Clearly, yet another example of ‘Team Obama’ trying to ‘Hit Back Twice as Hard’ like they promised last summer.

This is OK, though. The bludgeoning that Team Obama is going to take for the rest of this year will intensify monthly as its ineptness at governing crystalizes.

There is no happiness whatsoever in the world of Lib media; the anger they display is palpable. They’re losing, and limp-wristed volleys inserted into prime-time sit-coms and dramas represent the sum-total of their ammo.

Cue deserved outrage…now!
———————————————-
You wont find much in your comment section. The majority of your comment section will either be cheering this on, making fun of Palin, or ignoring because they can’t defend it.

So, now just referencing someone with one similarity to someone else is making fun?

I haven’t seen the context, but the character with Downs in the clip is female, her father is an accountant and I assume they live in liberal, urbanized Rhode Island. It looks to me that McFarlane had a character with Downs and he included a pop culture, old Dennis Miller-type reference, which is basically the “plot” of every show.

Oh, and if anything… I thought the Doggie Dominatrix flash was the joke.

Stupid and not funny.

And that has nothing to do with Sarah Palin. Family Guy sucks.

Yeah, nothing to do with the sophomore gov!

Just way out of line. Period. Should be no argument about that from the right OR the left. Just nasty.

Well, Fox aside, Seth MacFarlane is only slightly to the right of Stalin

Ugh. I used to watch Family Guy all the time, but some time ago it became clear that the writers only know how to do two things: be controversial for the sake of being controversial and make a pop-culture reference every two minutes — that’s it.
I used to like Family Guy because it was just crazy and not preachy, then it seemed like every other week it was a preach-fest, especially when it comes to Brian. Damn, I thought Lisa Simpson was a preachy freakin’ character, but I think Brian has her beat.

I don’t like Family Guy. I don’t think it’s a particularly funny show. Good at cultural references but, that’s about it. I’m making a big guess here that President Obama,had nothing to do with the storyline. I would wonder whether he even watches the show; though I’m sure somehow, somewhere, and someone will find a way the blame the Democratic Party and the President. This is what Family guy does; tells tasteless jokes about culturally relevant and newworthy stories. Please don’t tell me seriously that this is the state of debate “a Family Guy episode”. We’ve got, Iran, Iraq, Haiti, Unemployment, Health Care. Come on please be serious.

C’mon. This is tame compared to many other topical references found on ‘Family Guy’. The big musical number “Prom Night Dumpster Babys” comes to mind.

@Ben Linus: I generally use Family Guy and The Simpsons on Hulu for the random periods, when I need to mindlessly occupy my kids for a 22-minute spurt.

And the above clip is a good example of a Family Guy “script”: If the girl had said that her mom worked at the Quickie Mart, it would’ve gone past without a reference. There would be no headlines about the show making fun of cashiers and it wouldn’t even make it to Convenience Store News, but it’s Family Guy, so they throw in some pop culture with “the former Governor of Alaska” or maybe “Dunder-Mifflin”, which are probably the only things that would work.

I’m a conservative. I like Palin, but I don’t think she is President material.

That being said, I don’t see why this clip is getting so much hype.

If I had to guess, I’d bet that Palin would love to have Trig high-functioning enough to go out on a date when he grows up. The clip doesn’t depict the girl as slobbering, drooling, or an imbecile. In fact, it’s rather PG — most Family Guy gags are a helluva lot more graphic than this.

The true tragedy here is that Family Guy just isn’t funny anymore, and Seth MacFarlane is clearly jut begging for ratings.

And my typing skills suck at 1am.

Doggie dominatrix… funny.

I don’t think the. Ellen, the character with Down’s Syndrome was funny or distasteful. It really didn’t spark any kind of emotion from me. I was like what ever. Boring…. Doggie dominatrix was hilarious though. Loved it!

I’m trying to feign outrage… really, I am…

Can’t do it. Damn. And I’m usually really good at it!

Hell, the episode even ended with a “you’re just like the rest of us” moral to the story (albeit with a twist). And besides the fleeting “former governor of Alaska” line, there was no other parallel at all. Last I checked, Mr. Palin wasn’t an accountant.

One of the tamer Family Guy episodes this season…

One would get the impression that liberals are obsessed with feeling superior to other people.

Let such outrage as may exist find its outlet in the market place. Let the ratings tumble, and the problem is solved. I find this distasteful, but I don’t watch “Family Guy”. Now, the Simpsons and the Mormons, that’s another story.

This is precisely why I don’t watch this show. This ceased being funny shortly after I grew up.

Yes, making fun of the handicapped is always a hoot. Like Letterman, Seth used to be funny. But his attempt to constantly inject his far left viewpoint into everything is ruining it.

NewsBusters: ‘Family Guy’ Attacks Sarah and Trig Palin With Down Syndrome Joke
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/02/14/family-guy-attacks-sarah-and-trig-palin-downs-syndrome-joke

Oh man, I bet Obama was laughing hysterically to himself as he thought of this zinger while smoking his cuban cigar under the nazi flag he has hanging in the oval office and he emailed it off to the Family Guy writers post haste!

“Clearly, yet another example of ‘Team Obama’ trying to ‘Hit Back Twice as Hard’ like they promised last summer.” – FALSE. This is not an example. This is you drawing a false analogy. Your quoted “Team Obama” is the White House. They had nothing to do with this “joke”. It’s not particularly funny. It’s an ok show with medicore ratings that has tried for years to get shock-laughs by lampooning everything and everybody. And if somehow this gets you feeling justified in somehow hating Obama more? I feel sorry for you and your seriously misplaced anger. Actually, I feel more sorry for every single person who has to encounter you and your twisted, illogical mind every single day.

“You wont find much [outrage] in your comment section. The majority of your comment section will either be cheering this on, making fun of Palin, or ignoring because they can’t defend it.”
-A quick scan over the comments finds this to also be objectively false. You can’t make a statement that arrogantly predicts the future, smugly walk away feeling like you know how this will play out. You’re wrong. I don’t think anyone really wants to “defend” a joke that makes fun of downs-syndrome. We, the evil left, may be able to “shrug off” a lame, not topically atypical, joke on a cartoon show for being just that. If you’re looking for a reason to be offended or angry at the president, try looking for something based in reality.

“One would get the impression that liberals are obsessed with feeling superior to other people.” – Really? Just curious, how would one get that impression? Because from your comment, you’ve given me the impression that you, personally, are obsessed with making sweeping, unsubstantiated, comments. And if you honestly believe what you said, then you have personally just declared your own ignorance and close mindedness, or at least justified, to yourself (but clearly, not me, or I doubt anyone else), why you can immediately dismiss any argument coming from liberals. How could we have a rational debate if you think I’m motivated by personality factors instead of listening to what I’m actually arguing? It’s a mismatch and it hurts honest debate. Please be reasonable next time you want to make some sort of overgeneralized, defacing claim.

Yes, sweeping generalizations are often inaccurate. Like saying “Fox News lies”. Lies about what? Everything? I saw a story about a car wreck recently. Were they lying? The cars didn’t really crash? Narrowing things down a bit so we could have honest debate is something both ‘sides’ need to do.

“Yes, sweeping generalizations are often inaccurate. Like saying “Fox News lies”. Lies about what? Everything?” -No, not everything. A news-o-tainment channel with 100% lies wouldn’t last very long, would it? What you’re referring to is our discussion yesterday. I’ll say it again- the Fox News anchors were lying about either their knowledge and understanding of global warming or are ignorant to the scientific underpinnings of climate change. That is narrow. And there is video evidence to back up the fact that they made false claims. I feel like that example wass pretty cut and dry. That’s what I was talking about yesterday. If I want to talk about any more “lies” Fox News tells, I’ll reference them appropriately so you’ll know what I’m talking about so we can continue to discuss these things rationally. Thanks!

Making fun of the term ‘global warming’ while showing snow falling is called satire, not lying. The left has no sense of humor, and no patience for anyone who gives a hint of questioning their ‘wisdom’. And switching the term to ‘climate change’ so it wouldn’t sound ridiculous in the winter is funny, if you have a sense of humor, which the left doesn’t. And Beck, Hannity, and O’Reilly aren’t ‘anchors’ any more than Olbermann, Maddow, or Shultz. If a Fox anchor, such as Bret or Shepard actually told an outright lie about climate change, could you please provide a quote or a site where the video could be seen? Thanks.

Really? That’s why there are soooo many hilarious satirical conservative slanting programs. And yeah, that was sarcasm. Actually, writer, studies have shown that it is the left that more frequently uses satire and humor, which supports the hypothesis that it is, in fact, the right that has less of a sense of humor. And anecdotally, I think that the Fox News “sketches” support this. Is it really a good “satire” to be wrong about a scientific theory? I guess, technically, because one form that satire can take is ridicule- I just don’t think it’s very good satire. The key to a good satirical joke is the element of truth running behind it. So, I think this leads one to conclude that one thinks the joke is funny because it’s true (meaning, you believe that snow outside means climate change doesn’t exist, which is factually flawed), or it’s not found funny because there’s no perceived truth behind it. So I guess their global warming “jokes” are either funny and true, or unfunny and untrue, based on the logic behind what makes a good joke (which I suppose we could argue further, but if I could pre-empt and request you stay within this example, that’d be great to move forward with). The problem here, as I see it, is that you find it to be funny and untrue, meaning you find a mere sucker punch to the left to be funny enough without an element of truth running behind it, which I, personally, usually find to be the funniest part of satire.

And I place Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, Olbermann, Maddow, and Shultz all in the same category of non-news anchors, so don’t be too presumptuous about what I believe there.

Hate, (ironic part of a name for someone on the left) you seem to be obsessed with global warming. If, as you say, 98% of scientists agree man is causing it, and 98% of the world believes man is causing it, does it matter that much if Glenn Beck says he has doubts? Does it change it, or suddenly put it into doubt, or discredit it, if it’s already a dead bang certainty that everyone agrees on? So what it boils down to is the left’s anger issues. For the side with a supposed sense of humor, you seem unable to allow anyone to have a different opinion, whether right or wrong, without flying into a rage. Perhaps an anger management class, or some therapy.

It’s a cartoon, a spoof. Get over it and get a life

Hate is an ironic name for someone on the left? How so? Are you saying that because you think people on the left are hateful? If so, I suggest you look up the definition of irony, because satisfying your expected worldview is the exact opposite of irony.

I never said 98%. I don’t know where you got that number from. I don’t know what the % is. I doubt anyone does. This isn’t all cut and dry. People’s beliefs (in the scientific community, at least) usually fall along a continuum, from believing climate change is ridiculously severe and 100% manmade, all the way down to denying any influence man may have had on the weather. There’s a looooooot of room between those two. I don’t know how many scientists fall on the half of the continuum that believes man has an influence on climate change. It’s probably true that yes, a vast majority of scientists believe that man has created, or at least put into motion, phenomena which have and will deleteriously impact climate.

The problem with Glenn Beck saying what he does is that a lot of people aren’t as well informed as scientists are as to what climate-change data is out there, or is currently under investigation. The modern trend has been towards people only tuning in to news outlets that affirm what they already believe. People who fall below that mid-point on the climate change continuum who primarily watch Fox News (because most of them do, which is another empirical fact) and continue to hear primarily about what a crock global warming is have their beliefs affirmed, and it leads causes them to close off their minds to contradicting information, no matter how well grounded in science or the popular opinion of experts.

My “anger issues” have nothing to do with being anti-conservative. I’m not angry at conservatives. I’m not anti-conservative. I’m pretty moderate on a lot of issues. What I am is anti-anti-intellectualism, and Fox News, on the subject of climate change (and a number of other things) usually supports anti-intellectual arguments. Before you go ahead and contradict me on that, please take some time to seriously consider it. When a conservative has a viewpoint that is based in anti-intellectual arguments, that makes me mad, not the conservative belief itself. I’m not an irrational, hot-head. I try to weigh the pros and cons of as objective of sources as possible when I have an opinion on something. In the case of climate change, I think more and stronger empirical evidence has supported the theory that human activity has and will impact the climate. I’m not getting this from news sources. I’ve drawn my opinion from the research I have done on the topic. There are, as you’ve pointed out, valid arguments critical of certain studies involving climate change, but for the most part, these arguments, I feel, have been overblown and misrepresented by conservatives (i.e., Fox News), because it is politically advantageous to do so (just as, I’m sure you’ll say, the left takes pro-climate change evidence and uses it for their political advantage- they do; I’m not saying they don’t). Cable news didn’t convince me of climate change. Science did. Until science disproves it, I’ll probably continue to believe that our ecosystem wasn’t designed to handle what we’re doing to it right now and it could cause problems in the future.

Also, I’m not obsessed with global warming. It just happened to be the topic that started our first debate. I don’t feel as strongly about it as I do about other issues. I just think that it is a good place for a rational debate about topics from which broader points could be drawn (i.e.- anti-intellectualism).

So, who gets to decide who’s ‘intellectual’ and who isn’t? If you agree that some scientists don’t think man is causing global warming, and Glenn Beck cites them instead of the ones you’ve read and agree with, does that make him anti-intellectual? If the ‘other side’ is wrong, it won’t hurt your position in the least. It will still be valid. But if there’s even a smidgen of a chance there’s some credence in the ‘other side’s’ opinions, should they not be allowed to speak? I happen to think that Keith Olbermann is very anti-intellectual. His bias shuts out all other opinions. But I still think he should be allowed to speak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism – Anti-intellectualism has nothing to do with who is or isn’t or does or doesn’t classify his or her self as an intellectual. There is no “who” that gets to decide who is “intellectual” and who isn’t, because that is totally tangential to what I was saying.

And what Glenn Beck often does is cite a report that may debunk one study, or call into question the interpretation of another study, and use that as a sweeping conclusion that climate change isn’t real. What he’s doing isn’t trying to help the rational debate about whether or not climate change is real. He is intentionally trying to pander to his conservative audience and further polarize his side in a debate that has NOTHING to do with liberal or conservative ideology. I am in full support of an open and honest scientific debate over the merits of climate change. That isn’t what is happening. People have stubbornly drawn political lines in a non-political issue.

Keith Olbermann is not anti-intellectual (see: link above). He’s bull-headed and pretty douchey, but he’s not anti-intellectual. I don’t think that he has been as harmful to an honest debate about the subject as Fox News has been, simply because he doesn’t rely on anti-intellectual arguments. He’s skewed his share of data left too, but I don’t think he relies on ignorance like Fox does. Also, I don’t watch Olbermann as much as I watch Fox, so I really can’t say much about him.

The dictionary says intellect is reasoning or understanding. When Olbermann shuts out all opinions but his own, that doesn’t fit the definition. He plays to his audience, Beck plays to his. And if Beck isn’t willing to listen to those who say man is causing global warming, most at MSNBC aren’t willing to listen to anyone says man may not be responsible. Pretending that closed minds only exist at Fox is a fallacy.

The dictionary says that? Ok. But, I repeat, I’m referring to the concept of anti-intellectualism, “the hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science, as impractical.” That’s not Keith Olbermann’s style. That reads like Fox News’s mission statement.

Oh, which reminds me: earlier, that thing that you called “satire” regarding Fox News’s take on climate change and the snow storm? Straight up anti-intellectual rhetoric. A laugh riot.

Yes, both Beck and Olbermann play to their audiences, but Beck plays to his in ways that hurt America. Specifically, I am talking about anti-intellectualism. And yes, Beck uses it, as displayed in his using it as the basis for his humor in jokes about global warming and in the way that he “publicly present[s] [himself] as champion of the common folk — populist against political elitism and academic elitism — proposing that the educated are a social class detached from the quotidian concerns of the majority, and that they dominate political discourse and higher education.” And no, Olbermann doesn’t do that.

Wow, I actually just scared myself. To think- an informative television personality can fit the definition of anti-intellectualism SO literally.

OK, my last thoughts for the night-

I just realized where a lot of my anger comes from.

Keith Olbermann plays a stark raving mad liberal. He is, I think we can all agree, a stark raving mad liberal.

O’Reilly, and Beck- they AREN’T anti-intellectuals, they just play them on TV! They’re big phonies! They aren’t the demographic they say they’re speaking for! Some of these Fox News guys are ivy leaguers! O’Reilly got his masters at Harvard! They’re among the intellectual elite! BUT they pander to a conservative, anti-intellectual crowd. They intentionally rile them up with information, illogic, and stories they must know aren’t scientifically true or fair and unbalanced in order to continue to have Americans think like them as the ends to their conservative-agenda means! It’s dishonest! And I think it’s scary! They’re turning people against logic and thinking so that they can continue to hold Republican viewpoints! Isn’t that worrisome? How can you be on that side? Only Fox News and other conservative networks spew this kind of anti-intellectual, distrust science, the-learned-ones-don’t-know-what-they’re-talking-about politically driven talking points and present it as news! I see them holding back both our society and the necessary progress of scientific achievement for political reasons and I don’t like it.

I’m so glad I’m young. In a few years, finally we’ll have the voting block to undo all the damage that the baby-boomers’ did to the rights that their parents fought so hard for.

Thanks for sharing this, keep up the good work.
academic writing