The Small-Minded Bigotry of Pat Sajak

There’s a bit of a nomenclature problem here that needs to be reframed.

Microencephalic Pat
(head shown actual size)

The righties –that is, the ‘conservatives’ who wish to conserve nothing, but, rather, to radically change everything,  whilst hypocritically harping on “traditional” values, you know, like the Mormons funding anti-gay initiatives in California, because of ‘traditional’ marriage that they have spent a mere century observing, and not uniformly, at that — those righties have been screaming all week that they are NOT racists.

The latest lame brain to throw his microencephalic hat into the ring is failed talk show host, ex-Army Vietnam disk jockey, former weatherman for KCBS-TV in LA, and host of the pinhead game show “Wheel of Fortune” Pat Sajak.

Now, you might feel that I’m being unfair to dumbass Pat, but his latest screed in Human Events magazine (owned by his pal Tom Phillips, to whose foundation to subsidize right wing journalists Pat and his wife donate substantial sums of cash — which I covered last week) consists of virtually nothing but ad hominem snarks against Frank Rich’s column in last Sunday’s New York Times.

The only sneer missing was “fag.”

Which brings us to our thesis.

When lefties use the term “racism” they are correct, but they are using the wrong word. The proper term is ‘bigotry.’

“Reasonable arguments”

Which has, thus far, given the reichies an “out.”

Opposed to Obamacare? Then You Must Be a Racist
Human Events Magazine
by Pat Sajak
03/29/2010

Frank Rich spent many years as the theater critic for the New York Times, where, at worst, his venom could cause a Broadway production or two to close down.

Now, however, Mr. Rich opines on political and social issues for the Times, and, while the results are usually mildly amusing (even if unintentionally so), his reach has grown a bit, so the damage he causes can travel beyond the footlights. I’m not sure why anyone turns to Rich for political analysis—heck, you might as well read the rantings of a TV game show host—but the Gray Lady continues to pay him for his weekly column, and, at the rate she’s bleeding money, that’s no small sacrifice.

Ooooh. SNARKY. Coming from a GAME SHOW HOST. (Note the faux self-deprecating BS above.)

Get in a dig at the hated LIBERUL New York Times.

Nothing special, of course. It’s that bizarro world take of the reich-wingers that they’re just plain dumbasses, and, therefore inherently SUPERIOR to them smarty pants who can think and write and spell and use them words and sechlike.

Let’s see: Rich was the New York Times‘ drama critic (no job for an intellectual slouch nor an easily manipulated or pilloried writer). It’s a tough gig — but perhaps Sajak played a supporting lead in some dreadful Broadway play that tanked, before he found his true calling, which is to play nursemaid to dumbasses solving a grade-school puzzle involving clichés.

George Bernard Shaw was also a drama critic and a music critic before becoming arguably the finest dramatist in the English language since Shakespeare. Did that disqualify him from being an exceptional political essayist?

(Well, he WAS an actual Socialist, so who knows what the unlettered Mr. Sajak would say. I commend Shaw’s writings to our game show host. And, by the way, if being a drama critic disqualifies Frank Rich, doesn’t being a game show host disqualify Sajak by several orders of magnitude, using his own squirrelly logick?)

In other words, Sajak —  who has no chops as an actor — can assail Rich for being a successful drama critic … as a CHARACTER attack? That’s surely the implication.

Let’s read on a bit further, shall we:

It turns out, according to his well-crafted analysis, that it’s not the bill that’s got people in an uproar; rather, what we’re facing is the death rattle of a dwindling cadre of white, racist, sexist, homophobic males terrified by the ascent of people of color, women and gays.

This is, of course, a classical “straw man” argument: restate the argument in YOUR (carefully distorted) terms, and then demolish the “straw man” you’ve set up.  I would hazard that he’s been listening to too much Limbaugh, for whom winning debates with himself is his bread and butter.

Limbaugh, it should be noted, has debated in public fora a very few times, and been reduced to a red-faced, blubbering mass of jelly in EVERY instance. No WONDER he won’t engage in fair debate of the issues.

the great self debater, master debater, Rush

Any fool can win an argument when he controls both sides of the debate. And Pat Sajak, for our purposes is “any fool.” He continues:

As the ever-tolerant Rich reasons: “The conjunction of a black President and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.”

Interesting that Sajak chooses to quote the paragraph using the MOST racially/sexually charged terms. But he’s not a racist. I agree: he’s not. What Sajak IS has a perfectly tailored word available in common usage: he is a bigot.

“Reasoned opposition”

We continue our Bonfire of the Hannitys:

So that’s it. It’s just a bunch of scared, white males who would yelp about anything this gang came up with. As Rich makes clear, this is merely a replay of the opposition to the Voting Rights Act of 1964. You get it? If you express opposition to the bill, you’re a racist, sexist homophobe.

Straw man par excellence.

Let us track Pat’s sillygism:

“You get it? If you express opposition to the bill, you’re a racist, sexist homophobe.”

All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore all men are Socrates.

He conveniently leaves out exactly what that “opposition to the bill” has entailed: fearmongering, smears, lies and distortions and, finally, spitting on congressmen. (And racism NEVER happened, of course.)

No “racism” here. Not even masked.

That’s some kind of rational opposition there, Pat, you old legal scholar and debater, you.

It hasn’t helped that the reich wing has done everything imaginable to let privileged, rich, white assholes like Pat Sajak dismiss any REAL homophobia, sexism, racism and the rest, JUST BY MENTIONING them.

Yeah. Too bad YOU can’t.

Why, that Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s a REVERSE RACIST!

Sondra Sotomayor is a REVERSE RACIST!

Glenn Beck’s infamous: I think Obama’s a racist.

IOKIYAR. (I mean screaming “racist.”)

“Death panels,” “they’re gonna kill your grandma,” “government takeover of health care,” “government takeover of ONE SIXTH of the health care system,” and “socialism” and “communism” — from idiots who don’t even know what EITHER of those last two terms mean, except that they’re agin’ em.

This would be the implicitly “reasonable” opposition that Pat Sajak elides over while pretending to sound rational.

Et al, et cetera, ad nausem, ad infinitum.

Neither does literacy

And here is where the debate needs to be seen for what it is. The Dumbass Continues:

Mr. Rich is shocked by the level of anger in the land, and he fears for the safety of our elected officials, much as I’m sure he did during the George W. Bush administration.

Funny. He doesn’t hold HIMSELF to the same standard. And this is a monstrous lie. Protest was stifled. Civil rights were trampled on, and there was little threat of violence in the face of overwhelming police responses to a ‘President’ and ‘Vice President’ who — for the first time in American history — held themselves AWAY from the public, appearing only in carefully staged “private” fora, with pre-screened audiences, any member of which could be ejected for wearing the wrong kind of t-shirt or having the “wrong” bumper sticker on their car.

Three Medford, Oregon school teachers who were thrown
out of a Bush rally because of their offensive t-shirts.

Jeebus, Pat. Even creepy old Tricky Dick never went that far. THAT’s what you claim is EQUIVALENT to what’s happening now?

Are you ACTUALLY as dumb as you appear to be? Apparently. Now, the thrilling conclusion:

He calls on Republican leaders to distance themselves from the more radical voices among them, echoing the demands I’m sure he made of the Democrats during the last campaign.

Seriously: you’re kidding, right? In the face of incipient violence and the most over-the-top rhetoric since the Vietnam War, he pooh poohs it? WHEN in the last campaign were death threats made against Republicans in the way they’re being made against Democrats? WHEN? This is such a laughable and nauseating false equivalence that it beggars the imagination.

And edjukashun, too!

His argument is the equivalent of the man who murders both his parents and then pleads for mercy from the court because he is an orphan.

Was Sajak in a coma during the “palling around with terrorists” phase of “Country First”?

Palling around with bigots

What was the equivalent Democratic response? Don’t think too long, because there wasn’t one. (Unless, which I am sure he would if he could, some lone wackjob could be found as a sole anecdote to be conflated with a universal to buttress his absurd position.)

And, of course, what he’s doing is flat out wrong. Even granting him his point, if he felt that it was wrong towards Republicans, shouldn’t it be wrong NOW, too?

It’s the same looking glass logick that says “biased liberal media” as if it’s a bad thing, to justify blatantly biased reich-wing media as though it’s a GOOD thing. Isn’t “blatantly biased” the issue here? Nope:

Welcome to post-racial America, where those who oppose a piece of legislation must defend themselves against the scurrilous charges of a man who seems much better suited to reviewing “Cats”.  (He liked it, by the way.)

This was a particularly shameful column,

If Mr. Sajak is being self-referential, I have to agree. It IS particularly shameful, but it is also particularly commonplace in political screeds by reichies, these horrible daze.

and the millions of Americans who oppose this legislation are owed an apology.

Really?

Are they right? Are they wrong? Let’s discuss it. Let’s debate it. Let’s yell and scream if we want to. But would it be too much to ask that we approach the matter based on its merits and leave the psychobabble to Dr. Phil?

Fuck you, you dishonest and dishonorable prick.

But you are right: you’re not a racist. You’re a bigot, of which all those categories you dishonestly pooh-pooh are merely subsets.

Another ‘looser’ for teabagging

This is precisely what Karl Rove was doing yesterday: after all the depredations against civility, against reason, smears, lies, surveillance and even HACKING the Senate Democrats’ email, Rove complains about a lack of civility:

… the “totalitarianism of the left…they don’t believe in dialog [sic]…they don’t believe in courtesy. They don’t believe in first [sic] Amendment rights for anyone but themselves.”

We have to start calling them what they really are: bigots.

They have gotten away with open and unchallenged bigotry towards Muslims, Arabs, gays, and masked bigotry towards Blacks, Hispanics, intellectuals, liberals, progressives, and on and on and on.

Frankly, I’m sick and tired of this notion that we’re only allowed to bring a squirt gun to a knife fight.

But because we have called them “racists” they neatly sidestep the issue and scream righteously that they ARE NOT RACISTS! and, like Sajak, like Eric Cantor turned it into a narrative of victimhood and self-righteousness because they are “being persecuted.”

agreed: If he means his English teacher

Well, when you act like an asshole, don’t look all shocked and hurt because somebody CALLED you an asshole.

When you sling hatred like a short-order cook slings hash on a busy Saturday, don’t get all upset that somebody tossed eggs at your bus.* (Right Notso Breitbart?)

[* And let's not forget a stupid and Iago-like press that continually roils the waters with idiotic poll analysis like this (what the hell do they know about the costs, frankly? anymore than they know about nuclear physics, anymore than they know who their CONGRESSMAN or MAYOR is??!@??

Health care law too costly, most say —  Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the health care overhaul signed into law last week costs too much and expands the government's role in health care too far, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, underscoring an uphill selling job ahead for President Obama and congressional Democrats...

endlessly setting up "let's you and him fight" narratives. That is NOT in the public interest that the press purports to serve. Rasmussen is the master of this, but that's to be expected. Before he got in the polling business, he was a national leader in the term limits campaigns, and closely associated with Howie Rich, whose 'column' he regularly reprints on his Rasmussen Reports website today/toady.]

Or consider this bit of toxic crosslinking from just this afternoon:

“How Should Conservatives Deal with the Left’s Disrespect and Lack of Empathy?”

Liars, bigots and cheats. Little tantrum tossers.

Obstructionists. Little “my way or the highway” traitors to the fundamental tenets of democracy, and, yes, Virginia, dumbasses. (Astonishing amount of documentation at the link.)

Bigots, people. That is a broad enough and accurate enough brush to tar them with their own manufactured feces.

Even shit wrapped in a golden wrapper of seemingly unctious civility is still shit, when all is said and done.

Right Sajak?

Courage.

================

NOTE: Most of the images seen here are from the hilarious new flickr page ‘Teabonics’ — which you should oughta visit. And READ Frank Rich’s “The Rage Is Not About Health Care

About these ads

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized