1. Michael Moore 2. Arthur Sulzberger 3. Ted Kennedy 4. Jesse Jackson 5. Anthony Romero 6. Jimmy Carter 7. Margaret Marshall 8. Paul Krugman 9. Jonathan Kozol 10. Ralph Neas 11. Noam Chomsky 12. Dan Rather 13. Andrew Heyward 14. Mary Mapes 15. Ted Rall 16. John Edwards 17. Al Sharpton 18. Al Gore 19. George Soros 20. Howard Dean 21. Judge Roy Moore 22. Michael Newdow 23. The Unknown American Terrorist 24. Lee Bollinger 25. James Kopp 26. Dr. Martin Haskell 27. Paul Begala 28. Julian Bond 29. John Green 30. Latrell Sprewell 31. Maury Povich 32. Jerry Springer 33. Bob Shrum 34. Bill Moyers 35. Jeff Danziger 36. Nancy Hopkins 37. Al Franken 38. Jim McDermott 39. Peter Singer 40. Scott Harshbarger 41. Susan Beresford 42. Gloria Steinem 43. Paul Eibeler 44. Dennis Kozlowski 45. Ken Lay 46. Barbara Walters 47. Maxine Waters 48. Robert Byrd 49. Ingrid Newkirk 50. John Vasconellos 51. Ann Pelo 52. Markos Moulitsas 53. Anna Nicole Smith 54. Neal Shapiro 55. David Westin 56. Diane Sawyer 57. Ted Field 58. Eminem 59. Shirley Franklin 60. Ludacris 61. Michael Savage 62. Howard Stern 63. Amy Richards 64. James Wolcott 65. Oliver Stone 66. David Duke 67. Randall Robinson 68. Katherine Hanson 69. Matt Kunitz 70. Jimmy Swaggart 71. Phil Donahue 72. Ward Churchill 73. Barbara Kingsolver 74. Katha Politt 75. Eric Foner 76. Barbara Foley 77. Linda Hirshman 78. Norman Mailer 79. Harry Belafonte 80. Kitty Kelley 81. Tim Robbins 82. Laurie David 83. The Dumb and Vicious Celebrity 84. The Vicious Celebrity 85. The Dumb Celebrity 86. Chris Ofili 87. Sheldon Hackney 88. Aaron McGruder 89. Jane Smiley 90. Michael Jackson 91. Barbara Streisand 92. Kerri Dunn 93. Richard Timmons 94. Guy Velella 95. Courtney Love 96. Eve Ensler 97. Todd Goldman 98. Sheila Jackson Lee 99. Matthew Lesko 100. Rick and Kathy Hilton
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
In my not so humble opinion, any list like that that has Jimmy Carter in the number six slot is full of crap. He's a great humanitarian, a good Christian, among many other things, even if his term in the presidency was less than stellar. He is making the world a better place, not a worse one.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Well, I don't think I'll be buying it. Or going to the library to read it.
Many of the people on that list haven't done more than give their opinion on something - that shouldn't be considered "screwing up" anything regardless of how stupid their opinion may or may not be.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I don't see any prominent Republicans on that list. Surely at least one of them is screwing up America.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: The number one New York Times bestselling author of Bias delivers another bombshell -- this time aimed at ...
100 People Who Are Screwing Up America
No preaching. No pontificating. Just some uncommon sense about the things that have made this country great -- and the culprits who are screwing it up.
Bernard Goldberg takes dead aim at the America Bashers (the cultural elites who look down their snobby noses at "ordinary" Americans) ... the Hollywood Blowhards (incredibly ditzy celebrities who think they're smart just because they're famous) ... the TV Schlockmeisters (including the one whose show has been compared to a churning mass of maggots devouring rotten meat) ... the Intellectual Thugs (bigwigs at some of our best colleges, whose views run the gamut from left wing to far left wing) ... and many more.
Goldberg names names, counting down the villains in his rogues' gallery from 100 all the way to 1 -- and, yes, you-know-who is number 37. Some supposedly "serious" journalists also made the list, including the journalist-diva who sold out her integrity and hosted one of the dumbest hours in the history of network television news. And there are those famous miscreants who have made America a nastier place than it ought to be -- a far more selfish, vulgar, and cynical place.
But Goldberg doesn't just round up the usual suspects we have come to know and detest. He also exposes some of the people who operate away from the limelight but still manage to pull a lot of strings and do all sorts of harm to our culture. Most of all, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America is about a country where as long as anything goes, as one of the good guys in the book puts it, sooner or later everything will go.
This is serious stuff for sure. But Goldberg will also make you laugh as he harpoons scoundrels like the congresswoman who thinks there aren't enough hurricanes named after black people, and the environmentalist to the stars who yells at total strangers driving SUVs -- even though she tools around the country in a gas-guzzling private jet.
With Bias, Bernard Goldberg took us behind the scenes and exposed the way Big Journalism distorts the news. Now he has written a book that goes even further. This time he casts his eye on American culture at large -- and the result is a book that is sure to become the voice of all those Americans who feel that no one is speaking for them on perhaps the most vital issue of all: the kind of country in which we want to live.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Michael Savage is conservative. And deserves to be on this list.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
21. Judge Roy Moore
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Isn't Michael Savage the fellow who threatened to sue Bush over the term "companionate conservative?"
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: Reviewer: Joseph Schultz "Joe" (Ashland, OH) - See all my reviews I was expecting to be entertained by this book, but instead I was educated. I voted for Bush in 2000 and have pretty much been a staunch Republican all my life. But over those first four years I quickly discovered that Bush is not a Republican - he's a NEOCON. I didn't vote in 2004 because I couldn't support neocons. Neocons are the Sith who are secretly controlling the Republican party and the nation. With Goldberg's book, it became crystal clear that the people he lists are not enemies of America, nor are they even enemies of the true Republicans that are still out there. These people are the enemies of the neocons in power and this book is designed to keep them that way, at least among the masses who've been successfully coerced thus far. If all it takes to get a book published nowadays is to list a bunch of people you personally hate along with some a page or two of your own ranting, facts-need-not-apply reasons for doing so, then I'm starting my book tomorrow and should have it and my book deal done by the following day. It's clear Goldberg used this exact method on his book.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Al Franken is only on that list at all because he dared to debunk the b.s. in Goldberg's previous book.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Michael Moore doesn't have enough power to be the man most responsible for screwing up America. Most of the other names I recognize are media celebrities. I'll agree that the media do have a lot of collective power to cause trouble. But I suspect that those in political power have more, and they don't get much of a mention.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Jay, the funny thing about this thread, and this book, is that I am not a very "good" liberal, and half the people on that list are my idea of amazing Americans.
MM isn't one of them though...
I also thought it very funny that I could have guessed about half of the top 50. . .
Just because this was your thread.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It'd be a more amazing list if it had Dick Cheney, Bill Frist, Rumsfeld, most especially Anne Coulter, O'Reilly, and a host of other names on it.
As it stands, the majority of the people on that list hold little to no real power. They can't effect change on almost any level. Except for Jimmy Carter, who is a great humanitarian.
Sad, sad, sad little list.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
at kayla's quotation
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
This sounds about as stupid as the "Greatest American" show. Which is to say, very stupid indeed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*laugh* What an incredibly useless list.
Remind me some time to make a list of the people I find vaguely annoying and write a book called People Who Should Be Taken Out Back and Shot to Keep Our Country Free.
The difficulty, of course, would be in finding enough to write about each of them to fill a full-length book. I'd have to include pictures, large text, and a bunch of white space before each entry. Or I'd have to tell some imaginary personal anecdotes. Whichever seems easier.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Have I mentioned what a hackneyed, tired, stupid concept the whole 'sticking up for normal people by labeling everyone you disagree with elitest' thing is?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's remarkably elitist of you, Stormy.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Add me to your list, I guess. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But why are they considered bad Americans? Because they question the idea that America is a perfect, flawless country? Because some of them were against the Iraq war? What about the people who are even more vicious and negative, who do nothing but project lies and stereotypes on a regular basis? I have a lot of respect for many on the list, though Courtney Love and Michael Jackson irratate me, David Duke is annoying and Barbara Streisand did that horrible version of Stoney End and I will not forgive her for that.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Do people who donate to the Carter Foundation on a regular basis get to be part of the problem?
::hopes::
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd think Donna Brazil would be on there before Al Gore, at least she still actively participates in the Democratic party.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Lee Bolinger is the president of Columbia University. How, exactly does that screw up America?
Besides being the most ethnically diverse Ivy League school, Columbia is also swarming with liberal hippie intellectuals. What could be worse for America than non-whites learning?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Carter at #6?
Aaron McGruder, a comic strip artist at #88? McGruder is definitely biased, but he "screws up America?"
Paul Begala, but no Tucker Carlson?
No Ann Coulter, anywhere?
What an absurd, useless list. I'm not sure wheter to be ticked off, saddenned, or amused.
--j_k
[ July 10, 2005, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Why am I not listed?
I should be right after Noam Chomsky.
*shakes fist uselessly*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
On the plus side, Courtney Love is apparently neither a dumb nor a vicious celebrity, or else has done so much more good than your average dumb and/or vicious celebrity that she -- along with Babs and MJ -- are in fact better than most dumb/vicious celebrities. This must come as a relief.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Pretty obviously a quick money-maker that will get snapped up by smug neo-cons because it vindicates their own prejudices. Too bad he limited himself to the active ones, he could have complained about Margaret Sanger, Charles Darwin, Martin Luther King, Jackie Robinson, W. Mark Felt, Rosa Parks, Louis, Mary and Richard Leakey, the women who marched for suffrage... There are plenty of interfering, squawking people who simply did not know their place and who spoke out against the People Who Know What's Good For Us.
Not that I don't agree with some of the choices. You can keep Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Kitty Kelly if you'll also be honest enough to include Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly (of all the spiteful conservative commentators, only Michael Savage?). I agree about Michael Jackson, Courtney Love, and Ann Nicole Smith, although I don't know why the Hiltons are on there but their daughter isn't. The stack of celebrities whose only crime was to speak out against the war? Who cares? How much influence do they really have, anyway.
Eve Ensler? I gotta hear the reasoning behind that one. Is this guy that afraid of women?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Hey, where's Jon Stewart? He's gonna be peeved...
Why is Ken Lay on there but Jack Abramoff isn't? Was Lay's crime willful corporate malfeasance and influence peddling, or was it being caught?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
oooo, I didn't think of that, but Stewart would be rather annoyed at that.
I hope he mentions it on his show.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
By "Screwing Up America" he obviously means "talking a lot". Then the list makes sense.
Bill Moyers is screwing up America? Last I checked he is a retired interviewer for PBS. A liberal interviewer, but just an interviewer.
I'm sorta sad that Pat Leahy isn't on the list. Apparently being a senior member of the senate that the Vice President likes to cuss at isn't screwing up America. Damn.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
See, and it's completely rational for us to lampoon the list, the author's motivations, and the rationale for each person on the list, without so much as picking up the book! We're Americans, darn it! We don't need to see something to have an opinion about it!
So a conservative wrote a conservative book. Are we really going to wet our pants over it?
Michael Moore wrote a book that defined Stupid White Men, in part, as guys who ran large companies that provided needed products and gave jobs to hundreds of people. Nobody got worked up about his failure to lampoon people who agreed with him.
What's the suprise here?
This afternoon I picked up a book in the library about the greatest Presidents. Whoever had last checked it out had gone through the list putting question marks by all the ones they disagreed with (Carter low? Reagan high? Clinton just mediocre?) and exclamation points by the ones they liked (Rosevelt high, Kennedy high, etc).
Similiar marks were made throughout the book. Comment looks good for Democrats? Exclamation point! Comment looks bad for Democrats? Question mark! And the inverse for conservatives.
That's all anybody does, really. Wholeheartedly swallow anything that fits their world view, and question anything that would challenge it.
If you're interested in knowing why somebody would think somebody you respect is screwing up America, get the book from the library. If you're not, then there's probably still copies of Stupid White Men or Downsize This kicking around.
And before anybody accuses me of hypocrisy again, I have my copy of Downsize This! sitting three feet away from me as I type this. I saw every episode of TV Nation, and still have a few of them on tape kicking around somewhere. I've been a fan of Michael Moore's since his first film, despite my politics being completely the inverse of his. He can make me laugh like few others.
But I'm also looking forward to Larry Elder's film "Michael & Me," where he turns the tables on Moore.
It's all part of the dialogue in the media age.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Hey docmagik! How's it going? Yea comparing this to a Michael Moore book? Not the best way to convince people that it's rock solid.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Michael Moore wrote a book that defined Stupid White Men, in part, as guys who ran large companies that provided needed products and gave jobs to hundreds of people. Nobody got worked up about his failure to lampoon people who agreed with him.
Nobody got worked up over Moore, eh? You should get out more. I hear they've made entire movies debunking some of his claims.
quote:If you're interested in knowing why somebody would think somebody you respect is screwing up America, get the book from the library. If you're not, then there's probably still copies of Stupid White Men or Downsize This kicking around.
And what if you're not interested in what spin and lies either of these idiots throw around?
I'll write both off as ultra-biased drivel, and if I'm concerned with the issue at hand, I'll get the truth rather than try and average both sides' spin.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Who's saying it's rock solid?
I haven't read the book.
I'm not defending it. It might be drivel behind drivel.
I'm just saying--the book was written by a conservative. The list consists of liberals and people who give conservatives a bad name. Where's the shock in that? Why's everybody so amazed the list is biased?
If somebody had made a big fuss over the fact that a Michael Moore book said bad things about the war in Iraq--not a big fuss over his actual claims, but just a big fuss over the fact that he didn't like the President, you'd think this person was from Mars and didn't know how political books worked.
That's what I'm saying here. I'm not saying nobody got worked up over Moore's actual claims--I'm saying nobody was terribly shocked that he took the political stance that he did.
Am I explaining the difference clear enough?
If a dog poops on your carpet, you're going to get upset over what it's done to your carpet, not that the dog could create poop.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:That's what I'm saying here. I'm not saying nobody got worked up over Moore's actual claims--I'm saying nobody was terribly shocked that he took the political stance that he did.
So you think people are more annoyed because of the fact that he's a conservative with conservative views then what exactly his views are?
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Yes. I'm saying this thread is about people being shocked that the list is made up of nearly all liberals, when that's the kind of book it is.
It's like when my brother tried to warn us away from seeing "Evita."
He said, "I heard it's just a bunch of singing."
So yes.
The only other explanation--if you want something a little more inflammatory--is that this thread is a bunch of people doing exactly what they're accusing the author of the book of doing.
They're dismissing someone out of hand because of thier beliefs. "His beliefs are different from mine, ergo he is dangerous and/or silly."
Most of them do not actually know the rationale for his beliefs, why he included this or that obscure reference, but they're able to make quick assumptions and judgements based on what motivation would fit their view of conservatives.
Their assumption is that this man is making this list irrationally, simply because these people are disagreeing with him.
However, they are acting just as irrationally. They are not refuting his logic or his evidence--they can't because none of that is presented since this is just a list. They are dismissing him and his list based solely on the fact that it is different from their own.
Not saying that's wrong. That's what a liberal would do, just like cranking out this list is what a conservative would do.
That's what bias is.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay: So*… what do you all think of this book:
Right wing drivel. Meh.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually my assumption was based on the list and some extrapolation based on the common denominators. For all I know the title of the book is sarcastic and he likes them all. But it's clear, based on previous opinions expressed, that Jay believes this list is at least partially accurate, so I figured making fun of the list is fair game just to see how he responds.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Yes. I'm saying this thread is about people being shocked that the list is made up of nearly all liberals, when that's the kind of book it is.
It's not shock, it's annoyance. People aren't suprised that someone would write a book like this, or at least I know I'm not. So it's exactly the same as the reaction one gets from Michael Moore.
[/quote]Not saying that's wrong. That's what a liberal would do, just like cranking out this list is what a conservative would do.[/quote]
Wow, you've drawn yourself quite a thick line there. "This is what Liberals do... This is what Conservatives do..." That kind of thinking will always lead someone to think one side is inherently better. Three guesses as to which side you believe is better.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Jebus, I was saying that, just like a conservative would make a list that categorized people who thought differently from him as bad, liberals would then use that list to categorize him as bad.
In other words, I'm saying both sides are doing exactly the same thing.
Which means there's not a side I was pushing as being better. I was just tilting the scales back to center.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
What if you're peeved at demagogues and rabble-rousers and crooked politicians from both sides?
It's not opposing opinions that bother me. If this country can't handle hearing ideas we might as well fold up now. What bothers me the most is the tactics and methods used, even if I agree with the ideal behind them, because extremists of any stripe are more inclined to damage the society they're in just to achieve their short term goals.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Jebus, I was saying that, just like a conservative would make a list that categorized people who thought differently from him as bad, liberals would then use that list to categorize him as bad.
In other words, I'm saying both sides are doing exactly the same thing.
Which means there's not a side I was pushing as being better. I was just tilting the scales back to center.
You keep doing this Liberal/Conservative thing. I'm sure there are plenty of Conservatives who would dislike this list, aswell. Just like I know there are plenty of Liberals who dislike Michael Moore.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
Yep. All the right and left extremists gots tah go.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Only one probelm with that, doc....
I am not either. I AM tired of people on BOTH sides throwing around labels and making absurd claims about their opponants. I won't listen to Rush or AC (and I don't mean the bands here.. ) most of the time because I usually already know what they will say....it takes very little to guess what Al Franken and MM will say about the same issues as well.
I do like listening to Molly Ivans and Jon Stewart, and to O'Rielly sometimes, because at least they make some good points, even if I don't agree with ther conclusion all of the time.
There is a difference between hate-spewing and reporting, or even political commentary and humor.....and if I wanted to listen to a bunch of idiots spewing this type of crap I would just go listn to the a bunch of drunks down at the local bar talk about the Red Sox/Yankees games this year.
I guess you could say I am biased against poor attitudes, which is why I dislike MM and AC about the same amount. Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
dogmagik reminds me of Mr Card for some odd reason, are you OSC in disguise? You argue an excellent point. And as for getting rid of extremists... then where will us old Bolsheviks go?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I wouldn't say get rid of anyone..I have learned a few things from even right-wingers and extreme lefties.
I just don't thin that there is anything wrong with filtering out most of what some of these people think. I don't have to read through their crap to reconize the smell from a distance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Yes. I'm saying this thread is about people being shocked that the list is made up of nearly all liberals, when that's the kind of book it is.
Well, no. That's the kind of book it IS. The kind of book it CLAIMS to be is a list of the Top 100 People Screwing Up America.
I think what we're doing is pointing out that it's regrettable that this particular conservative believes the two lists are apparently conflated.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
Rather than the conservative bias of the list, I was more bothered by the fact that anyone has the stones to point to 100 people and declare that they're breaking a society that's been around for more than 200 years.
Last time I checked these people haven't shot anyone, or started antigovernment movements, or take part in burning down the White House. Most of them like a good hamburger like the average American. Most of them talk for a living, which just doesn't make the list for "Screwing Up America"-worthy professions.
I'd never say that Ann Coultier or Rush are screwing up America. I don't agree with them in the least, but they're just as right as the people I do agree with.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
To truely improve something you have to go beyond simply questioning and assaulting, it is always easy to be on the offensive. I can always come up with something you did wrong, no one is perfect. The difficult part is trying to construct, organize, and to keep something running smoothly on a day to day basis without any crazy abuse or perversion of power.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I would have to say that the current America is not a society that has been around for 200 years, I'd say it was more developed from around the time of WWII on.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Tom, it doesn't say that they're the top 100 people. Just that they are 100 people that are doing a certain thing. There could be 5 million people doing the same thing, and these 100 were picked at random from among them, in no particular order
Wheat, 200 years isn't a long time, and other vibrant cultures have gone into stagnation and decline in very short time periods in the past. I'm not saying this guy has the answers, but it's not completely preposterous either to consider the idea that America could make key mistakes that drop it into decline within a single generation.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Like Reagans military buildup, warz, pollution, sliding job markets.. etc etc. And as for burning down the white house us Canucks did that, in fact it wasn't even Canadians it was NEWFIES! You let newfies burn down the white house??!! Shame on you!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:If a dog poops on your carpet, you're going to get upset over what it's done to your carpet, not that the dog could create poop.
Wow. It's like a Zen koan. It seems so profound and yet it says absolutely nothing. May I quote this when I want to stun adversaries?
Posted by Loki (Member # 2788) on :
Anna Nicole Smith????!!!
Really, ANNA NICOLE SMITH???
Loki
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Wouldn't this list be more aptly titled "100 People That Largely Lack The Power To Either Improve Upon Or Screw Up America, Yet That Certain Radical Conservatives Like To Complain About Nevertheless"?
If there are liberals around who could be classified as capable of "screwing up America", they certainly aren't a bunch of Hollywood actors - whose power seems to be more along the lines of being capable of making successful movies.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:If a dog poops on your carpet, you're going to get upset over what it's done to your carpet, not that the dog could create poop.
Wow. It's like a Zen koan. It seems so profound and yet it says absolutely nothing. May I quote this when I want to stun adversaries?
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
quote:Wheat, 200 years isn't a long time, and other vibrant cultures have gone into stagnation and decline in very short time periods in the past. I'm not saying this guy has the answers, but it's not completely preposterous either to consider the idea that America could make key mistakes that drop it into decline within a single generation.
This is true, although I doubt anybody on that list classifies as screwing up America more or less than their mirrors on the opposite side of the political spectrum, which is to say that I don't think either are doing any permanent damage to America.
Posted by Gryphonesse (Member # 6651) on :
I'm still laughing at the author's need to include Matthew Lesko...
LOLOLOLOL
Posted by NinjaBirdman (Member # 7114) on :
The author was on the Daily Show tonight. Jon Stewart ripped him apart. It was quite funny. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It was rather entertaining.
Stewart is right, why is he attacking people with little to no power, and totally leaving alone the people who actually control what happens?
Some of the music industry, hip hop only, really, was perhaps his best defense. The common "bitches and hoes" argument I think is a valid one, that this type of music degrades women and sends negative messages. Yes it does, but his book didn't address 50 Cent, it attacked people like Tim Robbins and Barbara Streisand, who I think everyone in America would agree have little to no power to effect social change on the scale this guy apparently thinks they do.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)