|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
by n.j. on 01:05 AM June 8th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh come on.. the good old "liberal bashing" from this strange, purely American point of view: black & white with liberal=leftist, unfaithful, blindly progressive.
The author should have looked up what liberal really means and how liberal parties are the politically central to mid right coalition partners of the christian conservatives in some countries.
This gets tiresome. BTW, the conservatives try to preserve the draft in my country. And they are miles away from recognizing this as gender inequality. False friends anyone?
Our chance lies mostly with people who are open for new ideas. This can also be conservatives, of course, as the choice to preserve or progress does not need to be universal.
One last thing: religion is opium for the people. Though its modern substitues are not necessarily better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 11:58 AM June 8th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I can only take Ann Coulter in small doses. Sorry, but I'm just not a big fan of hers. I am an independent and she goes too far right for my tastes, but that's just me. She does make a good point now and then, though.
Speaking of Ann has anyone seen on the national news (ABC, CBS, NBC,) Where the media is slamming Coulter for some remarks in her book about the "9-11 widows"? She (Coulter) says in her book (paraphrasing) that the widows are basking, celebratory and profiting from the deaths of their husbands in the World Trade Center attack and wonders if these women had filed for divorce with the dead husbands. While I find those remarks to be over the line, where was the media slamming Ward Churchill when he called the victims of the World Trade Center attack; "Little Eichmanns"? There were no reports about, because of remarks like Churchill's, that we are seeing an "end to civility" as NBC's Brian Williams remarked at Coulter's Comments. There was no interview on the TODAY SHOW with Churchill where the anchor lays into him for those comments the way Coulter was yesterday mourning on "TODAY" for her comments.
I used to 'poo poo' the whole "Liberal media" bias thing. But I've noticed that when people like Coulter make over the line comments the media comes down HARD on them. But when people like Ward Churchill (a Liberal/socialist and wannabe Indian) make comments just as inappropriate, the media is dead silent. This is consistent, I've noticed.
So for all of you, here, who have tried to convince me of a Liberal bias in the media, I am finally coming over to your side on that. The evidence is over whelming, these days.
Anyway, while I do believe that Coulter should have been taken to task, as she was, by the media, I also believe that Ward Churchill should have gotten the same treatment. But he didn't. If we had the objective media that the media it's self claims to be he would have.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 01:34 PM June 8th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
You may remember that Churchill got positively screwed by the media at the time, TC. Fox still has him on once in a while to bash him. If you actually read what the guy's written, leaving aside all the angry political/activist-wannabe rhetorical nonsense and his mindless anarchism, which is just a line of self-serving, pretentious bullshit he uses to sucker brainless activist types into buying his books, in my opinion, he gives an excellent account of US militarism and exceptionalism over the last several centuries. It's a very dry read, but worth it.
I would think you'd find his analysis of the treatment of Native Americans most interesting, or the fact that the US and Isreal have systematically prevented anything resembling a fair settlement in the mideast. The media didn't pay any attention to that, though, they just grabbed the "little Eichmanns" comment and bashed him with it for several months. While his characterization of the technocrats that run large corporations and investment houses as "little Eichmanns" could, in some ways, be considered technically correct - after all, Eichmann was also little more than a technocrat who "managed" from a desk somewhere far removed from the killing, it was a grostesque exaggeration (the people in the WTC were NOT intentionally setting about killing people out of fanatical racism, Eichmann was), and a completely cruel, tasteless, stupid thing for him to say when he said it, and he made no exceptions for the people cleaning the bathrooms, making the coffee and sandwiches or others that didn't participate directly in the "military industrial complex", but even that doesn't invalidate his other work at the time, which is well referenced and readily verifiable.
As an author myself, I can't stand Coulter - she fabricates and lies with great regularity, misuses quotes and footnotes, and commonly resorts to childish ad hominem attacks when she has no case. There's very little of her ranting and raving that can be verified factually, on the off chance that what she's writing is not just angry, racist venom. It's a hallmark of most pundits that they're very angry and likely to shout down their opponents and guests instead of actually debating them. However, it's always been my experience that the angrier or more hateful someone is when defending a position, the more likely it is that they have nothing to back it up. Coulter's mean-spirited rhetoric and blatant racism says it all. She's worse than a feminist when it comes to hate, lies and distortions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 02:49 PM June 8th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
RandomMan-
Okay, you're right, I probably should cut Churchill some slack. He HAS done some good for Indian people, and I shouldn't ignore that. In fact, for the good he's done I am glad. But he definitely crossed the line with the "little Eichmanns" comment.
As to whether Churchill is Indian or not, I'm not 100% sure that he isn't. He doesn't "look Indian", but some say I don't "look Indian" either. I have dark hair and dark brown eyes, but my skin is very light. My sister has light brown hair extremely light skin and blue eyes. (we're part Irish)
It could be that the people who say "Churchill isn't Indian" may be going by 'blood quantum semantics'. That is an invention of the Federal Government, not we Indians. If Churchill has even one drop of Indian blood he may very well be qualified to call himself an Indian, but it doesn't automatically give him Government recognition as one. I believe Churchill is (or claims to be) Cherokee. The Government requires you to be somewhere around at least 1/32nd or 1/16th Cherokee by blood for Government recognition as an Indian. The Cherokee Nation it's self has NO blood quantum standard, at all. No one cares how far back your blood-line goes as long as you can prove reasonably that you are a descendant of the Cherokee people.
Personally I am somewhere around 1/16th, So I would, by the Government's standards be recognised federally as an Indian as well as recognised by the Cherokee nation, I also identify as Indian (including on the U.S. census). If Churchill is less than 1/32nd or 1/16th the federal Government would not recognise him as an Indian. (which is weird because ONE drop of BLACK blood MAKES YOU BLACK, apparently. But there is a double standard for Indians, for some reason.) However if Churchill IS of Indian descent, then he could still be recognised by the Cherokee Nation as an Indian. Confusin' ain't it?
Anyway Churchill's detractors may be using the Federal Government's blood quantum standard to discredit Churchill's claim to be Indian. If you use the Government's standard then Churchill is not Indian. But if you use the Cherokee nation's standard he is.
So I don't know if he's really Indian or not, and I probably should have said so.
Personally, I don't think he is, but I could be wrong. I mean, if Mariah Carey can identify as Black, then Churchill can identify as Indian, if he has Indian blood.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 04:18 PM June 8th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting off-tangent discussion.
I guess the good news is that we don't live in a French Caribbean island colony in the 1700's.
Because the laws in Martinique and Guadeloupe had elaborate codes of racial "quantum" identification with 80 degrees of whiteness/blackness.
Hence words like quadroon (1/4 black ancestry), octoroon (1/8 black), etc.
Hard to imagine a society so fixated on blood "purity."
Though these colonial skin color codes still exist today, only they're disguised.
For poor women in the islands, having a "light skin" baby is called social security.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 09:46 PM June 8th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I too am not a big Ann Coulter fan, and I posted about her new book because I knew it would make a BigMedia buzz after Hillary got her thong in a twist.
(There's a really sick image... how do you unravel it when it's.... all .... up ... there?)
If you want a truly fool-proof antidote to Ann Coulter's hilarious-as-serious conservative schtick, try Sarah Silverman's just-released comedy stand-up DVD -- "Jesus Is Magic!"
This woman is the kind of comic genius who could eat Hillary for breakfast and still do Condi for lunch!
What's to say about a Christmas song video parody with Ms. Silverman assaulting Santa Klaus to "give the jew girl toys?"
If you are offended by Coulter, you may find Silverman even more offensive, because her insights are brutal and profane.
Coulter thinks only liberals are idiots.
Silverman understands that stupidity is universal and beyond politics....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 12:38 PM June 9th, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, yes. Sarah Silverman. Extremely pretty girl with an extremely filthy mouth.
It's weird, I tend to like her despite her vulgarity. She does have some points to make though.
And yes, she does understand that stupidity is not relegated to only one political party.
It would be "interesting" to see her and Coulter go at it...! :-)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 07:55 PM June 9th, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
She's(Sarah S.) not that pretty! (Always good backlighting in her shows....)
Nor is Coulter. (Same good backlighting, plus underwire bras...)
But they are both 100% brilliant at what they do.
Which is ....
sell the vagina, err..... teasing female mind .... err.... books... err... DVDs ... err ?
MRA ammunition in the worst possible packages?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 12:18 AM June 9th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Ann Coulter's words regarding the 9/11 widows were harsh. However, I'm not sure I could call the following words from one of the widows (Breitweiser) careful or even really fair:
"By these standards, should I expect Condoleezza Rice (Ms. "Nobody knew planes could be used as missiles"), George Tenet (Mr. "I failed to tell the FBI for 18 months that two known al Qaeda killers were living in San Diego and planning the 9/11 attacks"), and perhaps, George Bush (Mr. "I was reading a story about a pet goat while thousands of people perished and burned alive in the World Trade Center because I didn't want to alarm the school children.") to provide victim's impact statements, as well?"
The part attacking the president really does rank as over-the-top. I have lost respect for Bill Clinton, but I'm not sure I would accuse him of complicity in the al-Qaeda terrorism, even though he could have dealt with it better. In my opinion, not even this widow's victimhood qualifies her to make such an ugly unsupported statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by scudsucker on 01:49 AM June 11th, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if Tenet knew about the Al Queda guys in the US, but even if he didn't know personally, the lady is certinally entitled to be bitter about the CIA's and FBI's failures to look into the intelligence.
As her comments about Bush and Rice, of course they are fair comments to make, and supported to boot. As National Security Advisor, it was her job to go over the intelligence reports with the president, so either she was lying when she said that or she was negligent in the extreme. As for Bush, sitting on his butt for 20 minutes while the nation was under attack is simply indefensible. He is the Commander in Cheif, he spent a few months in the Air Guard, had a former Secretary of Defense as his Vice President, and a two time Secretary of Defense in the Pentagon. That he didn't pick up the phone, or even tell one of his aids to "make the call", to NORAD, to Cheney, or to Rumsfield is inexcusable.
And to think these people then have the gall to turn around and demonize anyone who questions the invasion of Iraq as weak on terror, and anyone who questions domestic spying as unpatriotic.
"...show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence" George W. Bush - Republican 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 06:22 PM June 13th, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
"...show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence" George W. Bush - Republican 2005
If a man in therapy who had created a war against a failed country, a man who has directed forces to slaughter a few hundred thousand people... intentionally uncounted women and children killed ... made that statement, well ... an honest psychologist would suggest an immediate intervention.
Or at least daily AA meetings.
Or maybe, an exorcism?
As much as I'd like to deprive the people in Iraq from the civil war America liberated them into, I believe U.S. citizens have a more urgent problem to attend to....
We really need to help the sad "bubble boy" in the White House to recover what his abusive mother beat out of him during his childhood.
The Sad Little Boy George wants to be saved, before he decides to use tactical nukes on Iran.
What can we do?
Write his mommie and daddy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Sheldon on 12:18 PM June 20th, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I’m not too impressed with this person; her vehemence for all things liberal is truly stomach turning. To have her quoted on this website does nothing except create the kind of false, detrimental, ultra conservative identification with the men’s movement that feminists love to use against MRAs. She does make some somewhat valid points, but there is rarely anything she addresses that can’t just blow right back up in her hypocritical face due to Coulters’ classic fashioning of ye olde us vs them duality. I can understand the well-placed criticism she has of some of these dogmatic liberals, but she just does not have the integrity to hold her own. She basically calls liberals narrowminded and ignorant. Almost everything she states in this article lends to the unending paradox and infinite invalidness to this whole entrapping dichotomy.
There are some annoyingly inherent contradictions when framing corporations in a shining guns light. For instance, our society’s current free-market economy was the result of liberalism, or rather is part and parcel of classic liberalism. Well obviously she is addressing one of the branches of liberalism, but classic liberalism (there are plenty of outspoken classic libertarians) still holds against the more recent incarnations; it would due her good to differentiate. She almost reads from a conservative script when she favours the corporation, especially the large ones that are funded by and provide funds for both the democrats and the republicans in order to rack up points and votes (through buying loyalties and prestige). It’s in most people’s interests, no matter where one places one’s self on the whole political spectrum (not to mention those NOT on the political spectrum– you know, the politically liberated ones) to unite in the cause to hammer down on some of these fast degrading giants of greed who are making most peoples’ lives miserable. One should not call the hugely powerful go-bots of organizations like the WTO just merely “some bankers”–because these “bankers”create hellish environments on a global scale (like the abomination in that rural country village in India where Coca-Cola came along and drained their local water supply entirely for the manufacturing of their leading type 2 diabetic culprit to the locals, and caused a devastating famine that nearly wiped out the entire village’s population. Such actions are taken by these WTO “bankers” all the time, and they even have a whole agency to do the job of suppressing their abject transgressions by promising 100 million dollar((!)) offerings to local protesters to keep their mouths shut about the horrors these corporations cause.).
Which brings me to her adherence to the Scripture. For all her Christian fundamentalism, she does not address the biblical rule that the very richest DO have an obligation to help the very poorest, and that greed is one of the seven deadly sins. She supports these groups who are arguably the greatest perverters of the Scripture yet. And there is nothing axiomatic or dogmatic about Christian Doctrine? I’m pretty sure that the last 400 to 500 years that have seen the rise of philosophers criticizing the corruptions in Western Chritianity was for a really good reason (back then, the church was the all-powerful, corrupt, psychopathic governing body of society whose role the Corportion has taken up today). She, annoyingly so–and remarkably so--speaks as if there were no Reformation at all!!– or at least no need for one, which is, of course, an absurd and wholly unjustified notion. She seems to believe in science, but doesn’t seem to realize how many of her supposedly cherished religious notions were debunked by science in the last few hundred years (starting with Copernicus). She is contradictory and hypocritical to the extreme; please don’t imply that this is meritable by calling it “irony”–even though it is certainly ironic, but foolishly so. Anyway, I have several more things about her writings I would like to criticize, but that would make this piece too long (about three pages); and this thread is now very old, and no one will likely read this anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Roy writes "Ann Coulter is hawking her new book all over the mediasphere ...