Neo-Con Hit List 2005: Bernard Goldman's 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America

But still, if you want a handbook for how these fuckheads think, and how they'll go about attacking the listed, it might come in handy.

i have to admit to only knowing abt half the names

45 and 61 seem like a gesture toward independent thought; 45's disgrace now undeniable. 61 maybe score-settling, who knows.

is 83-85 some freep injoke i don't get?

i did catch his daily show appearance, fortunately, it has to be one of the funniest interviews i've ever seen on that show. he seemed to take notable pleasure in using the word "kike" to jon stewart's face.

http://fumblings.com/weblog/archives/jerryfinal.jpg

Aw. Michael Moore is not hateable. He's just -- himself. Easily ignorable, if you happen to disagree with him. Very easily ignorable. Ted Kennedy SO does not deserve to be on this list. Neither does Jesse Jackson. Jimmy Carter, OTOH -- yeah, I can see why he'd be not only on the list but at a very high ranking. Blame/thank the Nobel Peace Prize people for that. Dan Rather is such an old-school choice, and Noam Chomsky is even more ignorable than Michael Moore. John Edwards is actually kinda conservative, isn't he? Al Sharpton -- that clown??? Al Gore is actually likeable. Howard Dean is too crazy to be in the list. My guess is the Latrell Sprewell addition is a reach-out to the mass populace. Maury Povich deserves to be #1 on the list, though; all of his programs are either about foolish teenagers going through numerous paternity tests or really, really fat babies or... whatever. Jerry Springer's show is an ego booster, though, and deserves to at least be much lower on the list. Bill Moyers is another old-school choice; dude, this is SO not 2001. Al Franken is really, really lovable, though!!! Coming from the former-Dittohead tradition I come from, I can see how Al Franken would be to straight-on liberals what Rush Limbaugh is to straight-on conservatives, i.e. an entertaining voice of agreement. I think everyone should listen to both Franken and Limbaugh and find the truth somewhere in the middle of the two. Gloria Steinem helped ruin feminism, so, yeah, she can stay (and move up!). Ken Lay -- yeah, that's another reach-out to the populace. Barbara Walters's addition is a complete WTF to me -- what on Earth did she do??? Maxine Waters needs to be taken off the list now. Ingrid Newkirk's name sounds familiar but I'm too lazy to Google right now; she's probably harmless. Robert Byrd is a bastard and a givein. Anna Nicole Smith is yet another reac-out. Diane Sawyer is decent. Eminem??? Ludacris??? This guy hates rap more than I do. I mean, I know it's not for me but at least I can say, "Well, it's for SOMEONE, so don't hate on it." Michael Savage is a has-been. So is Howard Stern. Oliver Stone? Jesus, even the liberals get that joke! Jimmy Swaggart is an out-of-date reach-out. Phil Donahue still gives me the creeps. Barbara Kingsolver -- isn't she some sort of mystery author? If so, why would she be on the list? I mean, entertaining the masses via actual reading is kinda noble these days. Harry Belafonte should not only stay on the list but also move UP, along with Steinem. Norman Mailer needs to go, though. Kitty Kelley -- eh, she's benign. Tim Robbins -- eh, if you'd have asked me eight months ago, I would've said he was fine, but now that he's got that silly little play of his going, I say he needs to move up the list. Michael Jackson needs to be moved up the list too, as does Barbra Streisand. Courtney Love needs off the list BADLY. And Eve Ensler too; I'm actually incensed about her mention on the list, because I love her viewpoints on female beauty and empowerment. We as Americans need Eve Ensler. Sheila Jackson Lee is just a strong Democrat, as is Ted Kennedy, so, again, off. I do highly agree with Rick & Kathy Hilton, though; their spoiled rotten little brats are also ruining the U.S., so I think they need on the list NOW.

Wow, I didn't think he'd have registered on most peoples radars.

Marilyn Manson will be disgusted he didn't make that list.

85. The Dumb Celebrity - Cameron Diaz, Fred Durst, Kate Hudson, Margeret Cho, Janeane Garafalo

84. Vicious Celebrity - Alec Baldwin, Wallace Shawn, Sean Penn. Janeane Garafalo.

83. Dumb and Vicious Celebrity - Linda Rondstat, Martin Sheen, David Clennon, Janeane Garafalo

Lady, if you have to ask...

this list smells of, "celebrities against bush should shut up".

example:

"I don't think that [U.S. President] George Bush is a man of honor."
-Harry Belafonte

that's the ONLY reason why belafonte would be on there. i mean, the dude's worked with the peace corps since the 60s... unicef... etc etc...

why is david duke on this list? of course he's EVIL. but isn't he small potatoes? seems like including a nutjob like him just gives him cred.

m.

Hey, no Trey & Matt. I thought they were horrific vulgarians that were soiling the minds of The Children. Must be an oversight. And I'm thinking he started this list well over a year ago; otherwise Green Day could've had a shot. Spreewell maybe belongs on a list of 100 People Who Are Screwing Up the Timberwolves' Chance to Ever Get Remotely Near the NBA Finals, but that's it. And I've read that the "Unknown American Terrorist" isn't even a McVeigh or a Ruby Ridge type -- it's an environmentalist that vandalizes McMansions and SUV dealerships. Fucking shit, is there anyone in the realm of political commentary named Goldberg that isn't a complete dipshit (see also Lucianne and Jonah)?

!!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!?!!?!?!

My general impression of the neo-con attitude towards Kozol is that there are claims he faked or fudged a bunch of the material in his books. Easier to target some percieved as a wounded animal than, I dunno, Barbara Ehrenreich or someone like that.

anything they don't like must be wrong some how. global warming. carbon dating. gay marriage family success studies. boxed wine.

okay, so conservatives get it right from time to time...
m.

HUH? Seriously if we take it as granted that this is a conservative list, I cannot fathom why Jesse Jackson shouldn't be on it and Jimmy Carter should.

It's likely Eminem and Ludacris are the only rappers he knows anything about, and this via all the POLITICAL CONTROVERSY! they've recieved.

??
m.

(and yeah, he's a complete dork)

http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/002468.php

It may just be someone saying "I see what he's doing here"

Linda Ronstadt explained

BIZ. ARRRRRRRRRRR.

-- Michael Daddino (epicharmu...), July 19th, 2005.

elephants/republicans have long memories!

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591

Remember? the one they put Milton Keynes on? Both lists are really about those that aren't down with or attacking the neo-con mindset. they just conflate "our currently dominant subsection of the Party" with "America/Humanity" etc.

But yeah, ultraconservatives-in-not-really-knowing-what-the-fuck-they're-talking-about shocka.

this is pretty much standard framing for them; drape their attacks in the clothes of "culture war"...

he seemed to take notable pleasure in using the word "kike" to jon stewart's face.

Also, I liked how they let 'kike' and 'spic' over the air but they bleeped 'nigger'.

Why this is a "conservative hit-list" when it includes Michael Savage, Jimmy Swaggart and Judge Roy Moore (and excludes Hilary Clinton!) is beyond me. I guess a disdain for certain liberal personalities means you're part of the vast right wing conspiracy that stole semen from Bill Clinton's bedsheets to spray on Monica's dress.

Too much populist picks and celebrities who don't have a say in anything and never did.

And I'd apprciate a Daily Show link if anyone finds it.

I totally thought that Goldman censored HIMSELF, which makes even less sense.

uh, how about tokenism for the sake of tokenism? i.e. for the defense of "SEEEE?! we put conservatives on here, too!"

i mean, christ; putting PAUL KRUGMAN in yer top 10 is only tipping your hand a LITTLE.

Heh. how much do you think that John Kerry's pissed that he's not on there...

oh come the fuck on. 90% of the list are people hated by conservatives.

Jonathon Kozol, for example, has made an entire career lamenting the "under-funding" of public schools. In Savage Inequalities he pulls our heart strings describing New York City public schools where "textbooks are scarce… the carpets are patched… [and] the library is a tiny, windowless, and claustrophobic room." He doesn't mention that New York City public schools spend more per pupil than 95 of the 100 largest school districts in the country. He can only point out that some other schools spend even more. Any level of spending that is less than the maximum spent by others is inadequate in his mind.
But clearly this standard is unreasonable otherwise anyone not dining on filet mignon is suffering from malnutrition...
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-greene052203.asp

City Journal has a very lengthy article about him titled: America’s Most Influential—and Wrongest—School Reformer. They talk about the "fudging factor" a poster mentioned above. In his first book, Kozol claims all the teachers were racist at a Roxbury school:

"In Kozol's telling, not one white adult—except him—exhibits a flicker of sympathy for the black children or teaches them anything useful. For all my criticism of public school teachers in City Journal, I couldn't imagine such a school as Kozol depicts, where not a single teacher was accomplishing anything of value. We will never get to hear from those accused teachers, however—because they don't exist. "With the exception of certain named public figures, characters in this book do not have counterparts in real life," Kozol acknowledges in a "Note to Readers." "Nevertheless, important attitudes, character traits, acts or stated viewpoints ascribed to faculty, administration and pupils in this book accurately reflect the author's experience in the Boston Public Schools." In other words: Don't pin me down with nitpicking questions about whether my school's teachers actually said everything I attribute to them.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_americas_most.html

But they aren't exclusive to conservatives. It's conservative like Bill O'Reilly is conservative (which he really isn't). Bill O'Reilly will go after who "Joe American" doesn't like and by catering to middle-America you come off as right-wing to many on the left. Populism right now is plugging conservative social values.

yes, and why would this not come off as right-wing?

um, how did she ruin feminism?

"BIZ. ARRRRRRRRRRR."

From what I've read, the tomb of the unknown american terrorist is one of the least-visited monuments in washington d.c.

fun with the guy on tv, where he freaks out when then start asking him questions.

also, i made a mistake with the title; the guy's name is GoldBERG, not goldman.

I'm hoping this means OLD RICH VS. NEW RICH STRIKES BACK

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1595230092.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpgWomen Who Make the World Worse : and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports

(Hardcover)
by Kate O'Beirne

Book Description
A top conservative writer explores the feminist assault on our families, schools, workplaces, and military

As a woman, Kate O’Beirne can say things a male commentator could never get away with. In her long-awaited first book, she takes on America’s leading feminists—including Hillary Clinton, Gloria Steinem, Eleanor Smeal, Maureen Dowd, Kate Michelman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and even Sex and the City’s Carrie Bradshaw. She confronts them with hard evidence of how women like them have done more harm than good over the last four decades.

O’Beirne is all for women’s equality and celebrates the unprecedented opportunities they enjoy today. But she faults those feminists who believe that a hostile patriarchy reigns and that women remain its helpless victims. Their agenda is not profemale; it’s merely antimale.

Women Who Make the World Worse shows how their destructive handiwork can be felt in every corner of American life, including:
• fractured families and dispensable dads
• offices and schools that have become battlegrounds in the gender wars
• military units that put lives at risk to promote social engineering

[...]

From the Back Cover
"We depend on manly characteristics to keep us safe. Every single one of the dead firemen heroes on 9/11 were men. This was one group where liberals didn’t ask why there wasn’t a more pleasing gender balance, because the Upper West Side is not fireproof. What happens in combat in some distant field is abstract to liberals, but they can understand the need to have strong, brave men in their fire department." —Kate O’Beirne

a nice review

They do -- it's called "Rolling Stone's Top 100 Albums."

xpost Allyzay got there first :(

This absolutely confirms something I've been saying for a while: that, of the two projects of feminism (empowering women and deconstructing patriarchy) it's the second -- and still unachieved -- project which most threatens the status quo, and particularly conservatives. What's more, they've been trying desperately for decades to portray the two projects as at odds, fundamentally incompatible. They do this by saying that women can only be empowered by identifying more and more closely with patriarchy and its values. This empowerment = patriarchy argument explains both Raunch Feminism and "the Condi Rice syndrome".

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=114995&title=bernard-goldberg-pt.-1

Shit, i fucked up the title. Can some mod change this thread from Goldman -> Goldberg?

fucking bernard goldberg is on oreilly like every damn night now