Debunking the Threat (#3)

I haven’t done a “Debunking the Threat” post in awhile. Rolling Stone (I thought) had tamed their ridiculous Threat Assessments, but I was wrong. In the newest issue (#1112, September 2, 2010 – the one with the naked & blood-spattered cast of True Blood on the cover) on pages 44-45, we find RS’s newest Threat Assessment, which gives us some insight into how effed-up the magazine’s priorities are. On the red side of the Threat Assessment (remember red=conservative, and therefore, bad & “against us”), we have, in order from bad to worse: “Civilian casualties in Afghanistan jump by 31 percent this year,” followed by “Pentagon bans troops from reading Wikileaks,” followed by, “Unprecedented heat, fires, smog kill thousands in Russia.” And the absolute WORST thing that’s happening right now? The BIGGEST threat to civilization as we know it? “Bats in northeastern U.S. in danger of extinction.” Yes, you read that correctly. The possible extinction of bats is worse than an increase in civilian casualties in Afghanistan and worse than thousands of Russians dead from out-of-control wild fires. Also, the Pentagon ordering soldiers not to read Wikileaks is worse than increase of civilian deaths in Afghanistan. Why is censorship and the death of bats considered worse than the death of thousands of human beings in Afghanistan and Russia? If anyone has an answer as to why RS hates the human race so much, could you share it please?

Thoughts on the McChrystal Fallout

I am not quite sure what to make of the resignation/firing of General Stanley McChrystal, so I will break down my thoughts into individual, unrelated bullets in this post.

1) Rolling Stone is absolutely ridiculous. Their SOLE political purpose is to have their face so deeply buried in the President’s crotch that they can’t see the rest of the world around them. They just ruined a man’s career – a man who has fought bravely for his country and who was involved in some of the most secretive and dangerous black-ops in the war on terror (which we’re no longer fighting, apparently). This was their repayment to him for allowing one of their “journalists” (and I use the term loosely) into his trusted inner circle – to stab him in the back and relay private jokes and shop-talk complaints to the general public. EVERYONE in the military complains about their superiors in private. Hell, everyone in the civilian world complains about their superiors in private, too. I can’t think of a job where someone doesn’t complain about their boss. Even the self-employed complain. RS took advantage of the situation here. In the article, they clearly state that at one point during the interview, most of McChrystal’s aides (“Team America”) were “shitfaced” at a bar following a dinner where the general made an appearance. If you get a bunch of people liquored up and ask them about their boss (or their boss’s boss, in this case), they’re going to say things that they wouldn’t otherwise say – things that may be detrimental to someone’s career if spoken aloud in a public place or to a journalist who will publish those comments.

2) McChrystal, as most conservative pundits are quick to point out, is not a politician. He doesn’t give a damn if you don’t like him. He’s just there to get a job done, and to do it right. He has no tolerance for the BS and politics involved in Washington, which makes it extremely difficult for him to communicate with a President who deals almost exclusively in BS and politics. I can’t imagine how hard it must be for him to take the Prez seriously as a commander-in-chief. McChrystal, according to the RS article, sleeps 4 hours a night, eats one meal a day, was involved in top secret black ops, has been in the military for about 33 years (if I am correctly calculating based on his Wikipedia article), and has seen his wife a total of 30 days a month for the last 9 years. President Obama has NO military experience. None. How can anyone in our military take him seriously as a leader, when even the most inexperienced private in basic training has more military experience than he does? In a time of peace, it wouldn’t be as big of a deal, but we are in the middle of a two-front war where the leader of the military doesn’t have any more knowledge or experience than the average guy on the street.

3) As much as it may seem like it, I am not mad at the president for doing what he did. In the military hierarchy, public criticism (or private criticism made public by irresponsible “news” sources) of a superior is not tolerated, and never has been. It leads to a breakdown in the chain of command, which can lead to chaos and fatal problems in a combat situation. So, in short, the president did what he had to do. I do, however, think that it was totally naive for McChrystal and his aides to allow a Rolling Stone reporter into their fold. RS is notoriously anti-military and anti-war-on-terror, so McChrystal or one of his underlings should have seen this coming – they’re going to try to undermine the fight in any way they can, including publicly repeating private statements made about the president, other key players in the war, and the strategies being used in Afghanistan. I find it hard to believe that the general and his assistants are REALLY that naive, which leads me to two possibilities about why this reporter was allowed such up-close access to McChrystal and his staff: 1) McChrystal was set up with this reporter by his aides because they knew he lacked tact and was willing to say whatever was on his mind, and they knew it would get him into trouble, or 2) McChrystal knew EXACTLY what he was doing and set himself up in order to end his career and draw attention to the problems with the war in Afghanistan (lack of troops, etc). Both of these possibilities seem far-fetched, but they are both more plausible than simple naivete about RS‘s motives.

4) Maybe something good can come out of this fiasco for General McChrystal personally. As I mentioned before, the general and his wife have only spent 30 days a year together for the past 9 years. Maybe he can take Mrs. McChrystal on a nice vacation somewhere, and they can reconnect and renew their marriage since they will have more time together. Also, maybe he’ll be able to get more sleep and have time to eat more than one meal a day. Hopefully he will be able to relax and enjoy the company of his wife and family after 33 years of dedicated service to his country. Always look on the bright side of unemployment.

The 2000s: Why the Music Sucked

Rolling Stone declared in a recent issue (Issue 1094/1095, December 24, 2009) in relation to the end of the decade, “The world (and Britney) fell apart, but the soundtrack rocked.”

I do not know what planet the guys and gals at Rolling Stone are on, but it is clearly not Earth, or any other planet that can pick up its radio transmissions, because the soundtrack to the 2000s did not rock. In my opinion, the music industry rolled out some of the most horrible ear-assaults since “Mickey” and “Barbie Girl” during the 00s.

Here is my list of things in music from the 2000s that were simply awful:

1. Emo, Screamo, and all other related subgenres. You are a suburban white kid. Your life is not full of pain. People go through breakups, parents divorce, you don’t get a pony for Christmas. Give your sister her eyeliner back, put the razorblade back in the Xacto knife, stop trying to squeeze into your girlfriend’s jeans, and man up.

2. Disney pop. Dear Disney, Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers do not qualify as good music. Please stop trying to create pop stars. Go back to (hand) animating awesome full-length movies, instead.

3. Auto-Tune: It was cool on the first 10 songs that used it. After that, it made you want to rip your radio out of your dashboard and throw it through an intersection. Seriously, T-Pain (and imitators), enough is enough. I’m with Jay-Z on this one.

4. Lil Jon. WHAT!? YEAH! OK!!!!

5. “Who Let the Dogs Out?” Yeah, I bet you forgot about this one, didn’t you? During the summer and fall of 2000, you could not go to a football game, outdoor festival, skating rink, school dance, or other gathering of more than five people where there was music without hearing this terrible, terrible earworm.

6. Madonna continued to make music.

7. The radio overplay of decent songs. Ok, I liked “Fat Lip” by Sum 41 when I first heard it, but due to excessive airplay of this song by my local radio stations, I STILL refuse to listen to it. I even got sick of “Wish You Were Here” by my beloved band Incubus (fortunately I’ve recovered and it’s one of my favorite songs now).

8. Linkin Park. A combination of too much airtime and a progressively whinier front man makes Linkin Park one of the most obnoxious bands of the ‘00s. Plus, they were still hanging on to that weird Nu Metal thing from the ‘90s.

9. Pop stars full of nonsense. Every pop star worth her extensions and glitter had a “wardrobe malfunction” moment, whether it involved flashing some boob or forgetting the panties. Other outrageous behavior included shaving one’s head for no apparent reason, being drunk/coked out ALL THE TIME and continuing to smoke crack despite acquiring emphysema, becoming a lesbian (or not?) and dealing very badly with the break up. 

10. Everyone died. In the 2000s, we lost the following awesome musicians (in order of their deaths): Joey Ramone (of the Ramones – 2001), Aaliyah (2001), George Harrison (of the Beatles- (2001), Layne Staley (of Alice in Chains -2002), Lisa “Left Eye” Lopes (of TLC – 2002), Dee Dee Ramone (of the Ramones-2002), John Entwistle (of the Who – 2002), Dave Williams (of Drowning Pool – 2002), Joe Strummer (of the Clash – 2002),  Barry White (2003), Warren Zevon (2003), Johnny Cash (2003), Ray Charles (2004), Johnny Ramone (of the Ramones – 2004), Dimebag Darrell (of Pantera – 2004), Syd Barrett (of Pink Floyd – 2006), Bo Diddley (blues singer who heavily influenced early rock n roll artists – 2008), Michael Jackson (2009), and Les Paul (single-handedly created the electric guitar – 2009)

Despite all the bad, there was still some good in the Double Zeros, which I will detail in another post.

Debunking the Threat (#2)

            When I received the November 12 issue of Rolling Stone, I skimmed through, reading the cover story on Shakira and wondering what warped view of reality would be presented in this issue’s Threat Assessment. I found the answer to my pondering on pages 40 and 41. Ladies and gentlemen, the biggest threat to America for the week prior to November 12 was… a Halloween costume. No joke. “Target peddles ‘illegal alien’ Halloween costume” is listed as the worst thing on the Threat Assessment. Not “Cable stations fall for balloon boy hoax.” Not “U.S. pays $400 a gallon for gas in Afghanistan. Not even “Chubby four-month-old denied health coverage for obesity.” No, the largest problem was a Halloween costume consisting of a space alien clad in an orange jumpsuit printed with the words “ILLEGAL ALIEN” and holding a green card. I think most (rational) people would realize that this costume is intended to be FUNNY, based on the fact that inside the jumpsuit one finds not a Mexican, but a Martian. It’s a politically incorrect play on words that leaves RS offended and leaves me believing that RS has no sense of humor.

            The runner-up, #2 threat was “Superfreakonomics pushes junk science about ‘global cooling.’” I take several issues with the addition of this item to the Threat Assessment (and no, I have not read the book). 1) There are dozens of scientists who maintain that man is not the main cause of “climate change,” regardless of the direction the thermometer mercury moves. 2) In the 1970’s, there was panic over a possible “New Ice Age.” Thirty years later, we’re panicking again, but in the opposite direction. 3) We just had one of the coolest summers on record. In fact, the average global temperature has been DROPPING over the last decade. So, maybe it’s not junk science if the globe really is cooling. (http://www.countingcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/uah_may_08.png) 4) One of the co-authors of Superfreakonomics, Steven D. Levitt, went on The Daily Show and stated that he had no intention of breaking from the global warming dogma, and that his book did not prove that the earth was cooling. He was merely discussing the economics of the science surrounding climate change.

            So, what was RS happy about on the Threat Assessment? “Legalizing pot more popular than creationism.” Oh man, get me a bucket so I can collect the Nihilism dripping out of this magazine. Also a popular item was “NFL blocks Rush Limbaugh’s bid to buy St. Louis rams.” Why this matters, I have no idea. The man can’t make the Rams vote conservative, and he probably doesn’t really care to. It was just a business venture. NFL, you are standing in the way of capitalism (and RS, you are ridiculous for being excited about it). The least threatening, best item? The most “with us” piece of news for Rolling Stone, November 12 issue? RS won a Cover of the Year award for their cover featuring Barack Obama. No, not the blatant Superman pose (see it here: http://www.foliomag.com/files/images/rolling_stone_obama.jpg). This is the one they got the award for: http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/media_bias_img/obama_rs_cover.jpg

            Let’s recap: Anything that could be considered “politically incorrect” is a threat. Anything that even APPEARS to challenge established liberal dogma is a threat. Anything that undermines Christianity or traditional values is awesome. Barack Obama is the Son of God. Any questions?

Verifcation: Rolling Stone, November 12, 2009, Issue 1091, p. 40-41

Debunking the Threat (#1)

            My husband and I, through a combination of gifts, cheap offers from TicketMaster, and cashing in on MyCokeRewards, have acquired a vast collection of magazine subscriptions. One of the publications that we subscribe to is Rolling Stone; a magazine I tend to disagree with politically almost 100%. In nearly every issue, RS publishes a “Threat Assessment” at the bottom of their political story for the issue. If you are unfamiliar with the Threat Assessment, these are the basics: across the bottom of 2 pages lies a political continuum. On the left, things RS considers “good” and “with us” (read: liberal), portrayed with a blue arrow. On the right lie the things RS considers “bad” or “against us,” AKA conservative, portrayed with a red arrow. Items on the “with us” side do not have to be celebrations of a liberal victory – they can also be celebrations of conservative failures. Whether or not the things portrayed on the “against us” side are ACTUALLY conservative is not the point. If it involves a Republican, something that goes against the Obamessiah, or is otherwise contrary to a progressive mindset, it is automatically “conservative” and, therefore, bad.

            As I perused my first issue of RS from October 29, 2009, I came across the Threat Assessment for the issue. After reading it, I have come to the conclusion that the priorities of those who run the iconic music magazine are SERIOUSLY out of whack. Listed on the “with us” side is this little gem of distressing information: “Only 2.8 percent of Oklahoma high school students would pass U.S. citizenship test.” Apparently RS wants our high school students to remain uninformed about the government and ignorant of their rights. At least, that is what the positioning of this fact on the continuum would suggest.

            The “against us” side of the continuum is far more distressing, and a much stronger indicator of whacked-out priorities. What could be worse than a 9.8% unemployment rate? What could be more unsettling than Mein Kampf manga raking in the money in Japan? What’s more outrageous than a Facebook poll asking “Should Obama be killed?” CLEARLY, Sarah Palin and the loss of the Chicago Olympics trump all of these issues as immediate pressing threats, at least according to RS.

            I see several major problems with this: 1) People publicly questioning whether Obama should be killed seems like a pretty big threat to me. I don’t like the man, and I don’t agree with his policies, but Lord knows no rational American wants the President of the United States to be killed. Good grief. 2) Our unemployment rate is now over 10%. Detroit is literally drying up and blowing away. States with tourism-based economies like Nevada and Florida are suffering because people can’t afford to take vacations. I would say that, if this trend continues (and it WILL get worse before it gets better), this is a pretty huge threat. 3) Sarah Palin no longer holds a public office. She is not a governor, a vice president, or a judge. She has not been appointed to any official positions. How can the publication of her book, an autobiography about her life before politics and during the McCain campaign, be a larger threat than massive unemployment and questions about assassinating the president? 4) Out of all of these things, why is “Conservatives cheer[ing] Chicago’s Olympics loss” the most threatening? Records have shown that the Olympics traditionally cost cities more in preparation and construction than they make in revenue from the Games. It really wasn’t a huge loss for Chicago, just an embarrassment for Obama, which explains why RS feels so threatened by it.

            Rolling Stone cannot handle an opinion different from their own, despite their claims about loving diversity. This is why they feel threatened by Palin. They also cannot stand the thought of their precious savior being embarrassed or contradicted, which is why they feel threatened by the Olympics loss and, more broadly, anything that proves immune to Obama’s golden touch.

For verification of what I’ve stated here, see Rolling Stone, issue 1090, October 29, 1009, p. 42-43.

            This is the first in what will surely be an ongoing series of blogs about the ridiculosity (yeah, I just used a made-up word) of the “Threat Assessment.”