One Inconvenient Truth About Michael Medved: He’s An Imbecile

The title says it all: “Six inconvenient truths about the U.S. and slavery“. Yes, it’s exactly what you think it is, a revisionist ‘essay’ on slavery – and yes, it’s as bad as (if not worse than) you’d expect, considering the source. Apparently erstwhile movie critic and conservative pundit Michael Medved is living on some cozy, antebellum plantation far, far away from what the rest of us commonly refer to as ‘reality’.

Maha pointedly asks “What the hell was eating at Medved’s reptilian brain that inspired him to write this? Has criticism of American slavery been in the news lately?” Man, I gave up trying to understand Medved back when he was on Sneak Previews, railing against Hollywood’s secular humanist jihad on organized religion and good taste while poor Jeffrey Lyons struggled to keep a straight face (Medved on Pulp Fiction: “I hated it! I hated every frame of it! Well, I won’t say that I hated every frame of it. I mean, Bruce Willis and John Travolta have never been so mediocre, but I found it just rampagingly mediocre. But that’s enough about Pulp Fiction, let’s get to one of the films on my ten best list The Swan Princess. “)

Maybe CNN will give Medved a prime-time segment to defend his 6-point thesis (especially #3: THOUGH BRUTAL, SLAVERY WASN’T GENOCIDAL: LIVE SLAVES WERE VALUABLE BUT DEAD CAPTIVES BROUGHT NO PROFIT), much like they did back when he was offering notorious Hollywood anti-Semite alcoholic Mel Gibson some Judaic apologia.

Related: Ed Morrissey provides a sensibly conservative response to Medved’s sub-literate shit-stirring (as only a sensible conservative like Ed can):

In the end, it doesn’t matter whether we think that slavery was more brutal than it was, or whether it had some minutely positive affect on the arc of the lives of its descendants. Its long existence in the history of humanity should also count for little. After all, the entire American experiment exists as a means to keep a free citizenry from becoming the chattel of an aristocracy or monarchy and able to govern itself freely. At its heart, slavery denied every American ideal, and the Jim Crow regime that followed betrayed our political values. Those insults deserve no mitigation, only contempt and fierce condemnation.

Won’t bother linking to the reliably frothy Dan Riehl’s not-so-sensible response (“[g]et over it, already”), since, well, I refuse to give Dan Riehl a link – ever. Suffice to say, he’s clapping for Medved like a slack-jawed circus seal (arf arf). Incidentally, CNN also considers Riehl to be a mainstream representative of the Right.

“Liberal bias” my ass.

More from: Michael van der Galiën, Sadly, No!, Lean Left and Crooked Timber

Via Memeorandum.

14 Responses to “One Inconvenient Truth About Michael Medved: He’s An Imbecile”

  1. I don’t care… I’ve been writing my post for close to an hour now, I’m FINISHING IT dang it!

  2. Macswain says:

    Jeebus, the first line of Medved’s piece equates criticism of America’s slaving holding past with being anti-American. I would hope that all sane people would realize then that they are not dealing with an honest person.

  3. xranger says:

    Strange piece by Medved. Must be a slow news day.

    But, The Swan Princess was a cute movie.

  4. FS says:

    I’m no fan of Medved, but I thought Pulp Fiction was unwatchable.

  5. Shawn says:

    So, Mike, by your logic, the various European pogroms against your ancestors were good becuase they led to you being here. Priceless.

    Thanks for doing your best to alienate any all non-white voters out there. Really, we Democrats thank you for that.

  6. Macswain says:

    FS,

    Please allow me to retort.

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

    Unwatch that!

  7. Shawn,

    I am not sure why you directed your question to me, this is not my post. What was your point?

  8. You know what, I have been thinking a bit Shawn and I am getting more and more disturbed by your comment.

    I have done my part to play nice with the good people of the Democratic party in Western PA and where has it gotten me? Let’s see. Scorn from my friends when I do not support the people they like. Not even a thank you when I go out of my way to promote events or volunteer my time. Ignored when I offer to take a long vacant seat in a district that is teetering on the verge of voting D for the first time in 50 years.

    I am sorry but if something that is said on this blog, which is bought and paid for with money from my pocket that would otherwise be used to support my family, offends or alienates “we Democrats” then so be it. Maybe if “we Democrats” starting acting like the party we claim to be there would be fewer things to be alienated from.

  9. matttbastard says:

    Psst – Michael, although it was inarticulately phrased, I believe Shawn was referring his question to ‘Mike’ Medved (ie, past European pogroms that lead to Jewish migration to the US; apologia for slavery from a conservative inevitably alienating the Black electorate, thus providing another boon for the Democratic Party–heck of a job, etc).

  10. Wow Shawn, I thought living up the “North country” had really had an adverse effect on you.

  11. Shawn says:

    Mike,

    Sorry, I was referring to Mr. Medved. Honest mistake, really. I mean, how many guys named Mike…oh, wait…

  12. Norm Milliken says:

    I’m just amazed that he didn’t find some way to make the whole slavery episode the fault of Bill Clinton and seditious Liberal traitors.

  13. Of course he didn’t blame Clinton. Clinton is only reserved for the most heinous of social grievances, like Social Security and Paris Hilton. Clinton couldn’t have caused slavery because, as Medved puts it, slavery just really wasn’t all that bad.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook