The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

25 February 2006

Janeane Garofalo, Hollywood, Air America, Walk Of Fame

HELP FOR JANEANE

Walk Of Fame Petition Hurting For Signatures




While we're signing dueling petitions for and against FOX News Channel and MSNBC hosts, why not instead devote our energy toward something that can really do the world some good?

What shall we do, rescue Darfur refugees? Bring down Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe? Cure cancer?

Forget those petty causes, they can wait. To help her obtain a star on the Hollywood Walk Of Fame, let's help poor Janeane Garofalo!

So far, falling quite a bit short is a fan-initiated online effort to do just that. Just how bad is the situation?

To date, just 71 signatures have been collected. From a fan site:


Sign our petition to get Janeane Garofalo a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. We have 71 signatures so far. That’s pathetic, people.


A check of the petition site confirms Garofalo's current total. Here's their pitch:



To: Hollywood Chamber of Commerce and Walk of Fame Committee

Janeane Garofalo has acted in over 40 films. Demonstrating a wide range, she has starred in cult classics like the drama, “Sweethearts” and the comedy, “Wet Hot American Summer.” While one of Hollywood's queens of romantic comedy - “The Truth About Cats and Dogs” and “The Matchmaker” - she has also appeared in edgier films such as “Reality Bites” and “The Cable Guy.”

She has made her mark in independent films such as “The Search for John Gissing” and “The Independent” and film noir titles like “The Minus Man” and “Clay Pigeons.” She has also produced and directed.

Her accomplishments in the world of movies are many and she's long overdue for a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. We would like to see her get the recognition she deserves for her many contributions to the movies.


Since these were all blockbusters, this should be a cinch, right?


Not so fast. To reach the level of those already on the Walk (such as Ryan Seacrest and David Hasselhoff) one must meet these exceptionally high standards, in addition to the willingness to part with a $15,000 "fee":

To receive a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, candidates must meet three criteria:

* Professional achievement
* Longevity of five years in the field of entertainment
* Contributions to the community

Honorees generally receive stars for achievements in one of five categories: motion picture, live theater, radio, television, or music. Only one person has stars in all five categories -- the singing cowboy himself, Gene Autry.


To help a clearly underappreciated star, here's your chance, sign the petition!

Gene Autry? Compared to the head of I Hate Myself Productions (we didn't make that up) he was nothing.

Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, bring vital support to the Radio Equalizer's efforts. Thanks again!

Garofalo images by Pete at IHillary for the Radio Equalizer

19 Comments:

  • Peaches !

    By Blogger WHT, at 25 February, 2006 08:37  

  • Brian's Lies Watch - Day 6, Post 5

    It's been 5 posts and 6 days now since Brian lied in his story about the media attachment to Rush Limbaugh's latest/greatest Lie!

    New readers, old reader-liars - do you really want to line up and agree with a liar?

    Check for yourself (those of you who DON'T wish to ignore the truth) - the post at issue: "Flash: Rush Errs" on this site.

    Don't trust this man, or his "reporting"

    question for Brian - did Rush Limbaugh make up this angle of the story? - "there's a racial element here, too"

    question for frankenlies - what part of what I've stated above has been discredited, specifically, you LIAR.

    Your quote:

    "1. You don't even write what my so-called "lie" is. That's about as low as you can blow when you do that. You've totally and completely discredited yourself by doing that."

    I did write about what your, and brian's so-called lie was, and directly- you discredited yourself by LYING ABOUT IT REPEATEDLY, and then pretending that you got me, and therefore could continue to ignore reality.

    I'd say "nice try", but I'd be lying.

    Those who truly care about the truth (and I know you don't count yourself amongst those, frankenlies, don't worry) can research the story and know I'm telling the truth, and you, Rush, and Brian are lying.

    By Blogger TJ, at 25 February, 2006 16:07  

  • Interesting Photoshop pairing of Janeane and Donald - especially considering the latter's recent legal troubles....

    By Blogger Ironman, at 25 February, 2006 16:41  

  • TJ - By repeatingly calling someone a liar doesn't make it so. You have to do better than that.

    You're not fooling anyone.

    I think it's a real shame to personally call me a liar (I have never done that with you), and then not even say what the so-called "lie" is. Again - That's a "low blow," "dirty pool," whatever you want to call it.

    Why don't you come out and say what this so-called "lie" actually is, instead of simply referring people to an old post? Until then, you continue to discredit yourself. (I see you have begun to utilize the "discredit" terminology as well.)

    Does this "lie" actually exist?

    By Blogger frankenlies, at 25 February, 2006 18:55  

  • You've already been told what Baloney's lie was. You just choose to neglect it. Brian's lie was that he said Rush simply made a mistake about race. That's not true. There was more to it than that. Baloney is lying by omission. Remember that Rush also said there's a "racial component" to the story, right? That obviously wasn't true. Rush was trying to creare a racial aspect. And Baloney didn't mention that.

    Allow me to explain in a simpler manner for our less than intelligent Republican friends. If Baloney is correct and all Rush erred about is Brown's race, then what would Rush comment look like if it was correct?

    "And don't forget, Sherrod Brown is white. There's a racial component here, too."

    That obviously doesn't make sense, right? There's another lie there ("racial component"). And Baloney didn't mention that lie. Thus Baloney himself is lying by omission.

    Got it?

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 25 February, 2006 19:11  

  • Take a look at the petition now.

    Looks like wingnuts have the same ability to screw up a petition as they do a war.

    By Blogger Alex, at 25 February, 2006 19:38  

  • "There was no lie by Brian."

    frankenlies, at 23 February, 2006 20:29

    That was your lie, frankenlies.

    My credibility is sound. Brian's is not.

    You furthered your lie by continuing the dissemination that Brian fostered:

    "An error by Rush Limbaugh was reported by the Associated Press, for goodness sakes. It's a classic case case of liberal media bias."

    frankenlies, at 23 February, 2006 20:29

    - the "error" rush limbaugh made was not the crux of the issue, however it was reported. The complete and total fabrication (i.e. - LIE) by Rush Limbaugh about the "racial element to this story" and complete failure to correct and retract that statement WAS the story.

    So, frankenlies, now that I have pointed out Rush', Brian's, and your lies, you can shut up - or, you could do the reasonable thing and admit you've made a mistake.

    I'm not holding my breath.

    So, to date folks, we have direct evidence that frankenlies, Rush Limbaugh, and Brian Maloney cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

    (Kite - thanks, by the way - you did a great job, but frankenlies had to be answered directly, or he would continue his crap - he'll still continue crap, but so long as I wield the truth, he'll be the only one swimming in it.)

    By Blogger TJ, at 25 February, 2006 20:18  

  • lie v. 1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving. (italics mine)

    At the time Rush said that there was a "racial component," he thought Sherrod Brown was black. He was mistaken, and his listeners alerted him. He then acknowledged the error.

    There was never any lie by Rush; just a mistake.

    GOT IT? Geesh ...

    By Blogger frankenlies, at 25 February, 2006 21:28  

  • frankenlies, are you really that much of an idiot, or do you simply expect other people to be?

    Rush' assertion that there was a racial element was based upon his mistaken belief that Brown was black.

    However, Brown, in fact, was white.

    This means when Rush said "there's a racial element to this" - HE WAS MAKING IT UP.

    Read carefully, now, because it's obvious you get confused.

    Rush is making a direct correlation between democrat party politics and race.

    His standard BS line is - if there's a black person involved, then democrats are always trying to use the race issue in their decision making process.

    Mind you - he means ALWAYS.

    That, of course, is stupid, but is also how he makes some of his money - by making stupid assertions.

    So, when Rush believed that Brown was black, he concocted the "racial element".

    Now, let's pretend Brown _WAS_ black - does that mean the way things played-out (Reid and other demos were, basically, trying to force Hackett out of the senate race - not the nicest part of politics, but, very normal - part of the reason that politics in general sucks) - would have had a "racial element"?

    Of course, the answer is "not necessarily".

    However, Rush, cow-towing to his low-brow audience, loves to play the race card against dems, and decided to do so again with this story.

    WHICH MEANS, he made it up. The "racial element". He made it up, completely - EVEN THOUGH HE BELIEVED BROWN WAS BLACK, he was simply making up the racial element angle.

    Making something up is also known as LYING.

    Of course, it's actually completely worse than that - it also means Rush is an horrible racist.

    He uses race to inflame his constituents.

    So - he lied about the "racial element", and he refused to retract the statement.

    If you don't get that, I really can't help you.

    However, I know that there are a lot of truly intelligent people who will visit this site, read these words, shake their heads in sadness for how deliberately obtuse you are...

    And in turn, ignore Brian Maloney, as they should.

    Thanks for giving me the opportunity to point all of this out.

    If you're in school, you should study harder, If you're out of school - go back.

    You really, really need it.

    'Course, you could get demonstrably better by dropping the partisanship. Take those 'ol blinders off, and you'll find you don't WANT to spend anymore time defending limbaugh & maloney.

    By Blogger TJ, at 25 February, 2006 23:09  

  • I wrote this before tj last post so this is rather redundent, but oh well ....

    to frankenlies -

    A mistake would be saying someone is black when they are white, which Rush did.

    But that's not all that happened here.

    What Rush also did, in an effort to vilify the democrats was create out of thin air an entirely made up untrue story about what motivated the dropping of Paul Hackett as a candidate.

    A story created out of Rush's imagination is not a mistake. It's a fabrication, a piece of fiction, a lie.

    Also check out this site:
    http://frankenlies.blogspot.com/

    By Blogger Alex, at 25 February, 2006 23:52  

  • so, frankenlies - 3 people on this very page have described what you so strongly have tried to ignore (the truth, that is)...

    at this point, the credibility most in question is yours. The least is obviously mine.

    Do you want to stand by your deliberate ignorance and not admit the truth?

    Ignoring you from hear on out will be the only reasonable remedy, should you stand steadfast in your lies.

    By Blogger TJ, at 26 February, 2006 00:34  

  • 1. Puh-leeze. This whole string is weak. You three continue to simply ignore the fact that there was no lie by Rush or Brian.

    Brian's research has been damaging to Air America's image. Your efforts to discredit him are failing miserably.

    2. "Also check out this site:
    http://frankenlies.blogspot.com/"


    Talk about weak. The blogger barely addresses 25% (?) of the site. The guy failed to find even one error on the site. Eventually, the blogger just gave up his efforts! The blogger gets plastered here: http://www.frankenlies.com/lies/blogger.htm

    Frankenlies.com is 100% correct! Al Franken: Debunked.

    By Blogger frankenlies, at 26 February, 2006 10:22  

  • Puh-leez, indeed.

    I already responded to you about frankenlies.com. You never responded back. Gee, I wonder why.

    And you continue to ignore the fact that Rush and Baloney are full of shit.

    How does someone get the race of a person wrong? Any normal person would just not say it if they didn't know. Rush obviously didn't know. Then why did he say it? Say it with me now: he wanted to fabricate a story about a non-existant "racial component." Got it yet? Why else would he say it? Pleae answer me that.

    Brian's research has been damaging to Air America's image.
    hahahahahahahahahahahaha

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 26 February, 2006 17:12  

  • 1. Mr. Kite: "Brian's research has been damaging to Air America's image. hahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's true. Who else uncovered the shady details of the shameful Gloria Wise / AAR deal?

    You weren't going to hear about it in the New York Times. Brian (along with Michelle Malkin) did the research and the work, and now it's public knowledge. AAR's former owners borrowed $875,000 from an inner-city boys and girls club and then had to negotiate to give the money back. They were under investigation from NYC's DOI. It doesn't get any more shameful than that.

    2. "I already responded to you about frankenlies.com. You never responded back. Gee, I wonder why."

    I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about. So please refer me to your post where I can reply. Maybe I missed it.

    By Blogger frankenlies, at 26 February, 2006 17:38  

  • Who else uncovered the shady details of the shameful Gloria Wise / AAR deal?
    The Sun Times and and New York Post. And it was the Bronx News who broke the story. Though the Sun Times and the New York Post have moved on, I believe, unlike some people. Also, AAR was never investigates by the NYC DOI. It was the GWBGC.

    Things Brian Maloney could do to be taken seiously:
    1. Start a real site, not a fucking 'blogspot'. I mean seriously, blogspot? What's your next project Baloney, a myspace page? Or a facebook?

    2. Stop posting dumbass graphics that look like the work of a 10-year-old with MS Paint.

    I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about. So please refer me to your post where I can reply. Maybe I missed it.
    It was about a month ago. It's really not my job to search for posts for you. Sorry.

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 26 February, 2006 18:06  

  • 1. Mr. Kite: "It was about a month ago. It's really not my job to search for posts for you. Sorry."

    I originally suspected that there was no such post to begin with. Now I think I was right. If it was anything even remotely significant, I think you would have remembered it.

    Remember now?

    2. Who else uncovered the shady details of the shameful Gloria Wise / AAR deal?
    The Sun Times and and New York Post.


    The key word is details, Mr. Kite. Yes, some papers broke the initial story, but it was Brian (along with Malkin) who publicized and provided the gory details of the shameful arrangement, including the damning documents.

    By Blogger frankenlies, at 26 February, 2006 19:38  

  • I remembered that post the first time I told you about it a few hours ago. I know I made it. I'm just not in the mood to look through Baloney's archives to find it. I don't really care if you believe me or not.

    The only thing Baloney and his bitch uncovered was the document with Franken's signature which may or may not prove Al knew about anything going down. The rest was just Baloney posting shitty images along with long passages quoted from the the Sun Times or NYPost or Moonie Times. And any investigative work was completely overshadowed by the patheticness of continuially talkng about the story after it has long since died.

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 26 February, 2006 20:53  

  • Re: Garofalo petition

    LMAO! Make her star a black hole, since she sucks at what she does.

    By Blogger Skunkfeathers, at 03 March, 2006 20:54  

  • Most of the signatures on the garafolo walk of fame star petition website are clearly fake and many are quite derogatory.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 18 April, 2009 13:02  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger