web counter
 

dumbocracy.jpg
100 Books in One Year #37: Dumbocracy: Adventures With the Looney Left, the Rabid Right, and Other American Idiots by Marty Beckerman

Cannonball Read / Brian Prisco

Book Reviews | January 23, 2009 | Comments (26)

Pink already did an admirable job of reviewing this title, so I’ll just give my guarded nod of admiration. As I’ve stated many times, I think everybody’s an idiot. Most debate involves pointing at fringe groups and the outrageous crap they say and do and believe. There are bad guys on both sides. For every pro-lifer waving a placard with Little Caesar’s smeared on it shouting about baby-killing, there’s a feminist demanding that college men falsely accused of and detained for rape could stand to learn the thoughtful lesson. For every bomb the brown people commie kicker throw, there’s countless peaceniks admiring the decisions of Trotsky and Lenin. For every person trying to put the Ten Commandments on the blackboard and creationism in textbooks, there are assholes trying to outlaw dodgeball and suspend students for bringing in Birthday Cupcakes. For every Fred Phelps and Sean Hannity, there’s a Gloria Steinem or Andrea Dworkin.

The thesis of his book is two fold, and I agree wholeheartedly with the second. The first is that Marty Beckerman is a funny fucking guy — we’ll get to that. The second is how about we think for ourselves? I like that. It’s a delicate balance, and Beckerman isn’t offering any solutions. He’s pulling a Bill Maher, pointing at the floor shitters and sneering, “Look at them shittin’ the floor!” My political leanings are a little more Libertarian. I think we should return rights back to the states, allow them to legalize and de-legalize what they care to, and then allow people to move accordingly. I don’t think anyone should be forced to accept others beliefs, and should be allowed to live among like minded people. I’ve never done an illegal drug in my life but I think it should be legalized. I don’t support political correctness. I don’t support hate speech either.

Beckerman’s pretty convinced that he’s Tucker Max, hilarious and wise and sexy to everyone. And while he hits a lot, he misses far more. Some of his jokes are clunkers. Most of the book is him making purposefully offensive remarks in order to get a rise out of people. And trust me, I can relate. I do it all the time, mostly to rile up the coloreds and bitches. And since it’s supposed to be a humorous discourse, I’m not expecting any glaring insights. It’s how Republicans feel watching Fox News. Cringeworthy, but ultimately I agree with Beckerman.

It’s easily worth a perusal, and you’ll get a chuckle. Me, I don’t have a sense of humor, so I don’t know. At least the book was free. (Thanks, Disinformation! While I can’t agree with all of your crazy ass political conspiratorilizing, I think at least you’re one of them few continually entertaining and honest outlets for current affairs.)

[Publisher’s Note: The views expressed are solely those of the author/speaker and do not reflect the views of the State of Pajiba, the Attorney General of Pajiba or those of any other state or state official. Especially the politically offensive crack about “colored and bitches.” Unless you thought it was funny, in which case, we own 100 percent of Brian Prisco, and his remarks may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of the State of Pajiba. We’re so going to get in trouble for that, Prisco.]

This review is part of the Cannonball Read series. Details are here and the growing number of participants and their blogs are here.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance

← Way of War Trailer | The Hurt Locker Trailer →









Comments

"Coloreds," eh?

I am gonna beat your ass when I get to Austin, boyo.

Posted by: TK at January 23, 2009 9:05 AM

Is it wrong that I just skimmed over that "coloreds and bitches" line without blinking? In my head I was just "Oh, that's Prisco, doing his asshole best, no biggie." I guess it is offensive, but I'm so used to this site and the horrible people here that anything is possible now.

Posted by: Snath at January 23, 2009 9:12 AM

That's our Priso. Now I'm beginning se why BarbadoWolf likes him so much.

If your actually getting used to it Snath, I guess we'll just have to up the whorribble.

Posted by: admin at January 23, 2009 9:28 AM

Nothing you say will ever top Skitz or Pookie, admin. You're a Canadian, and almost a farmer. Your natural politeness and nicety just can't allow you to be a horrible person.

It's science!

Posted by: Snath at January 23, 2009 9:38 AM

Fuck You Snath!

I'm sorry, I didn't mean it.

Posted by: admin at January 23, 2009 9:41 AM

See what I mean?

Posted by: Snath at January 23, 2009 9:43 AM

Three Things:

1) I tried to read this book at one point and had to give up. I have a low tolerance for clunkers and just couldn't finish it.

2) I'm about five posts behind on my Cannonball Read write-ups and it haunts me night and day.

3) Since I can't do it on the Eloquent Eloquence thread due to comment form shenanigans (the nice clean set of three boxes and two buttons fails to appear in any usable way), thank you for seeing the light and choosing my dry bizarre comment on the unicorgy as the comment of the week. The decision surely confounded many of my fellow eloquents and I am grateful for it. Now that my New Years Resolution is out of the way, I can dedicate the extra time to relaunching my main blog and getting around to some articles I promised friends for their blogs months ago.

Posted by: Robert at January 23, 2009 9:56 AM

I've never done an illegal drug in my life.

Ah, how quickly they forget. What do you think was going on with that pop-rocks-and-coca-cola stunt we pulled with that she-male last Easter? Sure, her his death was ruled "accidental," but pracc is still illegal in Iceland.

Posted by: ted boynton at January 23, 2009 9:57 AM

Good on you for leaning libertarian, Prisco.

Posted by: Eep at January 23, 2009 10:15 AM

But did you vote Libertarian? Some of us did, so "Don't blame me ..."

Anyway, now that we've been living in a postracial society for three days, "coloreds" is cool in, like, an ironic retro way, right? Like in that Iggy Pop song, "Mixing the Colors."

But "bitches" ... man, that shit's totally out of line until there's a Hillary or Palin in the Oval.

Also: Yeah, robert, what's up with that thread? Congratulations on your uniquecorn eloquence! (See what I did there?)

Posted by: bucdaddy at January 23, 2009 10:36 AM

States' Rahts! States' Rahts!

Posted by: Lucas at January 23, 2009 10:36 AM

Devolving more decisions to the state level doesn't sound like a great idea to me. State governments are just as unresponsive as the feds, and more likely to do stupid, penny-ante shit and get away with it, because who the fucking fuck follows fucking state government? It's the same as the federal government, only poorer, more inbred, and with even less fashion sense. (And believe you me, that's saying something.)

Sure, devolving to state levels makes sense for stuff that's particularly local, like funding roads, but it makes zero sense when it comes to stuff like civil rights or criminal law, which, by their very natures, should exceed state boundaries. ("New Jersey just legalized murder! Sweet! Roooooooad trip!")

Posted by: Soulless Merchant of Fear at January 23, 2009 12:16 PM

Two points:

1. I'm about five posts behind on my Cannonball Read write-ups Oh I hear you. I've got a list of 30 finished books in a google docs file, numbered for Cannonball Read, but I've only posted articles for two of them on my blog.

2. States rights vs. Federalism. I'll reveal my political science junkie here. Take a look at the federalist papers (or skim the highlights on wikipedia). To recap for those who've blocked out that chunk of AP US History, the Federalist papers were basically a series of newspaper articles published by some of the big founding fathers (Hamilton, Madison and Jay) under the name "Publius" in order to advocate the ratification of the Constitution.

Amongst many other deeply interesting meditations on the role and design of representative government (and remember, these guys were trying to come up with essentially the first modern one, they weren't arguing off of the last two hundred years experience like we can do), is one of the critical arguments for a strong federal government, and one that predicts the eventual Civil War: if the states are fundamentally sovereign they will inevitably end up at war with each other, because neighbouring states always end up at war eventually. If the states are fundamentally subservient to the federal government, and tightly bound so they cannot break into sovereignty, then they are forced to reconcile any differences through peaceful, democratic means.

Posted by: stipe42 at January 23, 2009 1:00 PM

Soulless Merchant of Fear-
The idea isn't that every state will get it right, the idea is that for every bit of authority that exists on the state level, you can go to a state that you think does it better. Whatever the federal government fucks up, you can't get away from without leaving the country entirely... assuming your federal government still allows that.

Posted by: Eep at January 23, 2009 1:23 PM

stipe42-
I think history has shown Madison wrong on that point. His idea was that a strong central government would be larger than the factions that would form which could steer local governments. The problem is that the factions have gotten big enough, and/or combined forces, to the point that they can steer the federal government, from which we have no recourse. It's two ways of looking at the same problem. People like me say let the faction have the run of its local government and if I don't like it, I'll leave. People like Hamilton say give a strong central government so much size and power that no faction can rule it. Maybe others would disagree but I think it's obvious he has proven wrong.

Posted by: Eep at January 23, 2009 1:36 PM

Eep: I think Madison's opinion on factions was a bit divorced from the view of central government: i.e., factions can be marginalized by making sure you have lots of factions, which is accomplished by having a bill of rights such that minority view points can't be suppressed. Of course, that logic became a moot point when the system they designed was (intentionally or not) rigged towards producing a two party system at all times.

I think though that we have to separate two threads of central vs. local that tend to get mixed up here. Under the federalist's view the federal government should be invested with enough power that it can make the states do what it wants in order to make sure that differences are resolved, foreign policy is unified, etc. The problem with our current government is that the federal government has taken on things that have absolutely no business being at the federal level. Having the feds determine drinking ages, speed limits, etc. does not serve any purpose in resolving differences between states. By and large, states don't give a damn what the state next door does on these issues, because they are local issues with only local impacts.

Posted by: stipe42 at January 23, 2009 1:57 PM

People like me say let the faction have the run of its local government and if I don't like it, I'll leave.

So, basically, you are siding with the "flee to Canada" folks.

But the problem with that is simple: you aren't solving anything. In fact, the only thing you end up doing is empowering the bullying factions. By saying "let 'em have it", all you are doing is proving that might makes right, and relaly, what is to keep them from invading your new state/country/planet/what have you and imposing their will there? After all, all they would have to do is move enough people there to vote in their wishes. Look at the gay marriage issue. The individual states have their set definitions now, but it isn't stopping the radicals from trying to impose further.

Like stipe42 said, certain things need to be state-run, and some need to be federal, if only to keep things less cluttered and confusing as they already are and to prevent "annex by voter".

Posted by: Vermillion at January 23, 2009 2:07 PM

Some things should be federally run, particularly some of the ones stipe mentioned. And by the way, stipe, while I agree in general, I wonder if it's possible to successfully limit the powers of a strong central government indefinitely. Look at how much deference constitutional limits on power get these days.

I don't want to flee to Canada, that's my point. If I cease liking Houston I want to flee to Austin, and if I cease liking Texas, I want to flee to Oklahoma or California, or the Carolinas, or wherever. My point is to AVOID having to flee to Canada
Look, per your own point, Vermillion, the factions will always relentlessly try to absorb more areas to impose their will. I'm saying that it's a fallacy that they will be lost in a large centralized government and just go home admitting defeat. Look at abortion. In a decentralized government, they have to take over every unit of government before I can't get away from them if it's that important to me. In a centralized government, there's only one prize, and we're all betting the farm that the federal government will agree with us on almost everything. Why take that chance?

Posted by: Eep at January 23, 2009 2:47 PM

Also, I am doing something by leaving. I'm reducing their influence by taking another body from the unit of government they control, and I'm removing my positive input to their economy. If people don't like what's going on and they leave to go somewhere that isn't going on, they lose money and power. That's way more meaningful than a vote, especially on a national level.

Posted by: Eep at January 23, 2009 3:10 PM

Well, and along with crap political theorizing...Why did he bother reviewing this book, and why did Pajiba put it up there? It's easily summed up in a sentence or two, and apparently somebody already did that...WHY DID YOU WRITE THIS?

Posted by: richbachelor at January 23, 2009 3:19 PM

"If people don't like what's going on and they leave to go somewhere that isn't going on, they lose money and power."

Should read:

"If people don't like the rules imposed (or the fact that some are not imposed) by the controlling faction and they leave the region, the faction loses money and power."

Posted by: Eep at January 23, 2009 3:20 PM

"It's how Republicans feel watching Fox News. Cringeworthy, but ultimately I agree...."

I never could put it quite into words...but yes...it is...just...like...that.

Posted by: TeeBee at January 23, 2009 5:57 PM

But "bitches" ... man, that shit's totally out of line until there's a Hillary or Palin in the Oval.

Bucdaddy, I am all for Hillary, but if Palin's stupid, inbred ass is near the shiny red button, I am checking my Mayan calendar to see how many days are left til Dec. 21, 2012. She has to be a harbinger of the apocalypse.


Posted by: Melody at January 24, 2009 11:48 AM

... until there's a Hillary or Jenna Bush in the Oval.

Posted by: bucdaddy at January 24, 2009 4:20 PM

Hmmm ... Jenna and Barbara BOTH get elected president ... "The Patty Duke Show" meets "The West Wing"?

Get on it, scriptwriters, and mail me my 10 percent.

Posted by: bucdaddy at January 24, 2009 4:45 PM

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Paultards!

Posted by: Anastasia Beaverhausen at January 25, 2009 1:18 AM