Skip

Help! Mom! Liberals! Bed!
August 25, 2005 11:35 AM   Subscribe

Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed! (54 pp., illustrated, "The story of two boys who dream about opening a lemonade stand when a strange thing happens...") Don't miss the excerpt [pdf] and the "cast of 'characters'" links on the left. Feel free to skip the author's note. (via.)
posted by nobody (74 comments total)

 
Someone should write a reply called "Help! Mom! The President wants to send me to die in Iraq, but he keeps lying about the reason."
posted by wadefranklin at 11:39 AM on August 25, 2005


Oh c'mon, the author's note contains at least this chuckle:

"The non-stop kicking and screaming since last November is so incessant, I am wondering when Sen. Byrd is going to hold his breath until his state turns blue."

Until his state turns blue. Get it?
posted by OmieWise at 11:42 AM on August 25, 2005


Yeah, but Clinton got his rocks off with an intern.

Oh, wait, sorry, it wasn't time for that post yet. Filthy liberals.
posted by Pollomacho at 11:49 AM on August 25, 2005


Finally, someone "gets it". I will be reading this one to my kids tonight.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 11:49 AM on August 25, 2005


Why do they hate our freedoms?

*sigh*
posted by Devils Rancher at 11:50 AM on August 25, 2005


I'd swear that this is a double post, but I can't find the old one. This is going to bother the hell out of me...
posted by voltairemodern at 11:51 AM on August 25, 2005


Can we just kill all the liberals and all the conservatives? I'm righteously disgusted with both of them and either side ceased to be about right and wrong a long time ago.
posted by jonmc at 11:53 AM on August 25, 2005


I wonder if there is a history of children's political indoctrination out there in www land. This surely isn't setting any historical precedents, but I think putting it in some context could be very interesting.
posted by Western Infidels at 11:54 AM on August 25, 2005


Those damn rotten America hating liberals are scary!

I will be reading this one to my kids tonight.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 2:49 PM EST


Don't! You'll give them nightmares and be a bad parent just like all those damn America hating rotten liberals!

Lemonade. Yum.
posted by nofundy at 11:58 AM on August 25, 2005


Ah, more demonization of the "other". Wonderful. On the bright side, at least the next purges won't be based on the color of skin, religion or ethnicity. It will be based on political beliefs. Now that's progress.
posted by psmealey at 11:58 AM on August 25, 2005


"Point on the bear where the bad man taxed you."
posted by shawnj at 11:59 AM on August 25, 2005


Can we just kill all the liberals and all the conservatives?

Yeah, and then the Indians can have their country back.
posted by nofundy at 11:59 AM on August 25, 2005


The Author's Note was certainly good for a few laughs, especially this one:

Others claimed that, despite exit polls showing that values were one of the major reasons voters chose Bush, the Democratic Party was still the party of values. Howard Dean protested “It is a moral value to provide healthcare...to educate young people.” Is too!

It strikes me as gutbustingly absurd that self professed Christians can mock the virtue in healing the sick, teaching children and helping the poor. These people are pharisees, not Christians.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 12:03 PM on August 25, 2005


"Mummy, why are all the black people hungry?"

"Because they have yet to become competitive in the global marketplace, sweetie. Now put on your Jesus Loves Me cap, and let's go scream outside the abortion clinic..."

You gotta love America.
posted by cleardawn at 12:04 PM on August 25, 2005


Yeah, and then the Indians can have their country back.

They're not "Indians," they're "Casino Owning Americans."

cleardawn, comments like yours show that you veiw non-liberal people through as distorted a lens as they veiw you. Good luck with that.
posted by jonmc at 12:06 PM on August 25, 2005


I pledge allegiance to nothing under one diverse land under no one except my own self-absorbed interests.

Thats golden. I wonder how many friendly neighborhood conservatives remember that the original pledge of allegiance, as written by Francis Bellamy in 1892, made no mention of a nation under god. The Knights of Colombus helped us out with that one when fear of becoming a "godless communist" in the 1950s was all the rage. Bellamy was definetly a godless communist...and he hated america. Wait...
posted by RobertFrost at 12:07 PM on August 25, 2005


I'm not sure - correct me if I'm wrong - but the Dutch translation of DeBrecht is "hyperventilating author with fists of ham."
posted by Jazznoisehere at 12:08 PM on August 25, 2005


I think a fitting counterpoint to this book would be The Conservatives in the Closet.
posted by I Foody at 12:15 PM on August 25, 2005


I'm with jonmc. I'm betting that 75% of people in the US are sickened by both the liberal and conservative extremes.
posted by Carbolic at 12:17 PM on August 25, 2005


I'm with jonmc. I'm betting that 75% of people in the US are sickened by both the liberal and conservative extremes.

i would be willing to bet that 75% of people in the u.s. have absolutely no idea what either term actually means.
posted by lord_wolf at 12:23 PM on August 25, 2005


Oh, for goodness sake. It's a silly little book about Hillary Clinton keeping kids from selling lemonade. It's satire, like Uncle Shelby's ABZ book. It's not some kind of hate propaganda, it's a joke about the left. It's the sort of thing that Democrats have done loads of times, with hillarious effect. (There was a particularly good parody I saw in the bookstore where the kids help Bush hunt through the book for non-existent WMD's) Lighten up, will ya?
posted by unreason at 12:24 PM on August 25, 2005


i would be willing to bet that 75% of people in the u.s. have absolutely no idea what either term actually means.

nor do they care. perhaps they're on to something. the worst thing about politics is political people (of any ideolgy): they're rigid, have horrible taste, veiw the world through a narrow, moralistic lens, and tend to have horrible taste and lousy senses of humor.
posted by jonmc at 12:28 PM on August 25, 2005


so, you're saying they have horrible taste?
posted by prodigalsun at 12:38 PM on August 25, 2005


Lighten up, will ya?

unreason, i see it differently. to me, there's always a palpable trace of genuine hateful bitterness in things like this from the right. people on the left can and will satirize and mock people and politicians on the left; the preponderance of things i've seen suggest to me that the right as a group is extremely reluctant to do anything other than present a unified front, especially in the rovian era. the minute you do anything disrespectful, you're excommunicated.

if you can point me towards any, i would love to see some examples of satire/send-up from the right, with the same nasty tone as the book that's the subject of this post, directed at the right.
posted by lord_wolf at 12:39 PM on August 25, 2005


sounds like its time for supply side jesus to kick some liberal ass!
posted by sandking at 12:40 PM on August 25, 2005


Her name is Clinton but she calls her Clunkton. That makes it funny, see? And Senator Kruckle is fat and has a pig nose, so it it's funny...

Oh, for the National Lampoon of yesteryear. Satire written by people who could both pronounce the word and use it correctly in a sentence. This is humor for people who find Rush Limbaugh insightful as well as entertaining.
posted by doctor_negative at 12:41 PM on August 25, 2005


jonmc: "i would be willing to bet that 75% of people in the u.s. have absolutely no idea what either term actually means. nor do they care. perhaps they're on to something."

Yes what was that thing called? They say it's bliss.
posted by fleacircus at 12:43 PM on August 25, 2005



Yes what was that thing called? They say it's bliss


"Withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy" - Richard Linklater
posted by jonmc at 12:48 PM on August 25, 2005


It's not some kind of hate propaganda, it's a joke about the left.

It's really not. It's misinformation posing as satire.
posted by psmealey at 12:48 PM on August 25, 2005


This is humor for people who find Rush Limbaugh insightful as well as entertaining.

So what you're saying is most of the country will love this book. Good enough for me!
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 12:49 PM on August 25, 2005


I think she's hawt....
posted by Debaser626 at 12:58 PM on August 25, 2005


Not to give away the ending of the book, but it involves liberals, time travel, two abortions, and a thirsty town wishing they could have a glass of lemonade.
posted by I Foody at 1:00 PM on August 25, 2005


It's like if Ann Coulter wrote for children, instead of adults with the minds of children...
posted by uosuaq at 1:00 PM on August 25, 2005


My friend Scott just blogged about this.
Come on. In the real world, the only tax those kids pay on their earnings is the sales tax on the swing set they buy, and that was most certainly not put there by liberals, who will generally argue that all sales taxes are regressive and should be eliminated. If the most liberal viewpoint on taxes prevailed, we'd have a progressive income tax and no sales tax, and the kids would not pay a dime in taxes at any point, or at least not until they were pulling in a couple thou a month from lemonade.

If the most conservative viewpoint on taxes prevailed, on the other hand, we'd have a flat tax, and a couple kids who make fifty bucks selling lemonade would be taxed at exactly the same rate as Bill Gates.
posted by Zed_Lopez at 1:09 PM on August 25, 2005


i would be willing to bet that 75% of people in the u.s. have absolutely no idea what either term actually means.

Exactly the reaction I would expect from the other 25%.
posted by Carbolic at 1:10 PM on August 25, 2005


This is humor for people who find Rush Limbaugh insightful as well as entertaining.

So what you're saying is most of the country will love this book. Good enough for me!
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 3:49 PM EST on August 25


Weren't you supposed to say "ditto"? BTW, how's that philandering, prison evading, criminally inclined dope addict doing these days? Still got that "talent on loan from God" thang?
posted by nofundy at 1:11 PM on August 25, 2005


Hmm... a person with a user name comprised of a city in France and a town in New Jersey (both starting with the same letter), tossing out brainless GOP one-liners. Where have we seen this before?
posted by psmealey at 1:17 PM on August 25, 2005


Zed-- Your friend Scott made a very broad statement that he couldn't possibly defend.
posted by Kwantsar at 1:18 PM on August 25, 2005


posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 3:49 PM EST on August 25 [!]

"StrasbourgSecaucus". Sigh.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:21 PM on August 25, 2005


who would ever chose "Katharine DeBrecht" as a pen name.

Can we just kill all the liberals and all the conservatives? I'm righteously disgusted with both of them and either side ceased to be about right and wrong a long time ago.

You're an idiot.
posted by delmoi at 1:22 PM on August 25, 2005


Thats golden. I wonder how many friendly neighborhood conservatives remember that the original pledge of allegiance, as written by Francis Bellamy in 1892, made no mention of a nation under god. The Knights of Colombus helped us out with that one when fear of becoming a "godless communist" in the 1950s was all the rage.

"I pledge allegiance to my flag, and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty, justice, and equality for all."

Of course it was all Anti-confederate propaganda at the time.
posted by delmoi at 1:26 PM on August 25, 2005


*blows kisses at delmoi*

you're an adolescent self-important gasbag, but I won't hold it against you.
posted by jonmc at 1:26 PM on August 25, 2005


Weren't you supposed to say "ditto"?

I consider myself a unique individual.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 1:43 PM on August 25, 2005


(StrasbourgSecaucus, I respect your opinion, but I totally agree with that assessment.)
posted by nobody at 1:48 PM on August 25, 2005


"It's satire, like Uncle Shelby's ABZ book. It's not some kind of hate propaganda, it's a joke about the left"

Why is so much political 'humor' lately purile partisan crap for literal minded illiterate smoothbrains?

Seriously, where the hell is the other end of the bell curve? 80% of the country can't be engaging in discourse indicative of sub-90 IQ levels.

"You're an idiot.
posted by delmoi "

I stand corrected.

Man, I miss Nast. Hell, I even miss Krassner. One can be silly, even childish, without being stupid.

Hey! liberals suck ass! huh huh huh! It's a JOKE!

/insert 'conservatives' where appropriate in another thread discussing liberal satire of conservatives

You're far more effective in not only humor but in point if you accurately reflect and satirize the subject's foibles instead of wontonly distorting reality.
Parody works on exaggeration, etc. etc.
All have some connection to the actuality of the subject.
Joe Heller, Richard Condon - the fucking Onion, see, is satire.

This is dreck. One is not talented based on political affiliation. Reverse the affiliation here and my comments would remain the same.

I feel like Dr. Wilhelm Stuckart arguing for form in the face of fanatics wanting only their point.
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266425/ - not Godwining, just first example that came to mind of adherance to form and desire to accurately represent the reality of something instead of bogeymaning it)
posted by Smedleyman at 1:52 PM on August 25, 2005


"Can we just kill all the liberals and all the conservatives?"

You offering $500 jonmc ?
posted by Smedleyman at 1:54 PM on August 25, 2005


Oh, for goodness sake. It's a silly little book about Hillary Clinton keeping kids from selling lemonade. It's satire, like Uncle Shelby's ABZ book. It's not some kind of hate propaganda, it's a joke about the left. It's the sort of thing that Democrats have done loads of times, with hillarious effect.

Aren't jokes supposed to be, you know, funny?

I've seen skewers of the left that were funny and insightful. This is neither. It does indeed read like hate propoganda - when has Ms. Clinton ever done anything even vaguely similar to blocking lemonade stand sales, after all? What actual event or inclination is being parodied here?

How is anyone supposed to know it's a joke when it's so humorless? How are you so sure now?
posted by Western Infidels at 2:17 PM on August 25, 2005


As a lefty libertarian lemme just say I hate all of you.

Actually, I think the fringes have adequately useful descriptions, it's the prescriptions that fail. The mushy middle can in fact go screw themselves however. 60% for the war two years ago, 60% against the war now. Morans.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:25 PM on August 25, 2005


What actual event or inclination is being parodied here

I think they're referring to healthy eating initiatives in public schools, ie, no junk food machines, cafeteria dietary requirements, etc.

Of course the junk food multinationals are just like little wee lemonade stands.
posted by CynicalKnight at 2:38 PM on August 25, 2005


It seems to be missing the section where the liberals and the conservatives shut down the stand with the Duhgital Muhlinium Lemonade Act (which they passed at the behest of Minuht Made after some big contributions) which makes all combinations of lemon juice, sugar and H2O the exclusive territory of bottling corporations.
posted by phearlez at 2:40 PM on August 25, 2005


"I'm betting that 75% of people in the US are sickened by both the liberal and conservative extremes."

I thought the problem was that US liberals and conservatives were pretty much indistinguishable.

Here's the more accurate satire of the American liberal, I think.
posted by washburn at 2:42 PM on August 25, 2005


I thought the problem was that US liberals and conservatives were pretty much indistinguishable.

I think that was always about the Democrats (in power) and the Republicans (in power), washburn.
posted by nobody at 2:56 PM on August 25, 2005


Well played, phearlez.
posted by gigawhat? at 3:06 PM on August 25, 2005


"I saw Mrs. Johnson NOT making her son, George, eat his vegetables!"

"...for every glass of lemonade you sell, you must, I say, you MUST give two pieces of broccoli with it."


My god, doesn't she even have an editor? If I published something this poorly written, I'd be so embarrassed, I'd have to move to another country.

But as for the politics... I don't know. It just freaks me out that the Republicans are so completely venomous towards the Democrats. Not that I don't expect them to be venomous; I do. But I don't understand why it's towards the Democrats and not the left.

The Democrats, by and large, are not opposed to the occupation of Iraq. They're opposed to Bush's management of the occupation. The left, on the other hand (which includes a wide range of folks - Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, Cindy Sheehan, me, and thousands of people from various parts of the country, ideological backgrounds, and walks of life) is very much opposed to the occupation and wants to withdraw the troops. It's this segment of the population that ought to worry the Republicans, but they're hardly ever even mentioned in the media. The GOP and Fox News and Rush will bash Hillary or Ted morning, noon, and night, but the actual anti-war movement might as well not exist, with the possible exception of Cindy Sheehan, and she's being ignored as much as possible.

And as I said, this willing blindness to a part of the political reality messes with my head. Because I keep thinking... "Okay, there's this almost psychotic hatred of the Democrats now. But what happens when the GOP sets its sights on the real enemy?" It's like standing there, watching dad, just home from work, toss back shots of bourbon, listening to him complain about his boss, waiting for him to say something about the dent in the family car.
posted by Clay201 at 3:10 PM on August 25, 2005


It's a little disturbing to see propaganda aimed at children, but I'm not going to lose much sleep over this. The author is simply pandering to a demographic that is willing to pay big bucks to be pandered to.
posted by Jatayu das at 3:23 PM on August 25, 2005


From the Author's Note: most Libs slammed the door on the fact that Bush’s record 51% of the vote was not a mandate

By "record 51% of the vote" (which is rounded up), I assume she means a record low, because it ain't a record high. Bush won by the smallest margin of victory for a reelected president since the formation of the modern political party system in 1828. Of all of the presidents reelected since 1804, only Woodrow Wilson in 1916 won a smaller share of the available electoral college votes.

Bush's popular vote percentages are middlin', too (results since 1828, via WikiPedia):
  1. 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson, 61.1
  2. 1936, Franklin D. Roosevelt, 60.8
  3. 1972, Richard Nixon, 60.7
  4. 1920, Warren G. Harding, 60.3
  5. 1984, Ronald Reagan, 58.8
  6. 1928, Herbert Hoover, 58.2
  7. 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt, 57.4
  8. 1956, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 57.4
  9. 1904, Theodore Roosevelt, 56.4
  10. 1828, Andrew Jackson, 56.0
  11. 1872, Ulysses S. Grant, 55.6
  12. 1952, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 55.2
  13. 1864, Abraham Lincoln, 55.0
  14. 1940, Franklin D. Roosevelt, 54.7
  15. 1832, Andrew Jackson, 54.2
  16. 1924, Calvin Coolidge, 54.0
  17. 1944, Franklin D. Roosevelt, 53.4
  18. 1988, George H. W. Bush, 53.4 [Junior didn't do as well as Daddy.]
  19. 1840, William Henry Harrison, 52.9
  20. 1868, Ulysses S. Grant, 52.7
  21. 1900, William McKinley, 51.6
  22. 1908, William Howard Taft, 51.6
  23. 1896, William McKinley, 51.0
  24. 1836, Martin Van Buren, 50.8
  25. 1852, Franklin Pierce, 50.8
  26. 1980, Ronald Reagan, 50.7
  27. 2004, George W. Bush, 50.7
  28. 1976, Jimmy Carter, 50.1
  29. 1948, Harry S. Truman, 49.6
  30. 1844, James K. Polk, the Napoleon of the Stump, 49.5
  31. 1960, John F. Kennedy, 49.3
  32. 1916, Woodrow Wilson, 49.2
  33. 1996, Bill Clinton, 49.2
  34. 1884, Grover Cleveland, 48.5
  35. 1880, James Garfield, 48.3
  36. 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes, 47.9
  37. 2000, George W. Bush, 47.9
  38. 1888, Benjamin Harrison, 47.8
  39. 1848, Zachary Taylor, 47.3
  40. 1892, Grover Cleveland, 46.0
  41. 1856, James Buchanan, 45.3
  42. 1968, Richard Nixon, 43.4
  43. 1992, Bill Clinton, 43.0
  44. 1912, Woodrow Wilson, 41.8
  45. 1860, Abraham Lincoln, 39.8
posted by kirkaracha at 3:35 PM on August 25, 2005


I can't remember the word for something that takes the form of a joke without the content of a joke or the humor of a joke. But there seems a big, bullying increase of that style of humor since Bush barely won a second term.
posted by maxsparber at 5:18 PM on August 25, 2005


since Bush barely won a second term.

You know, according to the stats above, Clinton got only about 1.3 percent more of the popular vote than Bush. Somehow, I don't seem to recall anyone on the left saying that this meant that Clinton "barely won", or "didn't have a mandate". I voted for Kerry too, but he lost. Get over it. As the old saying goes, close only counts with horse-shoes and hand-grenades.
posted by unreason at 5:27 PM on August 25, 2005


close only counts with horse-shoes and hand-grenades.

And bocci. Don't forget bocci.
posted by psmealey at 6:12 PM on August 25, 2005


Hey kirkaracha, Why does Bill Clinton get two places on that list? Oh, OK so does Nixon.

Jey jonmc, would it work if I just gave you $250 and then killed half the liberals and conservatives myself?
posted by Balisong at 6:22 PM on August 25, 2005


Clinton got only about 1.3 percent more of the popular vote than Bush

That's an artifact of Perot getting 18% and 8% of the vote in 92 and 96.

Clinton at least can claim to have received more popular votes than any other candidate, something that Bush couldn't in 2000. Bush only took office because several thousand old people in southern Florida made consistent voting errors and accidentally voted for Buchanan.

Clinton's margins of victory in the popular vote were both twice as large as Bush's margin in 2004.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:28 PM on August 25, 2005


Jey jonmc, would it work if I just gave you $250 and then killed half the liberals and conservatives myself?

How 'bout you just buy me a drink and I'll continue heckling them?
posted by jonmc at 6:37 PM on August 25, 2005


When right-wingers try to be funny it never quite comes out right, does it?
posted by clevershark at 6:38 PM on August 25, 2005


That's an artifact of Perot getting 18% and 8% of the vote in 92 and 96.

Um, Perot pulled votes mostly from the right, not the left. Clinton's margin would've been smaller, not larger.

Clinton's margins of victory in the popular vote were both twice as large as Bush's margin in 2004.

Yes, and both of them had larger margins than Kerry's win in 2000. So? Look, all I'm saying is that there have been a lot of close elections, and complaining about the close ones only when it's your guy that loses gets real old real fast. We lost. They won. Deal with it, and prepare so that it doesn't happen again in the next election.
posted by unreason at 6:53 PM on August 25, 2005


The problem with this book is that (based on that excerpt) it's not funny. If it were actually amusing then liberals I'm sure would have a laugh at themselves.

But it's not funny.
posted by zardoz at 6:56 PM on August 25, 2005


That I'll agree with, zardoz. The people best at making fun of liberals are disgruntled liberals: Denis Leary, Dennis Miller in his pre-Bush lapdog days, Lenny Bruce, Carl Reiner, Mordecai Richler etc.
posted by jonmc at 7:04 PM on August 25, 2005


I voted Perot in 2000!

(/ducks)
posted by Balisong at 8:45 PM on August 25, 2005


er, no, that was in 96, I voted for Gore in 2000. Perot was a gasbag that I'm glad doesn't rule 2005, but I'd bet we have an 'out' plan.
posted by Balisong at 8:48 PM on August 25, 2005


How can people even think like this? Before you start shouting "thought crime," I am just wondering what the point is in demonizing a person or group whose only offense is disagreeing with you on government policies. Do members of these two ends of the spectrum not even see each other as people?

Also StrasbourgSecaucus, I don't know whose sock you are, but they can stand to do some laundry. Use some fabric softener, too.
posted by jenovus at 9:34 PM on August 25, 2005


I'm glad Clinton won, both times, but I think he probably wouldn't have if Perot hadn't won. I certainly wouldn't claim he had a mandate.

The arrogance of the Bush administration and their supporters is annoying, though, when they claim a middlin' margin of victory as a huge win, when it puts him pretty solidly among the mediocre presidents [mp3]
posted by kirkaracha at 11:39 PM on August 25, 2005


Well, since the thread has wandered so far off course anyway: I've never figured out why Republicans hated Clinton. He gave them everything he ever wanted.

He balanced the budget. He supported WTO, NAFTA, and permanant "most favored" trading status for China. He slashed welfare. He reduced Social Security benefits. He bombed Iraq and several other countries fairly regularly. He stalled on Kyoto. He signed the anti-gay "defense of marriage" act.

It's the Democrats that should be angry with him.
posted by Jatayu das at 3:55 AM on August 26, 2005


Do members of these two ends of the spectrum not even see each other as people?

No. I don't think they do. Each side sees it's counterpart as the embodiment of eveything wrong with the world, up to and including tooth decay, traffic jams, and wedgies.
posted by jonmc at 9:01 AM on August 26, 2005


Yeah, washburn, that would be the stuff.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:39 PM on August 26, 2005


"I've never figured out why Republicans hated Clinton."


That was part of their overall strategy of demonizing democrats. Eventually his presidency would over and the nation would have to choose again, and that new election will have some built-in bias against democrats. Quite dastardly, but clever. Sort of like working the refs.
posted by HiveMind at 9:57 PM on August 29, 2005


« Older Rather dark & Swiftian...   |   Graffiti or pictographs? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post