Glenn's review of Vanity Fair


GLENN: So I thought, you know, since the comedy show is tonight in movie theatres all across the country, I thought we could do a review of the reviewers. For instance, the review of the Vanity Fair review, see if I could just do the same thing that they do to me and to you, by giving them the backhanded compliments. And I'm going to be fair. I want you to know I'm going to be very, very fair, Vanity. So here's my review of the review. Who's the most handsome man on the planet? Read one of the excising news morsels on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine, the kind that are supposed to lure me in reading further inside. The new girls of summer was another irresistible tease. Whatever you think of Vanity Fair, a cesspool of pointless gossip, a tree murdering outlet for the lame opinions of the artsy tree hugging liberals, a good, clean, fun, somewhat informative page turner, God help us but most don't think of Vanity Fair as a magazine that would give a positive or even fair review to common sense in any form, nor would they would even understand it with all those handsome men and summer girls distracting them. I've been fascinated with Vanity Fair ever since they scooped the world and got the first pictures of TomKat's baby. Before that I thought vanity was just another gossip rag with a babe on the cover, a poor man's Cosmo, if you will, without the intellectual might of Cosmo. Despite my concerns that Vanity's review of my show would be just another liberal hit piece, yet another boring attempt at liberal blogger stardom, I went into the review of this review with an open mind. I would only judge the quality of the reviewer's review, nothing else.

First I had to get a copy of Vanity Fair. I made sure to go to the most redneck store in Oklahoma just to see what kind of universal appeal Vanity Fair has because, remember, I'm being open minded. The magazine rack was full of Vanity Fair magazines. It looked as if they hadn't even sold one at this bait and tackle shop. When I asked the shop keeper, he confirmed it. He said, "Why would anyone read that garbage. Who cares what Lindsay Lohan had for breakfast." Well, after I open mindedly bought the magazine, I realized the cover may as well have read "26 Ways to Please Your Man and One Way to Waste Your Money." One of the most important qualities of a legitimate magazine is that they have a front, back and cover page and some pages in the middle. Well, Vanity Fair has all of those things. And there's some endearing, there's something endearing in the stories, the world's most available heir and heiresses, Johnny Depp's past appearances in Vanity Fair and inside the Vanity Fair's Oscar party all completely unbelievably irrelevant stories that mean absolutely nothing to anything, yet all in one magazine, endearing. The review started with a Lars von Trier reference, I love Lars, especially this time of the year, I mean, who doesn't. But in the end it was apparent that the reviewer was Lars Von Trying Too Hard, you know, exempting to impress his friends with random references of random Dutch filmmakers many would wonder if he was being pretentious enough to testify a Wilder's nationwide banning. And yet that wasn't the end of the self important wordiness as this reviewer used his F7 Shift Microsoft Word thesaurus to spell out the word stentorian like he had ever been comfortably using that in a sentence before. I mean, who's been listening to Fiona Apple? You have, yes. But regardless of how fitfully cryptically true it was, a cunning way to condescend, it was not. It was borderline criminal how far he had gone beyond the Rubicon of a fodderal. Well, I have no idea what I just said but neither did the reviewer.

Then the review recited liberal blog criticisms for six excruciatingly long paragraphs before finally getting to the actual review of the show. Now, I'm not a professional reviewer, only a professional reviewer of reviewers, but this type of writing could be the reason why no one is buying Vanity Fair magazine. Oh, they were apparently displeased, when they went to the show, they were displeased that I poked fun at Henry Waxman's nose. This is because an intelligent liberal never, ever stooped to making fun of someone's appearance. For example, Al Franklin who in this same review that I reviewed was praised as a satirist with a will for real activism. Al Franken, he would never write a book entitled Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, would he? I suppose the difference is conservatives who make fun of others' appearances aren't generally rewarded with Senate seats. Franken, however, like the person the reviewer was reviewing, I had actually heard of Al Franken before, unlike the reviewer that the reviewer of reviewers was reviewing. However, this reviewer, in this review, was also referred to the subject of the review as having an overstuffed neck. So in other words, Mr. Beck had an overstuffed neck. Completely true, yes. But it almost seems like some sort of a nasty shot at someone's appearance, doesn't it?

Well, it wasn't until I reached the bottom of the page and clicked down, you know, on that arrow there that I realized there was more of this review. That's actually when I yelled out, "You've got to be kidding me!" Neither Johnny Depp, nor any of the new girls of summer answered.

Wait a minute, the guy yelling out, that wasn't from Vanity Fair. That was the New York Times. That was another review that I reviewed, but we'll review those later.

Christmas is the gift that keeps on giving for radical leftists. This charade goes on year after year, where decent folks across America try to enjoy and celebrate Christmas, and a few militant progressives disapprove. It's exhausting. We get it, you don't like Christmas. And that's totally fine. But entire communities of people who do like to celebrate Christmas are tired of their celebration being held hostage by an extreme minority—sometimes just one person—getting offended.

This year, a self-described “Unintentional Grinch who stole Christmas" is in the lead to win Scrooge of the Year. The principal at Manchester Elementary in Omaha, Nebraska sent her teachers a memo this week outlining all the Christmas-related items and activities that will not be allowed in their classrooms.

RELATED: Millennial parents are right to support school choice

The banned list includes:

  • Santa
  • Christmas trees
  • Elf on the Shelf
  • Singing Christmas carols
  • Playing Christmas music
  • Making an ornament as a gift
  • Any red and green items
  • Reindeer
  • And, of course, candy canes. Not because the sugar will make the children hyper, but because, as the principal explains, the candy cane is shaped like a “J" for Jesus.

She writes, “the red is for the blood of Christ, and the white is a symbol of his resurrection." In case you try to cheat, different-colored candy canes are not allowed either.

Why is this principal going out of her way to delete any trace of Christmas in her school? She explains:

“I come from a place that Christmas and the like are not allowed in schools…"

Her list, “aligns with my interpretation of our expectations as a public school who seeks to be inclusive and culturally sensitive to all of our students."

What about being culturally sensitive toward students who do celebrate Christmas?

Kids will survive if they're accidentally exposed to a Santa.

The irony here, for this principal and others who hate Christmas and the Christianity that undergirds it, is that Christmas has long existed on two parallel tracks. You've got the Christian celebration of the birth of Christ on one, and you've got the Santa Claus, secular mythology on the other. That means there is more than enough about the Christmas season that has nothing to do with Jesus if that's your thing.

You don't need a totalitarian list of forbidden things to protect the children from a 2,000-year-old holiday. Kids will survive if they're accidentally exposed to a Santa, or a Christmas carol, or—heaven forbid—a manger scene.

Avenatti bails on 2020 presidential run, leaving Biden as 'most qualified' — really?

Phillip Faraone/Getty Images for Politicon

Well, that de-escalated quickly. Michael Avenatti, lawyer of Stormy Daniels, announced he will not run for president in 2020 after all. That takes the number of Democrats planning to challenge Trump down to around 724.

In a statement, Avenatti said he would still run, but he decided not to out of respect for his family's “concerns." He didn't list their concerns, but said:

“We will not prevail in 2020 without a fighter. I remain hopeful the party finds one."

Speaking of — if you've been wondering who's the most qualified person in America to be president, wonder no more. It's former vice president Joe Biden.

RELATED: Out-of-work Joe needs something to do, won't rule out 2020 run

How do we know? Because ol' Joe told us so, at a book tour stop in Montana. The 76-year-old says he'll make a decision about a 2020 bid within the next two months, which is campaign-speak for “I'm definitely running, so get out your checkbooks."

Biden admitted:

“I am a gaffe machine, but my God what a wonderful thing compared to a guy who can't tell the truth."

Yeah, about that… the first time Biden ran for president, in 1987, he was actually pulling ahead of the Democratic pack until his campaign got snagged on plagiarism. He got caught lifting entire sections of a speech by Neil Kinnock, a British Labor Party candidate who ran for Prime Minister and lost to Margaret Thatcher. It wasn't just the fact that Biden copied exact sections of Kinnock's speech, he also stole biographical facts from Kinnock's life and tried to pass them off as his own — like saying his ancestors were coal miners.

The most qualified person in the country to be president? Maybe in the mind of Joe Biden.

Perhaps in the pre-Internet era, Biden thought he could get away with it. But he didn't. An adviser for Michael Dukakis' campaign saw a tape of Kinnock's speech and put together a side-by-side comparison video of Biden's plagiarizing, then sent the tape to the New York Times. As reporters dug further into the story, they found that Biden had also lifted large portions of speeches by Robert Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey.

Those revelations led Biden to admit he got an “F" for a course in law school after he plagiarized five pages for a term paper. Biden was caught in more lies about his academic credentials and enough embarrassments mounted that he finally withdrew from the race.

The most qualified person in the country to be president? Maybe in the mind of Joe Biden.

Saturday Night Live writer Nimesh Patel, an Emmy-nominated comedian, is the latest victim in campus culture's wacky game. Patel is the first Indian-American writer for SNL, so by the usual standards of identity politics, he should be safe. Not the case. All of the rules went out the window when he was performing a stand-up comedy set for an event called "cultureSHOCK: Reclaim" at Columbia University hosted by the Asian American Alliance.

He joked that being gay cannot be a choice because “no one looks in the mirror and thinks, 'this black thing is too easy, let me just add another thing to it.'"

RELATED: Comedy has been taken over by 'insanely self-important people like Stephen Colbert'

For one, that's less of a joke and more of a statement. It's exactly the kind of safe, pro-LGBT statement that you would think campus feminists and trans activists would squeal with glee to hear.

According to Columbia's school paper, student organizers, offended by Patel's joke, rushed the stage 30 minutes into the set and told Patel that he needed to finish his set and say a few closing remarks.

Patel argued that his jokes were not offensive, and that they were actually much-needed insights into the real world. He also made it clear that he stands in solidarity with the Asian American Alliance.

They still cut his microphone off and booted him off stage.

Patel hasn't commented on the uproar, but here are a few comments from people who were in the audience:

The Columbia Spectator quoted three students who were in the audience. One of them said:

“The message they were trying to send with the event was opposite to the jokes he was making, and using people's ethnicity as the crux of his jokes could be funny but still offensive... He definitely wasn't the most crass comedian I've ever heard but for the event it was inappropriate."

Another student said:

“I really dislike when people who are older say that our generation needs to be exposed to the real world. Obviously the world is not a safe space but just accepting that it's not and continuing to perpetuate the un-safeness of it… is saying that it can't be changed," said Jao. “When older generations say you need to stop being so sensitive, it's like undermining what our generation is trying to do in accepting others and making it safer."

The radical version of leftism that has overtaken college campuses... will eat their own without thinking twice.

The third student wasn't bothered by the jokes:

“While what some of the things that he said might have been a bit provoking to some of the audience, as someone who watches comedy a lot, none of them were jokes that I hadn't heard before and none of them were jokes that elicited such a response in my experience."

The third student is a little ray of hope in all of this, but I'm afraid that people like her are increasingly outnumbered and unwilling to speak up.

The jokes were clearly not racist or homophobic. If anything, they seem to have been designed to pander to overly sensitive campus activists who all too often cry “racist" and “homophobic" and all their other insults.

It just goes to show that the left, particularly the radical version of leftism that has overtaken college campuses, will stop at nothing to push its postmodern narrative. They'll spare nobody. And they will eat their own without thinking twice.

Forbes recently described student loan debt as the $1.5 trillion crisis, adding that "Student loan debt is now the second highest consumer debt category - behind only mortgage debt - and higher than both credit cards and auto loans," which is affecting 44 million borrowers in the U.S.

There's also the cultural effect that college is having, the indoctrination that young people are being subjected to. More and more powerful people are recognizing that college as an institution is a problem.

Last Friday, Peter Thiel gave a keynote speech at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute's Collegiate Network editors' conference. He told a roomful of 100 students:

Universities today are as corrupt as the Catholic Church of 500 years ago. At some point, if it's 100 to zero, you start to suspect you're in North Korea. Does the unanimity mean you've gotten to the truth, or does it mean you're in a totalitarian state. We have this illusion that all sorts of important decisions have been decided.

He added:

We are not on the losing side of history. The other side is on the losing side. The reformation is going to happen, and it won't come from within, but from the outside.

Thiel has worked actively to bring about the change that he's talking about here. The lawsuit he led against Gawker helped topple their empire of filth and lowest-level journalism. He has also created The Thiel Fellowship, which "gives $100,000 to young people who want to build new things instead of sitting in a classroom. The idea that we are on the losing side is a form of psychological warfare."

We're not on the losing side. Not in the slightest.

And he's right. We're not on the losing side. Not in the slightest. We're on the up-and-up. Things are only going to get better from here.