Subscribe via RSS Feed

Except “Rafalca Style” would actually involve riding a horse

[ 44 ] December 11, 2012 |

I know I’m supposed to be covering the conservative insanity beat, but I’m not sure I can do it anymore. I just don’t know what to do with arguments like Jeannie DeAngelis’s, in which she claims that:

  • “Gangnam Style,” which all the kids are doing, is dumb because the kids are doing it
  • Obama won the election in 2008 because all the kids were doing “Obama Style,” which is dumb, because the kids were doing it
  • The man responsible for “Gangnam Style” wrote terrible things about America that the kids didn’t know about then, but should have, but didn’t, because they were dumb and hate America, which is why they fell for “Obama Style,” which has nothing to do with anything because DeAngelis just made it up
  • Except that “Gangnam Style” is a horse-dance, which looks like exercise, which could be called “Michelle Obama Style,” which would be an “Obama Style”
  • Moreover, horse-dances are associated with the wealthy, which is bad because it is, never mind who was atop the Republican ticket a little over a month ago
  • Also, “Gangnam Style” makes money for the man who wrote terrible things about America, which isn’t capitalist initiative in a global market because that’s not the point, he made money
  • And he did it in America, with “Gangnam Style,” which is popular with the kids, who are doing it, because it is dumb, and so are they

At this point, I feel like most conservative writers have resorted to digging out their old Culture War Mad Libs and “spicing it up” with topical subjects like “exercise is good” and “Obama isn’t.” It’s disheartening.


Comments (44)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. I see that’s from “American Thinker”, one of the most obviously misnamed websites on the planet. I think I’ll skip clicking on the link.

  2. Aaron says:

    Ironic, like a black fly in your Chardonnay.

    Ironically, “Gangnam” is the name of a wealthy neighborhood in the South Korean city of Seoul where young SK’s go to party.

    Isn’t that the point of the video… to make fun of those who aspire the “Gangnam [life]style”?

  3. Brutusettu says:

    Weird thing is, PSY was covering that song 2004 and the lyrics were upset about the Americans that were committing torture.

    Crazy Koreans and their anti-torture songs.

  4. I suppose that some one needs to monitor the flames and smoldering ash heaps in Right Wing World. I’m glad it’s not me.

  5. Sly says:

    I too enjoy American Thinker, particularly for the cognitive dissonance.

    Article: “PSY said bad things about America once and yet he’s popular and is going to meet with the President.”

    Comments: “This just shows how much America sucks.”

  6. blowback says:

    It’s disheartening


    Why? If it means that the Republicans as currently constituted are unelectable enough to never achieve power then that is definitely for the good. Stupidity by dickheads such as Jeannie DeAngelis should always be encouraged to the full.

    • NonyNony says:

      Republicans will likely control the House of Representatives for the foreseeable future for a number of reasons. As well as the legislatures in a number of state governments. I don’t actually see them getting so crazy that they lose, say, the rural areas of Ohio any time soon.

      It doesn’t matter that they can’t win a statewide election if they can hold power effectively by holding onto district-level offices. (And frankly, given how the geography of Ohio works, I think it will be 6 years before demographics start impacting the districts that they drew up in ’10 here).

      • Jameson Quinn says:

        I’d say Democrats have a demographic advantage of between 1% and 2% a year. Add on 3-4% from a growing economy, and take away 2-3% for off-year elections. With those numbers, the Democrats could potentially hold their own in 2014, compete for the US House in 2016, and control swing-state redistricting by 2020. It’s still not the pace we need to save the planet, but it’s something.

        • djw says:

          As it currently stands, for the Democrats to take the House with its current borders, they’d need to defend every single seat they’ve got and sweep every seat they lost by ~8 percent or less in 2012. Based on the 2012 results, you’d need a uniform swing of over 7%(!) to get a Democratic majority. Some seats with larger gaps are legitimate D targets with a strong candidate (NV 03, for example) but other close races are not promising (KY 06 without Chandler’s incumbency is most likely a lost cause).

          Unless a) a Republican president wins in 2016 and b) manages to become wildly unpopular in 1/3 the time it took George W. Bush to do it, I can’t see a way the Democrats are going to be competitive in the House until they win big in a re-districting year. Demographic change won’t put enough seats in play in the short term.

        • NonyNony says:

          I’d say Democrats have a demographic advantage of between 1% and 2% a year

          You have to account for geography in there. Are you talking about 1-2% growth out in rural areas or in urban areas? Or people moving from urban areas into suburban areas? Or people moving from suburban areas out into rural or exurban areas?

          Ohio’s GOP has a strong advantage in the rural/exurban areas, a moderate advantage in the suburban areas, and an overwhelming disadvantage in the urban areas. Most Democratic voters in Ohio live in the urban and suburban areas. Most Republican voters live in the rural and exurban areas. And this is why Ohio’s districts are drawn to be as large as possible except around urban areas (except for the one that they drew specifically to lump Cleveland and Toledo together because hey why not!)

      • DrDick says:

        They won’t lose eastern Montana anytime soon either. Damned prairie dog vote will put them over the top every time.

      • John says:

        Of course they can still win state-wide elections. They won a bunch in 2010 – gubernatorial races in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada; Senate races in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois. Three years ago, they won the gubernatorial race in New Jersey and Virginia, and likely will again next year. This year, they won the recall election in Wisconsin and the gubernatorial election in North Carolina (a swing state which has had Democratic governors for the last 20 years.)

        You are fooling yourself if you think the insanity of the Republican Party means they can’t win statewide elections in competitive states.

        • Cheap Wino says:

          Illinois governer Pat Quinn is a Democrat.

        • BigHank53 says:

          Don’t be so sure Virginia will go to the GOP. Their nominee looks to be Ken Cuchinelli, who has more than a few teabags in his baggage–and he’s proud of them. This is, of course, assuming the Democrats manage to find a competent candidate to oppose him.

          • Anonymous says:

            Unlike 2010, when they ran Mark fucking Penn! That was just gross, and we got that Koch-sucking Regent grad out of it. Thanks DNC!

            • John says:

              Umm…do you mean Terry McAuliffe? He was indeed a terrible candidate, but so terrible that he got destroyed in the primary by a guy who then proved to be an utterly dismal candidate.

              Good news for 2013: Terry McAuliffe is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination!

              Also, the last time that the candidate of the party that won the previous year’s presidential election won the Virginia gubernatorial election was 1973.

        • NonyNony says:

          You are fooling yourself if you think the insanity of the Republican Party means they can’t win statewide elections in competitive states.

          No, of course they can win statewide elections. What I’m saying is that even if you could get Democratic turnout levels for 2014 to be roughly the same as 2012, all that would happen is that you would hold onto the House seats that you have, you aren’t going to get any more. Though you’d be able to win the statewide offices handily in a state like Ohio if Democrats turned out mid-term the way they do for Presidential elections.

          Republicans are going to be crazy for a long time, given how entrenched they are in statewide politics.

  7. mark f says:

    Do they actually still consider exercise to be good? I think they’re supposed to pretend that Michelle Obama’s advocating healthy habits for kids was some sort of Marxist-fascist plot, particularly when she teams up with e.g. the NFL. Now, the Pentagon teaming up with the NFL to promote the glories of militarism, that’s healthy for a democratic society, but Play 60? No way. I don’t want you running ’round with Physical Jerks.

  8. Malaclypse says:

    I think they’re supposed to pretend that Michelle Obama’s advocating healthy habits for kids was some sort of Marxist-fascist plot

    I’m just going to leave this right here.

  9. rea says:

    either Americans don’t know about the Korean singer’s anti-American rants, or if they know, they don’t care. After all, we do have a President who was reelected four years after suggesting American soldiers “slowly and painfully” tortured Iraqi prisoners!

    Trying to say something clever about this, but it’s just too far gone into insanity . . .

  10. daveNYC says:

    That reads like it was written by Abe Simpson.

  11. Todd says:

    I thought South Koreans were the good foreigners, what with their embrace of Reaganism and creation science in school textbooks?

    If you can’t trust neo-Presbyterians, who can you trust?

    • rea says:

      No–you’re not keeping up.

      The South Koreans became part of the enemy back during the GWB adminstration, when an attempt to whip up support for a war against North Korea foundered on South Korea’s publically-expressed view that it was a bad idea.

      • Brandon C. says:

        That happened? I was in middle/high school at the time, so maybe I just wasn’t reading the news enough, but they actually tried to whip up support to attack North Korea?

        • BigHank53 says:

          Axis of Evil, dude. Admittedly, they were last on the list, after Iraq and Iran, and that particular ship ran pretty firmly aground on the first reef. The PNAC folks never let reality get in the way of their vision, I’ll grant them that…

          • Brandon C. says:

            I do remember that. I didn’t remember that getting very far on the North Korea front though. I always thought they just included them because they are actively hostile, in the news all the time, and Communists.

            What better way to drum up support for a war on Iran than connecting them to commies.

      • Cheap Wino says:

        Either that or, more likely, most of the wingnut blog commentriat doesn’t substantively know the difference between North and South Korea. They all look the same ya know.

  12. Premer says:

    Watch for hidden sugar in peocrssed foods like breads, ketchup, salad dressing, canned fruit, applesauce, peanut butter, and canned soups. And be aware of fat-free products. Sugar is often used to replace the flavor that is lost when fats are removed.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.