The left and right-wing extremist don't take it far enough. Their stances are still too centrists for most Americans who really want an America they can be even more proud of, which will be evidenced when we see more American flags hanging from just about every place imaginable. That's how I know that Fox news is the most patriotic and the Food Network least. There are too few American flags visible on the Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter blogs.
Who on the left blogosphere trade in polemics as well as those two? Something from iVillage? The extreme left is equally guilty of being harsh and bloodlust wordwise as the right. And the hypocrisy.
The thing is, being hypocritical doesn't necessarily equate to being wrong. A mass murderer who advises people to not kill would surely be right while being a hypocrite. Politicians are just more frequent offenders. Yes, even Obama, and no one can be sure it's even less with him than most. Equivocation is also solid currency.
How do I segue back to Malkin and Coulter. Crap. Anyway, Malkin on immigration isn't taking her thoughts to the logical conclusion. Why stop at eliminating the citizenship rights for those born on US soil when we can turn back the clock and fix all our mistakes? Let it be retroactive and we'll take back the citizenship of every person who was not born from American citizens -every last one of those leechers: illegals, on work or travel visas. As it happens, obviously, Michelle's dear (assumption) parents were on visas and thus not real Americans in any sense of the word. Sure, that would also mean Michelle needs to move back to the Philipines if they'll have her. Wait, she's already got roots: one (real) American husband and two kids. But rules are rules. As she said herself, keeping families together arguments hold no water when we are dealing with a real encroachment of US sovereignty.
Next, the real American, and bestselling author (a claim that almost every published writer can make for some reason) Ann Coulter. She did a really brilliant post on her dad but had to ruin it with a dig at liberals by somehow calling upon the Almighty to smite them (not terrorists, not Osama but liberals). Not to say there's no play for baiting and fan service but as the closing of a rememberance of your dear (another assumption) of your recently deceased father. Well, everyone has different standards.
"Father hated puffery, pomposity, snobbery, fake friendliness, fake anything."
Um, nothing about whether he liked his daughter; I have only my informed guess but I like to fake friendliness. Oh, and ideas from Marx. And Adam Smith. Keynes. I like ideas and not the stifling of them. So I'd vote no on McCarthy who was apparently quite the hero in the Coulter household.
Ann also referenced Anna Karenina. Well-read, or perhaps just taken off Cliff Notes, the ten page summary. I do that sometimes. A lot.
"Father mostly had contempt for Soviet spies. In addition to damaging information, such as military plans and nuclear secrets, the spies also collected massive amounts of utterly useless information on things like U.S. agricultural production. These were people who looked at a flush toilet like it was a spaceship. He told me Soviet spies reveled in the whole cloak-and-dagger aspect of espionage."
Did he know they were spies. Did he think the US spies were causing a scene and drawing attention to themselves? Or better yet not taking any notes and just winging it? They were spies, that's all I'm saying.
"He hated unions because of their corrupt leadership, ripping off the members for their own aggrandizement."
Was he okay with corrupt governments? Halliburton wants to know. Wait, it doesn't.
"There was massive violence by the strikers, including guns being fired into the homes of the mine employees who returned to work."
Only strikers were violent; the suppressors were all manners.
Despite all that, even if you factor into who he created, he was probably a decent person. He made a much bigger contribution than a right or left-wing blogger ever will. Of course, me included.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
Politics and Ann Coulter
Politics is something I didn't think I'd have all these useless opinions on but it's the big thing in this moment - even bigger than Roger Federer's decline (or more accurately, the rest of the field narrowing the gap).
The great thing about the political opinions being spewed nowadays from the hardcore liberals and conservatives is this: none of it - not the tens of thousands of hours of on-air radio, tv, internet and everything else - is in any way constructive. That is close to being completely accurate. And if there's one thing I love it's being unconstructive.
I think Bill Clinton was recently playing up the angle of the benefits of a healthy debate and how that's how society progresses. That's really true, you know, if the other side is listening and there's insight being shared back and forth. So I'm in no way accusing him of lying. However, that's really not the reality of the situation and the "debates" going on, in this case, the Hillary and Obama supporters are not really going to advance towards reconcialition. The only thing that settles the argument is when the winner is left standing. And the same applies to the general election as the liberals try to win for the first time in what feels like a century.
So real debate and dialogue betweens extremely ideological people is as dead as God (at least from what I can gather from Ingmar Bergman movies). No need to shed tears because it can still be great for filling time in the dull lives of the citizens and employ many people in the news media and make a small segment of those people really wealthy.
That's why people should stop bashing people so obviously trolling for media attention and to gather a devoted following for the frequent occasions when they need to shill a book for that new kitchen or swimming pool. And I don't think Ann Coulter is really part of the news media; I think of her more as a failed comic. Well, according to wikipedia (thus we can treat it as if it had been brought down from Mt. Sinai (sic?) by Moses) she has a law degree, but couldn't cut it as a real lawyer, so a failed comic serves probably as a complement compared to the truth. It's kind of frowned upon to treat opinion as fact in litigation so I think, honestly (and not to blog) that she chose the right field. On the other hand, taking statements out of context comes in real handy, so who knows? I think the nail in the coffin is that lawyers have to actually do research and not just create certain ideas of "truth". The man who spawned her was a decent enough lawyer, supposedly taking on unions with some fervor (Full Disclosure(?): I believe corruption in unions was probably commonplace, and at the same time I believe that bargaining position with regard to manual labourers with their employers is an empty term without unions), who knows what kind of influence it had on little Ann. It doesn't matter though because she didn't make it to a position of power except so far as to preach to the choir of people who already believe that liberals are just whiners who underachieved and couldn't deal with the real world.
Crap, that was a like Marc Antony coming to bury Caesar but really there to praise him. Oh, well. What I really wanted to get across was that Ann Coulter is quite smart to playing the outspoken conservative because think about it, how else would she get attention and from that money? Is she going to marry rich? I'm going to assume that ship has sailed. The ship of "Marrying for Love" is still available but then I remembered it's Ann Coulter I'm talking about. Can't help myself. What I meant is that the devil's advocate, playing contrarian and ruffling people's feathers is an easy way to get a devoted following. See Rush, O'Reilly, Olbermann, Franken (maybe?). You don't win fans by sitting on the fence or being centrist unless you're actually talented. Talented as in some combination of journalistic, comedic, and prosaic.
I've read Coulter and it's really just your average blog; I don't think there's a Nabokov underneath the controversial opinions. Oh, I'm not qualified to judge it's at once the most ridiculous opinion in this day and age, dealing with all the people who opine in the media, that anyone whould think that any qualification to bash a person of however great a standing. I think the world as a whole has rejected that notion. So logically, most of her readers then are there for the content. Is it funny? Depends on your sense of humour. Are there reasoned arguments and opinions derived from facts? Certainly, I mean not all, but some for sure, in my opinion. Sorry, I meant so far as I know. It's basically the "shock and awe" of op-ed so it's not as likely to cause deaths. But there are people who believe some of the things she writes and that's America.
Do I even think Ann Coulter believes all of the things she commits on paper? Probably not. But how do you get ahead as a writer when you have nothing to contribute to the argument. Well, yes, you could work hard, slave away at the small papers while honing your writing skills and working at the next big lead that'll make the headlines. Or better yet, the great American novel so you can tell the editor to do something with a flagpole. Thing is though life is too short. Getting ahead is not about earning your place as much as taking short cuts; and being contrarian and controversial is the journalistic equivalent of flashing your nipples on the red carpet. In this regard, you have to hand it to her. Money and fame. And scorn and wrath. And more money. Yay. That's the ultimate reward in life, no? If the mainstream media went conservative the next day she would gloat and then find herself a lot less marketable, at which point she would go liberal. It's not about beliefs and ideologies; it's about the dollars (btw, worth a lot less than what they were a few years back, but I'm sure they still love President Bush).
So everyone should just leave Coulter alone like Britney. Then people will actually get what they want: the end of Ann Coulter (from the media, not like death). I think she's made enough but I'm sure that's not in the conservative dictionary. Enough? That's not Christian. That reminds me, why is she proud of being a WASP? I mean Protestant? Please, there's only one way to heaven and that's on the Roman Catholic bus. I mean obviously the Anglo-Saxon (read: whitebread) heritage kind of means you start as a Protestant but that in no way means you can't improve and purify yourself with the ascension to Roman Catholicism. Everything else is just heresy, so good luck in purgatory. I mean that.
The great thing about the political opinions being spewed nowadays from the hardcore liberals and conservatives is this: none of it - not the tens of thousands of hours of on-air radio, tv, internet and everything else - is in any way constructive. That is close to being completely accurate. And if there's one thing I love it's being unconstructive.
I think Bill Clinton was recently playing up the angle of the benefits of a healthy debate and how that's how society progresses. That's really true, you know, if the other side is listening and there's insight being shared back and forth. So I'm in no way accusing him of lying. However, that's really not the reality of the situation and the "debates" going on, in this case, the Hillary and Obama supporters are not really going to advance towards reconcialition. The only thing that settles the argument is when the winner is left standing. And the same applies to the general election as the liberals try to win for the first time in what feels like a century.
So real debate and dialogue betweens extremely ideological people is as dead as God (at least from what I can gather from Ingmar Bergman movies). No need to shed tears because it can still be great for filling time in the dull lives of the citizens and employ many people in the news media and make a small segment of those people really wealthy.
That's why people should stop bashing people so obviously trolling for media attention and to gather a devoted following for the frequent occasions when they need to shill a book for that new kitchen or swimming pool. And I don't think Ann Coulter is really part of the news media; I think of her more as a failed comic. Well, according to wikipedia (thus we can treat it as if it had been brought down from Mt. Sinai (sic?) by Moses) she has a law degree, but couldn't cut it as a real lawyer, so a failed comic serves probably as a complement compared to the truth. It's kind of frowned upon to treat opinion as fact in litigation so I think, honestly (and not to blog) that she chose the right field. On the other hand, taking statements out of context comes in real handy, so who knows? I think the nail in the coffin is that lawyers have to actually do research and not just create certain ideas of "truth". The man who spawned her was a decent enough lawyer, supposedly taking on unions with some fervor (Full Disclosure(?): I believe corruption in unions was probably commonplace, and at the same time I believe that bargaining position with regard to manual labourers with their employers is an empty term without unions), who knows what kind of influence it had on little Ann. It doesn't matter though because she didn't make it to a position of power except so far as to preach to the choir of people who already believe that liberals are just whiners who underachieved and couldn't deal with the real world.
Crap, that was a like Marc Antony coming to bury Caesar but really there to praise him. Oh, well. What I really wanted to get across was that Ann Coulter is quite smart to playing the outspoken conservative because think about it, how else would she get attention and from that money? Is she going to marry rich? I'm going to assume that ship has sailed. The ship of "Marrying for Love" is still available but then I remembered it's Ann Coulter I'm talking about. Can't help myself. What I meant is that the devil's advocate, playing contrarian and ruffling people's feathers is an easy way to get a devoted following. See Rush, O'Reilly, Olbermann, Franken (maybe?). You don't win fans by sitting on the fence or being centrist unless you're actually talented. Talented as in some combination of journalistic, comedic, and prosaic.
I've read Coulter and it's really just your average blog; I don't think there's a Nabokov underneath the controversial opinions. Oh, I'm not qualified to judge it's at once the most ridiculous opinion in this day and age, dealing with all the people who opine in the media, that anyone whould think that any qualification to bash a person of however great a standing. I think the world as a whole has rejected that notion. So logically, most of her readers then are there for the content. Is it funny? Depends on your sense of humour. Are there reasoned arguments and opinions derived from facts? Certainly, I mean not all, but some for sure, in my opinion. Sorry, I meant so far as I know. It's basically the "shock and awe" of op-ed so it's not as likely to cause deaths. But there are people who believe some of the things she writes and that's America.
Do I even think Ann Coulter believes all of the things she commits on paper? Probably not. But how do you get ahead as a writer when you have nothing to contribute to the argument. Well, yes, you could work hard, slave away at the small papers while honing your writing skills and working at the next big lead that'll make the headlines. Or better yet, the great American novel so you can tell the editor to do something with a flagpole. Thing is though life is too short. Getting ahead is not about earning your place as much as taking short cuts; and being contrarian and controversial is the journalistic equivalent of flashing your nipples on the red carpet. In this regard, you have to hand it to her. Money and fame. And scorn and wrath. And more money. Yay. That's the ultimate reward in life, no? If the mainstream media went conservative the next day she would gloat and then find herself a lot less marketable, at which point she would go liberal. It's not about beliefs and ideologies; it's about the dollars (btw, worth a lot less than what they were a few years back, but I'm sure they still love President Bush).
So everyone should just leave Coulter alone like Britney. Then people will actually get what they want: the end of Ann Coulter (from the media, not like death). I think she's made enough but I'm sure that's not in the conservative dictionary. Enough? That's not Christian. That reminds me, why is she proud of being a WASP? I mean Protestant? Please, there's only one way to heaven and that's on the Roman Catholic bus. I mean obviously the Anglo-Saxon (read: whitebread) heritage kind of means you start as a Protestant but that in no way means you can't improve and purify yourself with the ascension to Roman Catholicism. Everything else is just heresy, so good luck in purgatory. I mean that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)