Education, politics, and anything else that catches my attention.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
The Left's Version of Tolerance
Leftie (DQTP) Democrat #1: That Ann Coulter makes me sick! Leftie (DQTP) Democrat #2: I know. Let's ban her book here in New Jersey! Leftie (DQTP) Democrat #1: Yeah, that's a great idea!
I think that trying to censor Ann Coulter is stupid. She is far more valuable to liberalism than she could possibly be to the conservative movement. Everything that makes me proud of being opposed to the Bush administration doesn’t come from Dean or Moore, but from being in opposition to Ms. Coulter and everything she stands for. This is a lady who supports McCarthyism, the Christianization the Arab world, excluding atheists agnostics from public office, and excluding women from the military.
She’s even lied about her birth date on her driver’s license. Petty I know, but this is to give you an idea of the type of woman you are dealing with here.
I think she’s finally gone too far this time, and the court of public opinion will ultimately burn her at the stake.
It's not what she said, but how she said it.
“Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy..."
"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
There is no possible context where these comments could be acceptable, especially without overwhelming evidence to support them, which she lacks. I think she could have gotten away with these statements, had they been directed at Cindy Sheehan, but not the 9/11 widows. Cindy Sheehan’s actions have been nothing short of radical. She has questioned the very fabric of American society beyond the scope of the Iraq war. On the other hand, the 9/11 windows have been politically active, but haven’t lost the aura of private individuals who have been trust into public life due to outrageous fortune. For her to make statements that are this sadistic and mean spirited, it gives the average person an idea of what they can expect should they ever step out of line in Ms. Coulter’s eyes.
In this case, she was needlessly cold hearted about the whole situation, and will now find herself marginalized. This combined with that voter fraud case that looms over her head, I think she'll sell a lot of books this go around, and find herself marginalized. This will follow her for the rest of her public life.
If what you say is so, then the public--and the marketplace--will have spoken.
I haven't heard much from Michael Moore-on lately; we probably won't until the next Presidential election. Was he marginalized with his "terrorists are the Minutemen, and they will win!" comment? Unfortunately, no. He's still a lion to the left. He should have been, though. I can't imagine a context that would justify his comparison.
The Dixie Chicks are feeling a little more of the marginalization of which you speak. Time will tell which, if either, of the two I've mentioned, will be closer to what happens to Ann Coulter.
But she's more valuable to you lefties (DQTP) while she's opening her mouth? She must be *your* Nancy Pelosi!
Michael Moore is currently making a movie about our healthcare entitled “Sicko.” He has made 2 public appearances since the 2004 election, once on Jay Leno immediately after the election where he seemed somewhat conciliatory. The other was a regional radio program.
He rarely makes public appearances during the filming of one of his documentaries, but he is alive and well, and will make a comeback due to frustration that many Americans have with the healthcare system.
As for how I feel about him? He is a satirist, so I’ve grown accustomed to not taking his every word literally. I have disagreed with him on several points, and if I feel any affinity for him, it’s in spite of his shortcomings, not because of them.
“The Dixie Chicks are feeling a little more of the marginalization of which you speak.”
Their record sales do not refelct that. Their ticket sales have been hurt, but only in red states. They are now selling out crowds in blue states and in Canada, an audience where they previously had few listeners. The net effect is that they are more popular and economically viable than ever.
“She must be *your* Nancy Pelosi!”
And…. She’s *your* Michael Moore!
BTW, feel free to question my patriotism any time you like.
I think much of the problem is that each side sees the others' views based only upon the most radical of political statements. Do I think every single Democrat worships Michael Moore? Nope, in fact I know of a number of conservative Democrats that are seriously concerned at how the party has been co-opted by the American wing of the Green Party. Do I read any of Ann Coulter's books? No. I have read some more other serious conservative and moderate authors from both sides of the national debate. But this is what galls me. When someone from the extremely liberal side of a question posts something that is not only undocumented and unconfirmed, if anyone questions their statements the Bill of Rights and American flag are waved as the reason they can say ANYTHING. But when someone from the right makes similarly inane statements, or even statements that challenge the opposing views, they are labeled as "hatemongers" and "fascists". You can see it in action with the media's trial of the Marines in the Haditha incident and the hands off policy regarding what appears to amount to an attempt to exact terror in the most appeasing of nations outside of France, which is our neighbor to the north, Canada. While any incident needs to be investigated, why are the people who want to create terror given a free pass? Is it just so that we won't be accused of bigotry? If so, then prepare for more of the same.
There's a local college here that recently demoted, marginalized, and later fired a popular education professor because she merely provided access to some fliers from Focus on the Family to her students as materials for a discussion on homosexuality -- no advocacy of anything, just providing information. When she later sued the school and the media tepidly picked up on it and asked about academic freedom and censorship, the provost said "We cannot tolerate the intolerable." There's an element in American culture that will complain far and wide about freedom and tolerance, as long as they get to decide what's tolerable and what isn't.
You know what's really interesting? I've never read one of Ann Coulter's books. Never heard her speak. I only know her name when she pops above the radar, like she did here.
No, certainly not. They're milking those deaths for any attention they can get, though, making themselves public people (and public targets) in the process.
But I'd be willing to bet that any of them would give up their notoriety to get their husbands back. However, they should keep their personal grief private, not make it public a la Mama Moonbat.
The two comments you pointed out--Coulter was over the bounds of civility with them, and you can bet that I'd excoriate any liberal who would make similar remarks. I agree with her overall point, however, despite the rudeness of those two remarks.
I think you and Ann Coulter have one thing in common, a shared love of ad hominem arguments. Don’t Question Their Patriotism (DQTP) must be a term you invented, since I can’t find it anywhere else on the net. It basically is an expression of frustration that you feel you should be able to question someone’s patriotism at will, largely in the same realm as Ms. Coulter’s now famous remarks.
Questioning someone’s patriotism is basically an ad hominem argument of the form:
1. Y makes claim X. 2. There is something objectionable about Y. 3. Therefore claim X is false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Your version reads like this:
1. Y makes claim X. 2. Y is unpatriotic. 3. Therefore claim X is false.
It is also unnecessary from a conservative viewpoint. If conservatives can sucessfully refute liberal arguments soley on merrit, why attack the messenger? If we are wrong and you are right, that should be self evident.
Furthermore, it is an illogical attack on liberalism. How can someone “love big government” and “hate America” at the same time?
You have questioned my patriotism without stating why. Heaven forbid I should ever give you just cause to do so. I find your questioning my patritism a manifestation of the Fundemental Attribution Error.
In other words, I say something you disagree with poticially, it must be because I’m a jerk. If I question American foreign policy, it must be because I hate America. By questioning my patriotism, you are unfairly trying to infer something about me personally based soley on my statements without even considering the merrit of my argument.
Yes, DQTP *is* something I proudly claim as my own. I'd trademark it, if I knew how or cared enough to.
I don't view it as an ad hominem attack at all. It's merely a manifestation of the claims of lefties--any time a conservative challenges the liberal dogma, the lefties are the ones to scream "Don't question my patriotism!" We conservatives aren't usually questioning their patriotism, we're questioning their judgement--two very different things.
I've not directed my abbreviation at you--it goes only after the term "leftie". If that's you, then so be it. If not, it's not a personal attack on you. But yes, it does serve to show my disdain for liberals in general.
As for how someone can love big government and hate America? Ask the Europeans--they're good at both.
I've often wondered why the anarchists show up at leftie rallies. Wouldn't the anarchists want less government, not more? I've also wondered why Bosnia and Kosovo were OK but Iraq is not. I've also wondered why we want government in charge of our health care but not monitoring phone calls originating outside the US by non-US citizens.
I've never said that consistency was the strong suit of the left, anonymous.
“I've often wondered why the anarchists show up at leftie rallies. Wouldn't the anarchists want less government, not more?”
Ah yes, the problem with having an anti-Bush rally is that Bush has offended so many people, you have no control over who shows up. Unfortunate.
“I've also wondered why Bosnia and Kosovo were OK but Iraq is not.”
We trusted Clinton, and we didn’t trust Bush.
We knew Clinton would not bite off more than we could chew, and that if it appeared we had overestimated our reach that the Clinton administration would protect our national interests and withdraw post haste.
Based on the resuts, our mistrust was well placed.
“I've also wondered why we want government in charge of our health care but not monitoring phone calls originating outside the US by non-US citizens.”
We consider access to Health Care a fundamental human right, not just an right as a U.S. citizen.
Futhermore, we do not object to montoring phone calls. We feel that the government should get a warrant first, though.
The FISA Court of Review disagrees with you about the warrant.
As for the rest of what you wrote--we just disagree. Trusting Clinton, though? Come on, you can't be serious. I only give that man credit for 3 things:
1. Going against his own party, he supported NAFTA. 2. Going against his own party, he signed off on welfare reform. 3. According to every account I've ever read, he and his wife were exceptional parents to their daughter.
And here's some information about how the Dixie Chicks are doing and saying, as quoted by the UK's Telegraph: http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/06/17/the-dixie-chicks-whats-the-big-deal-about-patriotism/
“The entire country may disagree with me, but I don’t understand the necessity for patriotism,” Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. “Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don’t see why people care about patriotism.”
Notice she isn't talking about just the Bush supporters, she's questioning the entire concept of patriotism. Should I question hers? She already claims not to have any.
June 25th, NY Times Bestseller List, Hardcover Nonfiction:
#2 Godless, Ann Coulter
For some reason they added Anderson Cooper as an author (he's actually the author of #4 on today's list), but the position on the list is there for all to see.
So anonymous, what were you saying about Coulter being marginalized?
24 comments:
DQTP?
Don't Question Their Patriotism.
I think that trying to censor Ann Coulter is stupid. She is far more valuable to liberalism than she could possibly be to the conservative movement. Everything that makes me proud of being opposed to the Bush administration doesn’t come from Dean or Moore, but from being in opposition to Ms. Coulter and everything she stands for. This is a lady who supports McCarthyism, the Christianization the Arab world, excluding atheists agnostics from public office, and excluding women from the military.
She’s even lied about her birth date on her driver’s license. Petty I know, but this is to give you an idea of the type of woman you are dealing with here.
I think she’s finally gone too far this time, and the court of public opinion will ultimately burn her at the stake.
It's not what she said, but how she said it.
“Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy..."
"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
There is no possible context where these comments could be acceptable, especially without overwhelming evidence to support them, which she lacks. I think she could have gotten away with these statements, had they been directed at Cindy Sheehan, but not the 9/11 widows. Cindy Sheehan’s actions have been nothing short of radical. She has questioned the very fabric of American society beyond the scope of the Iraq war. On the other hand, the 9/11 windows have been politically active, but haven’t lost the aura of private individuals who have been trust into public life due to outrageous fortune. For her to make statements that are this sadistic and mean spirited, it gives the average person an idea of what they can expect should they ever step out of line in Ms. Coulter’s eyes.
In this case, she was needlessly cold hearted about the whole situation, and will now find herself marginalized. This combined with that voter fraud case that looms over her head, I think she'll sell a lot of books this go around, and find herself marginalized. This will follow her for the rest of her public life.
If what you say is so, then the public--and the marketplace--will have spoken.
I haven't heard much from Michael Moore-on lately; we probably won't until the next Presidential election. Was he marginalized with his "terrorists are the Minutemen, and they will win!" comment? Unfortunately, no. He's still a lion to the left. He should have been, though. I can't imagine a context that would justify his comparison.
The Dixie Chicks are feeling a little more of the marginalization of which you speak. Time will tell which, if either, of the two I've mentioned, will be closer to what happens to Ann Coulter.
But she's more valuable to you lefties (DQTP) while she's opening her mouth? She must be *your* Nancy Pelosi!
Michael Moore is currently making a movie about our healthcare entitled “Sicko.” He has made 2 public appearances since the 2004 election, once on Jay Leno immediately after the election where he seemed somewhat conciliatory. The other was a regional radio program.
He rarely makes public appearances during the filming of one of his documentaries, but he is alive and well, and will make a comeback due to frustration that many Americans have with the healthcare system.
As for how I feel about him? He is a satirist, so I’ve grown accustomed to not taking his every word literally. I have disagreed with him on several points, and if I feel any affinity for him, it’s in spite of his shortcomings, not because of them.
“The Dixie Chicks are feeling a little more of the marginalization of which you speak.”
Their record sales do not refelct that. Their ticket sales have been hurt, but only in red states. They are now selling out crowds in blue states and in Canada, an audience where they previously had few listeners. The net effect is that they are more popular and economically viable than ever.
“She must be *your* Nancy Pelosi!”
And…. She’s *your* Michael Moore!
BTW, feel free to question my patriotism any time you like.
I think much of the problem is that each side sees the others' views based only upon the most radical of political statements. Do I think every single Democrat worships Michael Moore? Nope, in fact I know of a number of conservative Democrats that are seriously concerned at how the party has been co-opted by the American wing of the Green Party. Do I read any of Ann Coulter's books? No. I have read some more other serious conservative and moderate authors from both sides of the national debate. But this is what galls me. When someone from the extremely liberal side of a question posts something that is not only undocumented and unconfirmed, if anyone questions their statements the Bill of Rights and American flag are waved as the reason they can say ANYTHING. But when someone from the right makes similarly inane statements, or even statements that challenge the opposing views, they are labeled as "hatemongers" and "fascists". You can see it in action with the media's trial of the Marines in the Haditha incident and the hands off policy regarding what appears to amount to an attempt to exact terror in the most appeasing of nations outside of France, which is our neighbor to the north, Canada. While any incident needs to be investigated, why are the people who want to create terror given a free pass? Is it just so that we won't be accused of bigotry? If so, then prepare for more of the same.
There's a local college here that recently demoted, marginalized, and later fired a popular education professor because she merely provided access to some fliers from Focus on the Family to her students as materials for a discussion on homosexuality -- no advocacy of anything, just providing information. When she later sued the school and the media tepidly picked up on it and asked about academic freedom and censorship, the provost said "We cannot tolerate the intolerable." There's an element in American culture that will complain far and wide about freedom and tolerance, as long as they get to decide what's tolerable and what isn't.
"BTW, feel free to question my patriotism any time you like."
I do.
You know what's really interesting? I've never read one of Ann Coulter's books. Never heard her speak. I only know her name when she pops above the radar, like she did here.
But I like what I heard this time.
It's interesting how liberals are always making Ann's points for her.
Interesting? Or sad?
Demonstrative.
I don't often give leftists advice, but this time, I just couldn't help myself.
These were the two quotes that I find objectionable:
“Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy..."
"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
Do you support or condem these statements?
Yes or No?
Yes. I (either) support or condemn these statements.
Do you believe that these widows enjoyed their husband's deaths?
No, certainly not. They're milking those deaths for any attention they can get, though, making themselves public people (and public targets) in the process.
But I'd be willing to bet that any of them would give up their notoriety to get their husbands back. However, they should keep their personal grief private, not make it public a la Mama Moonbat.
The two comments you pointed out--Coulter was over the bounds of civility with them, and you can bet that I'd excoriate any liberal who would make similar remarks. I agree with her overall point, however, despite the rudeness of those two remarks.
I think you and Ann Coulter have one thing in common, a shared love of ad hominem arguments. Don’t Question Their Patriotism (DQTP) must be a term you invented, since I can’t find it anywhere else on the net. It basically is an expression of frustration that you feel you should be able to question someone’s patriotism at will, largely in the same realm as Ms. Coulter’s now famous remarks.
Questioning someone’s patriotism is basically an ad hominem argument of the form:
1. Y makes claim X.
2. There is something objectionable about Y.
3. Therefore claim X is false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Your version reads like this:
1. Y makes claim X.
2. Y is unpatriotic.
3. Therefore claim X is false.
It is also unnecessary from a conservative viewpoint. If conservatives can sucessfully refute liberal arguments soley on merrit, why attack the messenger? If we are wrong and you are right, that should be self evident.
Furthermore, it is an illogical attack on liberalism. How can someone “love big government” and “hate America” at the same time?
You have questioned my patriotism without stating why. Heaven forbid I should ever give you just cause to do so. I find your questioning my patritism a manifestation of the Fundemental Attribution Error.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Attribution_Error
In other words, I say something you disagree with poticially, it must be because I’m a jerk. If I question American foreign policy, it must be because I hate America. By questioning my patriotism, you are unfairly trying to infer something about me personally based soley on my statements without even considering the merrit of my argument.
Yes, DQTP *is* something I proudly claim as my own. I'd trademark it, if I knew how or cared enough to.
I don't view it as an ad hominem attack at all. It's merely a manifestation of the claims of lefties--any time a conservative challenges the liberal dogma, the lefties are the ones to scream "Don't question my patriotism!" We conservatives aren't usually questioning their patriotism, we're questioning their judgement--two very different things.
I've not directed my abbreviation at you--it goes only after the term "leftie". If that's you, then so be it. If not, it's not a personal attack on you. But yes, it does serve to show my disdain for liberals in general.
As for how someone can love big government and hate America? Ask the Europeans--they're good at both.
I've often wondered why the anarchists show up at leftie rallies. Wouldn't the anarchists want less government, not more? I've also wondered why Bosnia and Kosovo were OK but Iraq is not. I've also wondered why we want government in charge of our health care but not monitoring phone calls originating outside the US by non-US citizens.
I've never said that consistency was the strong suit of the left, anonymous.
“I've often wondered why the anarchists show up at leftie rallies. Wouldn't the anarchists want less government, not more?”
Ah yes, the problem with having an anti-Bush rally is that Bush has offended so many people, you have no control over who shows up. Unfortunate.
“I've also wondered why Bosnia and Kosovo were OK but Iraq is not.”
We trusted Clinton, and we didn’t trust Bush.
We knew Clinton would not bite off more than we could chew, and that if it appeared we had overestimated our reach that the Clinton administration would protect our national interests and withdraw post haste.
Based on the resuts, our mistrust was well placed.
“I've also wondered why we want government in charge of our health care but not monitoring phone calls originating outside the US by non-US citizens.”
We consider access to Health Care a fundamental human right, not just an right as a U.S. citizen.
Futhermore, we do not object to montoring phone calls. We feel that the government should get a warrant first, though.
The FISA Court of Review disagrees with you about the warrant.
As for the rest of what you wrote--we just disagree. Trusting Clinton, though? Come on, you can't be serious. I only give that man credit for 3 things:
1. Going against his own party, he supported NAFTA.
2. Going against his own party, he signed off on welfare reform.
3. According to every account I've ever read, he and his wife were exceptional parents to their daughter.
But trust the man? No, not me.
Here's some information on sales of Coulter's new book:
http://nalert.blogspot.com/2006/06/ann-coulters-sales-figures-higher-than.html
And here's some information about how the Dixie Chicks are doing and saying, as quoted by the UK's Telegraph:
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/06/17/the-dixie-chicks-whats-the-big-deal-about-patriotism/
“The entire country may disagree with me, but I don’t understand the necessity for patriotism,” Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. “Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don’t see why people care about patriotism.”
Notice she isn't talking about just the Bush supporters, she's questioning the entire concept of patriotism. Should I question hers? She already claims not to have any.
Go ahead, tell me what a great American Natalie Maines is.
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/bestseller/index.html
June 25th, NY Times Bestseller List, Hardcover Nonfiction:
#2 Godless, Ann Coulter
For some reason they added Anderson Cooper as an author (he's actually the author of #4 on today's list), but the position on the list is there for all to see.
So anonymous, what were you saying about Coulter being marginalized?
Post a Comment