The only reason I could enjoy something this bitter is if it's also this good. I found myself wanting to disagree with a few (e.g. Tiger Woods, Robin Williams, Dennis Miller) but the "misdeeds" invariably won me over. Just when the piece seems about to froth at the mouth, it rings painfully true. The knowledge of pop culture shown here is only rivalled by Brett Easton Ellis. The Misdeeds and Aggrivating factors on Coulter, Faith Hill, Ashleigh Banfield, and Ari Fleisher are absolutely and fatally hilarious, though Karl Rove's Aggrivating Factors actually make him less loathsome.

This piece rightfully accuses Oprah of pushing bad literature on the country (though I. Allende and T. Morrison are not crap), but I doubt that someone who watches this much cable TV is likely to have an idea of what good literature is. Besides, the author probably isn't in the habit of calling anything good.

I am especially proud of the fact I have NO idea who many of the people listed are.

And I seriously doubt a bunch of dippy pop stars and celebrities are that loathesome. Let's be honest, despite all of the press celebrities get, they have little real power.

My top 50 would include the senior executives at Enron, Global Crossing, Anderson, Adelphia, Tyco, Worldcom, and the Bush Administration. Shit, just from these sources I could identify 200 loathesome dipshits who beat anyone on The Beast's list except Rove and Fleischer.

Oprah is very wealthy and a popular TV star, but she's essentially a harmless nitwit. The same is true with Ann Coulter.

But Kenneth Lay, Paul Wolfowitz, Condie Rice, John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney, Dubya, John Rigas, Dennis Kozlowski, et al. are all first-team members of the All-Star Assholes of America.

Ann Coulter is, at best, the head cheerleader of this team.

It's precisely because this Beast piece didn't just reproduce a hate list of the Left or Right that it has such brilliant bite. Condi Rice? Come on--I don't like her politics, but her misdeeds are quite few and her aesthetic doesn't come near to anyone on the list in terms of overall irritation.

It should be obvious that even in the most thoroughly negative types of writing, eloquently and comically pointing out what lies just beneath the surface is more intellectually interesting than simply rattling off complaints to the applause of one's ideological bunk mates. To turn a "most loathsome" list into a purely political rant would be to make it thoroughly unfunny.

http://jimtreacher.blogspot.com/20021208jimtreacherarchive.html#90045143

Pardon? What was so ideological about the scumbags at Enron and Worldom? Funny, it was the Repubs and neo-cons who kept harping that the malfeasance emanating from these dens of thieves had nothing to do with politics or ideology. It was a laughably false claim, of course.

And it is so easier to pick on "weak" targets like celebrities than to focus on real loathsome characters. Condie Rice isn't loathesome? I think she is. She's just as responsible for the imperialistic designs of the Bush gang as anyone. Plus she’s their cynical token for showing their “inclusiveness.”

Oh, Condie Rice...I find it interesting that the week after Lott put his foot in his mouth that Time magazine (or was it Newsweek? They both suck and serve to dispense the official liturgy to the drooling masses) put Condie in the cover: she's black, she's brainy, and she’s right wing, blah, blah blah. See, we're inclusive, we neo-cons! In other words, pay no mind to the racist shitbag about to assume control of the Senate. Look here, we've got a gen-u-ine Negro woman in our Administration! She ain't never had no illegitimate child or crack habit, and she don't effing hyphenate her name like those other uppity black chicks with advanced degrees. How uplifting for the plutocrats to show us vulgar masses that they are US!

But no...we should heap all of our vitriol on Faith Hill, some quasi-talented, harebrained, barely literate Country singer? We should loathe Faith Hill more than a band of cynical, 9/11-capiltalizing, hell-bent-on-conquering-the-world-for-profit swine now controlling our Executive, Legislative, AND Judicial Branch?

Oh, I get the joke, hah-hah-hah. Kind of the bread and circuses mentality. I have seen the enemy, and it is...vulgar, vapid, self-satisfied and talentless pop celebrities? Oh, please.

Sorry, but it is much more "intellectually interesting" to point out the farsightedly perilous path our so-called republic has taken the last few years. With huge multinational corporations mostly stealing with impunity, and with a government that only paid mild attention to the problem AFTER the stupid and excessively greedy ones got caught--I am sorry, but that is loathsome. Plus, while our economy is still heading south since Bush took office, our President is more obsessed with overthrowing a dirtbag, Third World regime than with improving the health and welfare of Americans.

So, what is your point, exactly? That I should loathe Oprah because she's an "aesthetic" annoyance? And despite the fact I think Country music has as much aesthetic beauty as a flushing toilet, I am sure Faith Hill is a nice lady and certainly not as loathsome and Bernie Ebbers or Paul Wolfowitz, ideology be damned. And Bono? We've known he was a wanker since Rattle and Hum. The difference is that he knows he's a wanker now, but didn't then, and therefore he's actually improved his image. But he's certainly less loathsome than Trent Lott or Kenneth Lay.

I dunno. I still don't get it. Maybe I am not cool enough to see your point.

"Maybe I am not cool enough to see your point."

That's a definite possibility! ;) Different things are loathsome to different people, of course. Just because something's inconsequential doesn't mean it can't be annoying. (I should know!)

Anyway, I thought the article was hilarious, and I'm glad I could help spread the word about it!

the point isn't extremely important. your comments do raise the very crucial question, however: why make a critique of culture when we should be focusing on the people who have "real power"? Doesn't big business and the current administration matter more in the life of our country, even our world than entertainers, sports heros and popular writers? I agree that focusing on the explicitly political realm is probably most crucial for the overall well-being of the human race, and that 'misdeeds' in that realm would likely make one most loathsome on an absolute moral scale. But to focus on only the highest and most prominent people who happen to be in "real" power seems to assume that bad people just appeared one day with the reins of power in their hands, without being produced by a cultural-social-economic structure. Though the question is far from settled, it would probably be closer to the truth to say that Karl Rove and George Bush as well as Ken Lay are products of a certain type of culture, just as Faith Hill, Jim Rome, Eminem and Tom Brokaw are. To critique social injustice entails that we look at manifestastions of that alienating and unjust culture in all its manifestations, not only its political manifestations.

To focus on only one part of the problem is ideology, because it excuses the other half as salutary or unimportant. Joe Lieberman and Bono might be excused because their stated views are more progressive than Rove's or Rice's. I would certainly be more likely to agree with Bono's views, and perhaps he is more personally conscientious than most others on the list, but the role he plays in our society, the way he is packaged by himself and others, makes him a manifestation of the contradictions in American culture, even more subtle and undetected than our more obvious examples.

The CEO-bashing is pehaps always deserved, but is disgusting now because of how and against whom it is done. Walmart, Nike and the Fast food chains treat actual workers worse than Enron and WorldCom did. None of that seems to matter though--puts CEO knavery on the news is that shareholders got screwed in Enron, Tyco and the like. So, speaking out against corporate greed in America means piping up whenever 401Ks are threatened by CEO lies. To assume a moralistic but impotent standard that acts as a smokescreen for the real problem is almost exactly the definition of ideology in its classic sense.

As I said, we likely agree on the many of the problems in society. The first point, though, is that continuing the old whine about CEOs and Republicans will not really solve anything, especially if we never turn the critical eye on ourselves, some of our favorite somewhat-Left heroes, and even supposedly 'harmless' 'nice' cultural icons who on closer examination actually exhibit our worst failings. The second point is that while we may have had a nice debate here, not much of what we've said has been very funny or sharply insightful, while the "50 Most Loathsome" certainly was. That's what I liked about it.

the point isn't extremely important. your comments do raise the very crucial question, however: why make a critique of culture when we should be focusing on the people who have "real power"? Doesn't big business and the current administration matter more in the life of our country, even our world than entertainers, sports heros and popular writers? I agree that focusing on the explicitly political realm is probably most crucial for the overall well-being of the human race, and that 'misdeeds' in that realm would likely make one most loathsome on an absolute moral scale. But to focus on only the highest and most prominent people who happen to be in "real" power seems to assume that bad people just appeared one day with the reins of power in their hands, without being produced by a cultural-social-economic structure. Though the question is far from settled, it would probably be closer to the truth to say that Karl Rove and George Bush as well as Ken Lay are products of a certain type of culture, just as Faith Hill, Jim Rome, Eminem and Tom Brokaw are. To critique social injustice entails that we look at manifestastions of that alienating and unjust culture in all its manifestations, not only its political manifestations.

To focus on only one part of the problem is ideology, because it excuses the other half as salutary or unimportant. Joe Lieberman and Bono might be excused because their stated views are more progressive than Rove's or Rice's. I would certainly be more likely to agree with Bono's views, and perhaps he is more personally conscientious than most others on the list, but the role he plays in our society, the way he is packaged by himself and others, makes him a manifestation of the contradictions in American culture, even more subtle and undetected than our more obvious examples.

The CEO-bashing is pehaps always deserved, but is disgusting now because of how and against whom it is done. Walmart, Nike and the Fast food chains treat actual workers worse than Enron and WorldCom did. None of that seems to matter though--puts CEO knavery on the news is that shareholders got screwed in Enron, Tyco and the like. So, speaking out against corporate greed in America means piping up whenever 401Ks are threatened by CEO lies. To assume a moralistic but impotent standard that acts as a smokescreen for the real problem is almost exactly the definition of ideology in its classic sense.

As I said, we likely agree on the many of the problems in society. The first point, though, is that continuing the old whine about CEOs and Republicans will not really solve anything, especially if we never turn the critical eye on ourselves, some of our favorite somewhat-Left heroes, and even supposedly 'harmless' 'nice' cultural icons who on closer examination actually exhibit our worst failings. The second point is that while we may have had a nice debate here, not much of what we've said has been very funny or sharply insightful, while the "50 Most Loathsome" certainly was. That's what I liked about it.