SOUTH BRONX SCHOOL: Matt Damon Beefcakes Michelle Malkin

Friday, August 5, 2011

Matt Damon Beefcakes Michelle Malkin

I think I am developing some sort of man crush on Matt Damon. In fact, I feel almost chivalrous, as if I am defending his honor.

I was warned last night by noted rabble rouser, and defender of the righteous, Rita Solnet that arch-conservative Michelle Malkin was to have a column in today's bastion of the English language, The New York Post, concerning Matt Damon.

So this morning after I had my morning coffee, I bent down and grabbed today's Post from under my cat's litter box. I sat down and read Michelle Malkin's convoluted, stupidity, stereotyped, Roger Ailes talking point column of hers.

Of course there are no facts, just opinions and hatred written by Malkin masquerading as what she conjures up in her mind as facts. Malkin blabbered; Government workers and Hollywood entertainers are impervious to economic incentives.

Honestly, has anyone gone into working for the government done it to be rich? I think there as always been a give and take. We will take less money, in return all we ask for his good benefits, a well funded and managed pension, and worse of all....due process. Not much to ask for. Oh, and maybe a pat on the back once in a while.

...the liberal box-office star addressed a “Save Our Schools” march in Washington at the behest of his mother, a professor of early-childhood education.

Wow, seems that Malkin must be hacking Matt and Mom Damon's voice mail. But seriously, how do you know that Michelle?

He attacked standardized tests.

As well he should.
He praised all the public-school teachers who “empowered” him and unlocked his creative potential by rejecting “silly drill- and-kill nonsense.” Damon decried the demoralization of teachers by ruthless, results-oriented free marketeers whom he mocked as “simple-minded.”

The bastard! How dare he say such things!!!

What Damon’s superficial tirade lacked, however, was any real-world understanding of the deterioration of core-curricular learning in America.

Michelle, you went to Oberlin, what do you know about real world? When was the last time you went to a Sox game, had a Fenway Frank, and chugged a beer? His mom is a teacher, you kind of figure that at least once they had a conversation about teaching.

Besides, what the hell do you know about core curricular learning?

Students can’t master simple division or fractions because today’s teachers -- churned out through lowest-common-denominator grad schools and shielded from competition -- have barely mastered those skills themselves.

So it has nothing to do with really, really bad curriculum forced upon teachers, where if teachers even deviate one iota from the "script" they can be brought up on charges?
Un-educators have abandoned “drill-and-kill” computation for multicultural claptrap and fuzzy math, traded in grammar fundamentals for “creative spelling” and dropped standard civics for save-the-earth propaganda.

No, not from real teachers. Seems like you just described "save the world" TFA's.

Consequence: bottom-basement US student scores on global assessments over the last two decades. Blaming the tests is blaming the messenger.

No. Please do not compare the US to other countries. Other countries do not have the poverty we do. Your country of origin, as are most others, are very homogenous. We are not.

The liberal education establishment’s response to its abject academic failures? Run away. This is why the Save Our Schools agenda championed by Damon calls for less curricular emphasis on math and reading -- and more focus on social justice, funding and “equity” issues.

Good God, where does Malkin think of this stuff? Never once have I ever heard this crap. Where did SOS or Damon say this? Prove it!

....Damon lashed out at a young reporter who had the audacity to ask him about the negative impact of lifetime teacher tenure. “In acting, there isn’t job security, right,”'s Michelle Fields asked Damon. “There is an incentive to work hard and be a better actor because you want to have a job. So why isn't it like that for teachers?”

So explain all the years that Marlon Brando acted like a dick on the sets of movies and got whatever he wanted. Fields asked dumb, talking point questions with no basis in fact.

It's elementary that people will work longer and harder if they know they will be rewarded.

Want to know how teachers wish to be rewarded? Better working conditions, smaller classes, support from administration, non-moronic curriculum, etc... I do not know one teacher that went into education for the money.

But Damon's hinges came undone when confronted with the mild question.

“You think job insecurity makes me work hard?” he retorted. “That's like saying a teacher is going to get lazy when she has tenure.” Damon unleashed crude profanities on Fields. “A teacher wants to teach,” Damon fumed with his mother next to him. “Why else would you take a sh- -ty” salary and really long hours and do that job unless you really loved to do it?"

Of course his hinges came undone! It was a false question, loaded with false pretenses, that wasn't thought out by a false reporter.

Never mind that most out-of-work Americans would find nothing “sh- -ty” about earning an average $53,000 annual salary plus health and retirement benefits for a 180-day work year.

Where does Malkin get this $53K figure? Average pay in Mississippi is $40K! besides, we are now being denied or having altered health and retirement benefits. But, the 180 days is more because teachers take work home. How many cops take work home? Pizza makers? Custodians? Deli clerks? UPS drivers? Nurses?

And when the young reporter's cameraman pointed out that there are bad apples in the teaching profession as in any profession, Damon called him “sh- -ty,” too.

No, he inquired as to whether or not he was a shitty cameraman, and said he does not know.
Go on Malkin, go ahead and just quote the LA Times, which allowed it's reporter, Jason Felch, to write biasly, and falsely about a teacher, and didn't blink an eye  when that teacher killed himself. Go ahead and quote the Goebbels propaganda film, Waiting for Superman, and all that nice stuff about lawyers and doctors and learn that it is false.

Of course Malkin should continue to make false and misleading assumptions about education and teachers. Everyone is the same, all are interconnected, and all are guilty by association.

But, since Malkin takes a pay check by News Corp, which is technically Murdoch, should we link her and associate her with all of Rupert's transgressions? Survey says, YES!


FOXviewer said...

Malkin is one of the more insane and blatant propagandists. Her approach is usually to stun her opposition with the most bent and vile half-truth and then claim some smug success.

Unknown said...

Michelle Malkin is the excrement you find on your shoe after walking through a dog run blindfolded in the dark. Of course, she's in good company: some of the leading right-wing columnists on education in the past two decades have been similarly-ignorant, smug women: Deborah Saunders of the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE is probably the most heinous. Saunders has shilled for the anti-progressive view on mathematics education reform (back when that word generally meant something politically and pedagogically progressive) going back to the 1990s. Malkin is cut from the same cloth, uses the same tactics, and is at least as repugnant.

Seth said...

Um, didn't I read somewhere that the average government employee makes twice as much as heir private sector counterpart? The sad part? This post will probably get deleted.

Pete Zucker said...

Read somewhere? Where? Can you provide a link?

I do not delete comments. I do not moderate comments. Sorry to disappoint you.

I have deleted one comment, and that was because someone posted a link to photos of someone's family. This was a person I had skewered on this blog.

I have been attacked, and called quite a bit of things, but unlike the deformers who are afraid of being contradicted and exposed and therefore either moderate comments or don't allow comments, you will never see that happen here.

Pete Zucker said...

Oh, and the post you see two above you was deleted by the author for he double posted.

Bradley S Rees said...

Wow, you really took Malkin apart there! Ad hominem, name-calling, and basic economic illiteracy: all stock-in-trade for defenders of the status quo.
Bronx: "Where does Malkin get this $53K figure?" (Bureau Of Labor Statistics.)
Malkin: "...and more focus on social justice, funding and “equity” issues."

Bronx: "Good God, where does Malkin think of this stuff? Never once have I ever heard this crap. Where did SOS or Damon say this? Prove it!"
Not sure if SOS or Damon said it, but you yourself have blamed "poverty" for "90%" of the problems in education, on your BlogTalk shows, Bronx. And doesn't TFT have an "End Poverty" chiclet on his site? And a Facebook group along the same lines?

Here's my question: How do you propose we deal with poverty? (And the answer: "Spend $16 Trillion of American taxpayers' money in a 'war' against it" IS ALREADY TAKEN.)

Pete Zucker said...

Where have I defended the status quo? Please point it out.

So if you are not sure who said something, why say it?

Wishing to end poverty is a bad thing?

I was never going to say spend $16 million of American taxpayers money to end poverty.

Unknown said...

Bradley, your disdain for the impoverished and facts is why you are on the fringe and why I won't debate you on Neil's show.

You want a debate? Come on my show.

Pete Zucker said...

Bradley shows what a caring and loving person he is here:

One of his more heartwarming lines is; "The woman being interviewed was at least 400 pounds. And, while the news story didn’t include her kids, it’s a safe bet that they’re a couple of lard-asses who could probably survive skipping a few meals, too."

Wow, well said. Do you know why she is 400 lbs as you claim? Do you know anything about her? Have you spoken with this woman? Have you attempted to find out her back story?

No, you just decide to lump her into your pre-conditioned brain decide without facts what is, and what should be.

What is even scarier, are the types of wet dreams Bradley has; "And right out the window went the possibility of having a lucid dream where I’m a member of CTU’s tac squad, running through the underbrush in full Kevlar with a converted TEC-9, a Glock .40-cal in a leg holster, and awaiting orders from Chloe at CTU command."

Bradley S Rees said...

I have no disdain for the impoverished, TFT. Again with baseless allegations and ridicule. (Disdain for facts? I'm not the one who couldn't read a simple widget on a 3-year-old website and then tweeted false assumptions supposedly based on said widget.) You refuse to come on Neil's show and debate me, TFT, because you know I won't be muted there, which immediately puts you at a disadvantage.

As for you, Bronx, I was merely pointing out your righteous indignation over Malkin's claims was manufactured. Because, not only have you absolutely HEARD that "crap," you've SAID it.

No, wishing to end poverty is not a "bad thing," and I never said it was. Quit putting words in my mouth. Wishing away reality, however, makes you neither a dreamer nor a visionary. It makes you a loser.

Poverty is, always has been, and always will be a reality. This doesn't mean we shouldn't all hope to alleviate its effects. But, when the only "solutions" I've ever heard from the left have involved extracting property from those who've lawfully acquired it, you must forgive me for being a bit cynical as to the purity of the motives.

What "progressives" need to remember is that there is no "good intentions" clause in the Constitution. Saying that doesn't make ME "fringe." Denying it? THAT's "fringe," and stupid.

Bradley S Rees said...

Damn, Bronx. I have to give you a "solid B-plus" for cherrypicking.

I actually had to go back and reread that post (from 1 1/2 years ago) to remember what exactly I said there, since you provided ZERO context. And I would hope that the readers here actually follow that link, and read the post for themselves. While I *may* have made some assumptions about that particular woman, the overall argument can NOT be broken.

As to your pull-quote regarding what I may or may not have dreamed about, there again your cherrypicking neglects to provide absolutely crucial context.