Wednesday, October 7, 2009

In Which I Try To Force My Way Through Writer's Block

Ok, Ok. I know I have been posting with the frequency of a total eclipse of the sun; I am battling a hard core case of laziness. I've read that the best way to battle writer's block is just to write. Anything. I apologize ahead of time. Here goes:

I am not good at confrontation, which I think I mentioned here before when Rachel interviewed Tom Ridge. At the beginning of the Rick Berman interview last night, Rachel began with a pretty long rant. And it appears that Berman is sitting right there.

This is when my stomach began to tighten. How can she do that? I think that what that says about me is that I would much rather talk about you behind your back. I wish she had pushed him to answer why he thinks it's ok to call out lefty organizations to disclose who their donors are, when he so clearly defends his right to not disclose the same. Although she did get this little dig in:

Here's what I think. These fake grassroots right wing organizations that Rachel has been calling out have every legal right to hide who is funding them, same as the left wing groups do. But here's the difference: In America, by definition, liberals are anti-corporation, pro-union, speaking up for the disenfranchised, and support government caring for the poorest of our people. By definition, conservatives are pro-corporation, anti-union, and are not looking out for the little guy, at all. As has been said before on TRMS, liberals have the moral high road here. So why not frame every argument in terms of "liberty and justice for all?" I don't know what donors the lefty groups are hiding, but the end game of groups advocating for say, a higher minimum wage, isn't waging a war on behalf of money and power. The right can't say that. So, for instance, in the health care reform debate, the only thing we should be hearing from the left, and the voices are getting louder, is that the right of the individual trumps the right of the corporation. Whew. Enough of that "substantive" stuff.

Don't you think Connie Schulz, "Pulitzer Prize winning columnist," is too cute?

Smart, funny, on our side, and also very attractive. I've got a little crush blooming here.

So. did you see @WillAtWork's tweet about Adopt-A-Liberal? What a list! Their blurb on Rachel:
"Rachel Maddow, Radio and Television Show Host
Maddow is an openly lesbian radio and television personality who pushes her liberal viewpoints in the media. She favors same-sex marriage, claiming that it decreased divorce when such marriages were legalized in Massachusetts. Maddow has also called for an emergency halt on military discharges of openly homosexual soldiers."
My favorite, however:
"The Unknown Liberal
There will likely be additional liberals the Lord may bring to mind who desperately need your prayers. Feel free to select your own unique liberal and adopt them for prayer, perhaps even nominating one or more liberals for listing on our website by emailing us at"
Your prayers are welcome, my self-righteous friends.


  1. I know exactly what you mean about the stomach-tightening thing. You could actually hear Berman snort early on in her introduction. She's got guts, that's for sure.

    I wish they'd had the whole show to spar with each other. Rachel had to change the subject and let him get away with misinformation several times - not, as some are grumbling, because she wasn't prepared, but because she had a lot of ground to cover and only a small amount of time to do it. And Berman's a slippery bastard, of course - he's very good at his job.

    I disagree with you about the lefty donors thing, though. That was the one point where she outmaneuvered him. She goaded him into attacking CREW for not revealing their donors, and then asked sweetly, "And you think that's bad?" forcing him to backtrack in a hurry to cover himself. That happened at least twice, with an extra zing right at the end.

    Oh, and I'm totally praying for you, so I have faith that God will bring you around to my line of thinking. ;)

  2. I really, really wish Maddow wouldn't let creeps like this guy talk so long without interruption. It borders on free ad time for these guys. She let him ramble on and on and try to confuse and dodge, to the point of beginning to bring up some Supreme Court mumbo jumbo. Bleh. Rachel, come on, cut in sooner.

    Even with a friendly guest, Sarah Vowell at the end, I was yelling at the screen "Shut. Her. Up!" She lets her guests, friend and foe alike, get away with monologues. Bleh. I watch for Rachel's commentary, not to hear everyone else expound just to fill air time.