyone here who thinks all those e-mails were a reasonable response (or quite frankly, if you do I don't want to to know or talk to you). So what that leaves us with is "I think she's funny, damn those letters suck! Disgusting!" and "I don't think she's funny at all, damn those letters suck!" On preview: Fes, I think contrived is hars. I agree that this is great for her publicity-wise, but I don't think her schtick was a stunt. It's the same schtick she's always had, she's just chose a really good forum to get a response.
• I just don't find Cho funny. Never have and I don't now. While I'm in agreement in spirit with her commentary, I find it worded like a rowdy drunk at a bar. This is not the mouthpiece I'd like for a liberal community.
• Must. Use. Restraint-- Live by the sword, die by the sword. She was feeding the MoveOn faithful what they wanted to hear. Now those same folks get to see just how terrible their demonic opponents are. I can't feel too sorry for Ms. Cho. You know who's really obnoxious? Drudge, who edits for sensational content to whip up his advertising display rates. My popup killer went apeshit at his site. On preview: FCT, my wife said much the same thing after one of her shows.
• I think, by and large, Kimberly, we agree, with the qualification: as comedy, Cho's remarks are neither unreasonable nor out of the ordinary (whether they're funny is up the the listener); as political commentary, her remarks share more with the Freeper response than they do with, say, if you and I had a discussion of political issues. Though we might be on opposite sides of the fence philosophically, I have no doubt we could discuss the issues reasonably (meaning: with and using reason) and amicably.
• Let me just quickly state that I missed the "How stupid Republicans are" part. My bad. I try never to use sweeping generalizations like this myself. But Kimberly has a point, you have to consider the audience. Still if it were me I would have tried something a little more qualified, like "How stupid SOME Republicans can be", but that's really splitting hairs. Following up on the Bush/Hitler dealio: I still find it funny even with Cho or heck, myself inserted, but I guess that makes me an equal opportunity bigot? On Preview: goetter - Imagine the swords bigots and homophobes would have to face if their speeches and 'comic' routines were recorded and broadcast around the world or posted on websites for the masses to review and pick apart.
• A couple of points. Yes Cho may have called Republicans stupid, but that is a long way from caller he a slant eyed cunt who needs to go back to China with the rest of her kind. If you don't see the difference you are being intentionally obtuse. As to painting Republicans all in the same brush as the total whackos, part of the problem is that the main leaders of the Republican party ARE the right wing whackos. People like Tom Delay, Grover Nyquest (however you spell his last name), and even Bush are far from the moderate Republicans. Can you imagine a Democratic party controlling all three branches and installing people at the head of power who made Kucinich look like a moderate? The right would be flipping out. Look how much venom they had for Clinton, a relatively centrist politician.
• I totally agree Fes. *shakes hands* All this agreement and cordiality is making me feel squicky. I need someone to cock punch now.
• Hee! Spoke to soon!
• I enjoy Free Speech. I really do. I support the Nortorious C.H.O.'s right to say what she wants. As do I support the rights of the people who have sent in messages to her. But rather than criticizing her message, or her politics, they chose to malign her. It's unfortuanate that so many people chose to attack her percieved lack of morals, her ethnicity, her appearance, or her sexual orientation, rather than making comments on her politics. And don't get me started about the person-who-wears-theoir-ass-as-a-hat being happy about "the people that you adore have AIDS for a REASON". I disagree with our Governator on a number of issues. And if I choose to comment about his politics, I'm going to comment on his politics. Not about the fact that he's a Nazi-loving, 'roid-taking, sexual preadator-Kraut-bastard who should move his immigrant ass back to Austria. Fes, you dumb ugly cracker. You couldn't be more wrong.
• Fes, please take the above comment with all the humor that it was intended.
• *** < /irony >
• Iggy, it'd be a good thing, wouldn't it?
• Dammit goetter, you sucked me back in. I'm wondering if a comparisson between an incredibly influential, elected public official making comments about how a racist, segregationist* person should have been president and a less-than-mainstream comedian saying she hates Bush and thinks republicans are stupid works in this context. * If that wasn't a word before, it is now.
• If you don't see the difference you are being intentionally obtuse. I'm saying the difference is one of gradation, not one of intention. My quality of obtuseness, however, like that of Cho's comedy, in determined solely by the individual :) People like Tom Delay, Grover Nyquest (however you spell his last name), and even Bush are far from the moderate Republicans. Politically speaking, they're *barely* Republicans! Huge increases in government spending, program after program, increasing government involvement in citizen affairs, trade barriers and market manipulation, reduced individual liberties - these are all anathema to what is historically considered the Republican platform. As for their being "whackos" (heh, nice objective term, that), well, mostly that has to do with their overt religiousity and their (recent) tendency to be very effective politicians compared against the Democrats. I suppose one might see a comparison of, say, if the City Council of Berkeley, CA were the CHief Executives. But as always, the strength of the American system is in the checks and balances (disorganized as they are, the Dems can still operate effectively as an opposition) and the temporal nature of executive power and the ease of that power's transition to the next executive. Which is to say: if Bush is doing a bad job, he can easily be voted out. It's just up to the Democrats to convince a majority of the voters they can do better. They do that, and all that Bush hath wrought may be unwrought with a few strokes of the pen.
• gogo [goetter - I admit it, it took me a minute to realize that was for me}. Yes, it's a good thing when it happens. In my opinion it doesn't happen often enough. I'm often quite careful and measured with what and how I say things for a reason, ya know ;). On preview: segregationist
• I am in agreement with fesse.
• Er, I am in agreement with fes.
• Oh how I long for the days of Gracie Allen and the Surprise Party.
• Sorry, Ms. Slut. I have a hard time writing some 'handles' without collapsing into giggles -- yours among them. I keep hearing the voice of Dan Ackroyd. segregationalister
• just curious, has anyone seen anything detailed like this on the web *from* the left? as in, lefties lashing out at a conservative comic?
• lefties lashing out at a conservative comic? I'd start by googling "Andrew 'Dice' Clay"
• I was surprised at how the attacks fell so strongly on such personal, arbitrary matters such as her ethnicity, sexual preference, and corpulence...as opposed to challenging her political ideology. Sad, actually. But then again, we are only seeing the filtered comments, right?
• Limbaugh's defenders have always spun him to me as a humorist. Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot
• ( trying to think of a conservative comedian ) Oh, I've got one.....Donald H. Rumsfeld. segregationalisiousist
• Don't be sorry goetter, it's all part of my grand evil plan! Muwaa ha ha ha. Side note: When I was a wee lass of about 19 and weighing about 200lbs and pretty muscular (ie: carrying it well and looking about 150 lbs.), I was beginning to back out of a parking space in my new Jeep (the one with the spare tire obscuring the view). There were two women of about 24-25 walking up toward the car and I stopped well short of them. One of them screamed "Watch it fat-ass". The best they could come up with was to call me fat. I like a little creativity in my insults, thank you very much. I have grudging respect for someone that can diss me with class and a good vocabulary.
• Ok, quick comment on whackos... there are right wing wackos and left wing whackos, but the left wing has been fairly underground for now. I mean indymedia just isn't controlling anything but a bunch of spoiled brats who need a good beating. That being said I think the Republican party is in a crisis. Yes they are winning, but I don't think the leaders of the party are really the voice of the people voting for them. The problem with a two party system, you really can't go somewhere else. To take a more local level example, all the anti-evolutionism in school boards in parts of America. Is that really what the majority of people want, or is it a case of a few dedicated individuals choosing to run for school board, choosing to force the issue, and most people not really caring enough, or if they do, not caring enough until it is too late. I mean, unless you really DO have an agenda to push, who wants to be on the school board? You say the the Freepers are shooting themselves in the foot by acting like such idiots, but that IS what many people see coming out of the American right these days, that IS the public face. No, it isn't the majority, or even a large chunk of it, but it has an extraordinary amount of power, both by being vocal and impassioned. If you are outside of the American right, that party of the party is frightening in its vitriol. And the response is division and a like minded refusal to compromise and communicate. One could argue that that actually helps the Republican party in the short run, but I fear it is bad for the country as a whole. The country works best when run moderately centrist, something that requires compromise and communication on both sides.
• Re: segragationist * raises arms in victory* Re: lefties lashing out at a conservative comic I think a recent example could be Dennis Miller. Lord knows I do it (and did so yesterday on my blog actually). On preview: Jane (you IgnorantSlut), Thank. You. It reminds me of an ex-boyfriend and his arguments with his little sister. When ever she painted herself into a corner she would yell, "Oh yeah?! Well you're STUPID!!"
• While I am sure that the comments posted were the bottom of the barrel, I found it very interesting that so much of the hate mail commented on her weight. It is incredibly ironic since Cho has in the past made a big deal about people telling her to loose weight and what is one of the first things people pick up on? Her weight.
• Many of the email addresses have since been removed, but I've done some googling on a few of the folks who have written from a corporate email address and the results are stunning. A president/CEO of a communications company, a 'respected' member of a church group, and a coach/mentor. Disappointing.
• Brief self-congratulatory moment: Damn, not one troll in a politically charged argument about Margaret Cho? Holy Frijoles! Monkeyfilter:Segregationalister
  
• Fes: Politically speaking, they're *barely* Republicans! Huge increases in government spending, program after program, increasing government involvement in citizen affairs, trade barriers and market manipulation, reduced individual liberties - these are all anathema to what is historically considered the Republican platform. See, this is one of the things that irritates the bejeezus out of me when I speak with people, especially people who identify themselves as Republican. They identify with most, if not all of the ideals that Fes mentioned, and yet, they vote Republican because, um, apparently they don't like those ideals put into practice. I don't get it. I suppose one could argue, "well, at least it's not in the hands of the Dems, otherwise they'd do x, y, and z to increase government spending and intrusion in our lives." But it appears that their own party is doing that. So if it's jsut about being in power, how does that benefit rank and file Republicans? Are those ideals defunct or just window-dressing? Fes: It's just up to the Democrats to convince a majority of the voters they can do better. Two years later--and presumably we'll see what happens in November--but it appears that the Democrats manage to maintain a spectacular ineptitude when it comes to reaching the crtical majority of Americans. Aspo: The country works best when run moderately centrist, something that requires compromise and communication on both sides. Unfortunately, the aforementioned party in power behaves like it's been their toy truck the whole time and they get to make the rules. Mind you, I don't think the dems minded when they had were in sufficient power in Congress all those decades, but then again, what defined a Democrat changed significantly in those decades. The thing that scares me these days is not just the lack of communication and consensus, but the apparent perception that such "nicey nice" things are even necessary. The current political climate has all the appeal of an acrimonious street fight.