Katie Goes Undercover
By Mitch Berg
Katie Kieffer infiltrated Speaker Pelosi’s office, and you just won’t believe what she turned up:
I’m a conservative blogger. My job is to scope out news that liberal media networks send to the shredder. This week, I did some sleuthing inside Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s office. You’ll never believe what I found out…
I wore a tie-dye t-shirt and a hippie wig, which worked better than a press pass to get into Pelosi’s chambers. Her aids welcomed me as one of their own granola-crunching comrades. I asked them to show me what the House was working on and they proudly showed me this press release that Pelosi was drafting:
PRESS RELEASE (DRAFT)
TO: THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
FROM: REP. NANCY PELOSI
I know, it’s tough out there. You’re hanging onto your job for dear life. You’re stressed. You’re tired. You’re working harder and longer hours than ever before. You need a break. So, you hit the bar. Then, you go home and crash. You get the munchies and raid the fridge. You’ve skipped the gym for the 12th day in a row.
THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL WARNING: You are now living in a no wake zone. Change your lifestyle now or you’ll get the pink slip.
And Madame De Speaker has some big lifestyle changes in mind for you, her subjects.
Did I say subjects? Constituents, I mean. Silly mistake.
Read the whole thing.
January 14th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
I guess when the truth isn’t impactful enough, you have to lie.
1. She didn’t go to Pelosi’s office
2. There is NO such press release
3. She conflates obesity prevention with termination notices and ‘forced education’ – she says (this being your heroine, not Pelosi) – that ‘purpotedy’ it will lead to education (cough) etc.. but has not actual PROOF of anything of the sort – and even if it DID lead to some education about the impacts of obesity, precisely what’s wrong with that? Obesity is now ranked second only to smoking as the leading preventable health impact. It’s called a pound of prevention, Mitch.
The worst part is, that she and you would apparently consider her ‘reporting’ as anything other than byper-biased opinion rant – it doesn’t reflect the truth, and effectively defames Pelosi and her staff. I know you don’t care about that – but the only one looking foolish, or rather the only two – are she for the fiction, and you for suggesting it represents Pelosi’s feelings about her constituents. Unless and until you interview Pelosi on this subject or she DIRECTLY does something even remotely akin to what you are accusing her of, what you are perpetrating here is nothing short of make-believe.
January 14th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Pen,
I guess when the truth isn’t impactful enough, you have to lie.
1. She didn’t go to Pelosi’s office
{{facepalm}}
No, Pen. And I’m also told that there really was no Ebenezer Scrooge, Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn were both fictional, the only real-life figures in War and Peace were Napoleon, Kuznetzov and the Czar (and even theyJ were fictionalized!), and Uncle Tom’s Cabin was entirely made-up!
I guess that means Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, Leo Tolstoii and Harriett Beecher Stowe were all teh liars, huh?
Sweet flippy monkeys, Pen – it’s satire.
3. She conflates obesity prevention with termination notices and ‘forced education’ – she says (this being your heroine, not Pelosi) – that ‘purpotedy’ it will lead to education (cough) etc.. but has not actual PROOF of anything of the sort
It’s a rhetorical point, Pen. Kieffer notes, rightly, that Obamacare gets deeply into regulating lifestyles.
Obesity is now ranked second only to smoking as the leading preventable health impact. It’s called a pound of prevention, Mitch.
Ah, well, that’s much better then. What other stressors should government get into regulating? Dissent, perhaps?
The worst part is, that she and you would apparently consider her ‘reporting’ as anything other than byper-biased opinion rant
Um, Pen? With all due respect – get a grip. Seriously. Take a deep breath.
It’s not “Reporting”. It’s pretty clearly satirical rhetoric toward a political point. And OF COURSE IT’S OPINION. That’s what personal blogs are, usually.
– it doesn’t reflect the truth,
Well, yes. It does. It satirizes the Democrats’ drive to dictate lifestyle choices. That is a fact.
and effectively defames Pelosi and her staff.
Defames?
OK, now you’ve just gotten in way over your head.
Defamation is something said or written to a third party that is factually untrue (not “opinion), and that has a reasonable chance of causing damage to their livelihood and reputation; since Pelosi is a public figure, she’d also have to prove Kieffer acted with malice. So how was Kieffer’s piece “defamation?”
It’s neither true nor untrue; you yourself called it “opinion”. It has no reasonable chance of harming anyone’s livelihood, other than hopefully getting Demcrats tossed from Congress – and that is most definitely protected speech (so far). And you’ll look long and hard to find any hint of malice that any court wouldn’t laugh out of the building.
Indeed, the only element of a “defamation” claim that you got right was that it was, indeed, expressed to a third party (Katie Kieffer’s audience). One out of five ain’t bad, I guess.
Go ahead. Ask all of your law-professor neighbors.
I know you don’t care about that – but the only one looking foolish, or rather the only two – are she for the fiction, and you for suggesting it represents Pelosi’s feelings about her constituents.
It is part of Obamacare! How does it not represent Pelosi’s “feelings” if it’s in the bill?
Unless and until you interview Pelosi on this subject or she DIRECTLY does something even remotely akin to what you are accusing her of, what you are perpetrating here is nothing short of make-believe.
{{facepalm again}}
Um…yeah. OK then.
January 14th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
That’s EXACTLY why I stopped paying attention to Peev ages ago. It’s just like David Hanners calling me about my parody petition back in 2008. The humorless douches of the world truly make Baby Jesus cry.
Jam pieces of coal up Penigma’s rectum, and you’d have a reliably-producing diamond mine.
January 14th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Pen has an inherent inability to recognize satire. Heck, look at his comments. Those alone are self-satirical yet he believes he’s offering some brilliant insights.
January 14th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
So basically she’s saying “keep your laws off my body.” Sounds familiar…
January 14th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Additionally, a tax is not a ban. An additional tax on junk food will necessarily accomplish either one of two things: drastically reduce the amount of junk food consumed or provide the government with additional revenue sources.
“But AB, it’ll bankrupt the fast food industry!” No it won’t. Your beloved McDonalds (and mine too) will be just fine. When the belt tightens, capitalism goes after the weakest link, which is Arby’s, which no one will miss.
For the record, I thought it was pretty funny. The first half, anyway. The second half was opinionated ramblings with quotations thrown around random words so it would still look like satire. Slick site, tho. Dig the logo.
January 14th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
So basically she’s saying “keep your laws off my body.” Sounds familiar…
Right. And unlike pro-“choice”-ers, we’re only referring to our own bodies.
Otherwise, you got it!
January 14th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Additionally, a tax is not a ban.
So? It’s still an attempt to regulate behavior.
“But AB, it’ll bankrupt the fast food industry!” No it won’t. Your beloved McDonalds (and mine too) will be just fine. When the belt tightens, capitalism goes after the weakest link, which is Arby’s, which no one will miss.
Ah. Well, if your union pension fund is invested in Arby’s, I hope your faith in the rectitude of government carries you through.
January 14th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Mitch, please tell us that Peni isn’t that dumb and that you pay her for being the SitD jester just to keep things interesting.
January 14th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Since reading blogs seems to cause high blood pressure in certain conniption-fit prone and not-too-bright individuals, it ought to be taxed, if not banned outright.
January 14th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
“So? It’s still an attempt to regulate behavior.”
Personally I’m fine with a junk food tax, but I can definitely understand why some people would have a problem with it. I assume that you are in favor of government using legislation to regulate behavior in cases where it is absolutely necessary to do so, and that you do not believe that this is one of those cases. I think it’s safe to say that we have differing standards of what constitutes “necessary,” just as we have differeing standards of what constitutes “seperate living body.”
January 14th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Personally, I’m fine with an apathy tax. People who stand by and watch our freedom slowly dissolved in the vat of Socialsim should really kick in a little extra.
January 14th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Different DNA is what constitutes a separate living human. Only a far-left-wing moon-bat would deny that fact.
January 14th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
I’ve got a quarter.
January 14th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
K-Rod apparently believes that all dead people are also separate living humans.
January 14th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
A-Boy basically said “dead people” equal “living humans”; the DFL/Democrats/Soros certainly taught him how to win elections. Corruption runs deep in the party of scrubs. A-Boy is learning how to toe the line and repeat the talking points.
January 14th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
The hidden camera I placed in his mothers basement has finally paid off….witness the awesomeness that is a teh peevee SITD spaz attack!
January 14th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
A-Boy, take note of the link swiftee provided and stop for some self reflection; I would hate to see you follow the same path as teh peevee and deegee.
January 14th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Yah, is das Mitch der dumkopf? Yah! Der conzervative spelunker!
January 14th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Personally I’m fine with a junk food tax
Another tax on the poor & the working class, courtesy of liberals.
January 15th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Click your heels together three times and say after me: Reality-based community…reality-based community…reality-based community…
January 15th, 2010 at 10:57 am
As Mitch wrote about Pat Robertson: if Penigma didn’t exist we’d have to invent him.
January 15th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Nah, NW, we’d still have DG.
January 15th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
if Penigma didn’t exist we’d have to invent him.
That would require multiple trips to Ax-Man.