You'll love Woods' Edge at Salt Creek Golf Retreat, Brown County, Indiana.
Nancy Soderberg Hopes We Fail
I am still in shock about the revelation in the update on my previous post about what Nancy Soderberg said. I probably shouldn’t be by now, but I am. The hateful anti-American rhetoric of the left is amazing, and even more so because it’s not some looney fringe, it’s from a former member of the National Security Council under Clinton.
From 1993 until 1997, Soderberg served as the third ranking official of the National Security Council at the White House, including as Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. She was responsible for day-to-day crisis management, briefing the President and developing U.S. national security.
From 1997 until 2001, Soderberg served as alternate representative to the United Nations as a presidential appointee, with the rank of ambassador. Her responsibilities included representing the United States at the Security Council. She has also worked as senior foreign policy adviser to Sen. Edward Kennedy.
And this is what she said about the chance for a historic peace deal between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
it may well work. I think that … it’s scary for Democrats, I have to say.
And regarding Stewart’s comment that Bush may end up “greater than Reagan”… she said:
Well, there’s still Iran and North Korea, don’t forget. There’s hope for the rest of us.
Regarding democratic results in the region of the middle east:
There’s always hope that this might not work.
Nancy Soderberg appears to be saying that she hopes that we fail completely in our quest to spread freedom and democracy around the world, because it would be bad for the democrats. That is truly a jaw dropping perspective on things. How do these people ever hope to connect with main street America again?
UPDATE: Joining OTB’s Linkfest
UPDATE 2: Mark at Section 15 has pointed out to me that they were both being sarcastic (this is Comedy Central after all). I stand corrected here and probably should not have jumped so hard on this… I read a transcript rather than watched it. See the comments on this thread for additional perspective. What is it that makes satire funny?
UPDATE 3 (3/7): MSNBC has linked to this blog entry.
See if you can find the link in the following paragraphs. :-)
James Taranto transcribed the interview and insisted that Nancy didn’t make a convincing case for the book. (Gee, on “The Daily Show?” That’s surprising) That’s here. The next day, the Washington Times covered it here.)
Then Rush Limbaugh read about it in the Washington Times and goes on a rant about it even suggesting, without having read the book, that Nancy argues that we should cede our role as a Superpower. He also reads from the transcript instead of playing it, because if he played it, you’d see she was joking.
Apparently Laura Ingraham was on it the next day, with her typical commitment to accuracy and journalistic integrity. Now it’s all over the web and will follow Nancy around like gob from Cathy Young. Look, for instance, at this doofus (who at least had the good grace to recognize his mistake and apologize—making him far more of mensch [sic] that [sic] Rush or Laura.)
Alterman states:
Anyway, that’s the way it works; not an ounce of truth in it anywhere, but nobody involved could care less. [”It”, as I read the article, is referring to this, a couple of paragraphs earlier: “They now have their proof that Nancy, indeed, all liberals, hate America.”]
Well, at least we got it all cleared up. And being more of a mensch than Rush or Laura has to count for something, doesn’t it?
Oh, and regarding the name calling, I ran across this great quote (guess who said it!!)
That’s OK, hits are hits. Negative attention, for a Web site, is still attention, and MSNBC.com and I will take anything we can get.
So thanks for stopping by, and while you’re here, check out some of our other recent posts on the sidebar. :-D
UPDATE 4: At least someone thinks I’m not a doofus. I feel much better now, thanks Mark! And LaShawn Barber and Jeff Harrell (here) agree with the “I don’t care what you say as long as you link to my blog!” sentiments.
UPDATE 5: Taranto has weighed back in, and links to Section15:
The it-was-only-a-joke line we’re hearing from Alterman, Francis and Soderberg herself, though, is just too simplistic to take seriously. Why would it be funny to suggest that Democrats are hoping for America to fail–as Soderberg did four times–unless there’s an element of truth to it?
http://myopiczeal.blogsome.com/2005/03/03/nancy-soderberg-hopes-we-fail/trackback/
No. No. No!
I saw the show. They were kidding around! You know, sarcasm!
It’s being pushed as a literal comment, as at Opinion Journal, and I suspect someone’s playing dirty, else it’s lousy journalism. Hard to tell these days.
I mean, if you watched it, you’d know.
The Daily Show is a Comedy show. Everyone kids around on it.
Stewart’s entire demeanor was “Democracy’s may be coming to the ME despite Bush’s blunders, and he’s going to get credit for it! Arg!!!!” Soldenberg, equally facetious, was posing: “Don’t you worry, we can still blame North Korean etc… on him and we can always hope Iraq fails…”
It was all facetious!!!
Comment by Mark — March 3, 2005 @ 5:58 pm
Let’s hope so. The link to the video itself was not working when I tried to view it, transcripts of comedy shows are definitely hard to read. I hope you are right.
Comment by Myopic Zeal — March 3, 2005 @ 8:55 pm
I did review the video. And I am right. She’s kidding. The transcript is misleading in there’s no body language, phrasing is different, emotional context missing…
A lot of people are taking the segment wrong. The Opinion Journal piece, which reads to my PR-educated brain as a piece of hackery, isn’t helping matters.
I thinking of putting a post together about this clip and the controversy. This segments raises a lot of interesting points. Stewart, for a comedian, has good insight. Actually, come to think of it, good comedians probably have good insight. It’s how they know what’s funny.
Comment by Mark — March 3, 2005 @ 9:55 pm
I appreciate the perspective Mark. I still am not sure I think what she said is appropriate. Jon Stewart, sure… that’s his job. But a person in Nancy Soderberg’s position … should she be joking around in that way? Maybe… maybe.
Remember, what makes any satire funny is the grain of truth.
Comment by Myopic Zeal — March 4, 2005 @ 6:39 am
Being inappropriately humourous is at least less severe. It didn’t bother me at all. I can see how, in theory, it could bother someone else. I don’t think it should because I like to think my head is screwed on straight.
So I found her funny. Does that make me objectively pro-terrorist?
Oh, why do I hate America so?
Okay, I guess that’s sarcasm, not satire. Regardless, to me, she was making fun of all those jerks who make accusations like that at the drop of a hat.
After Baghdad was taken, I was involved in a thread somewhere where I was arguing that there were nowhere near enough troops in Iraq to ensure the peace and to ease reconstruction tasks. It was the last posting I made anywhere for at least one year because I was so vehemently attacked (not the first time…) for ‘not supporting the troops’, told that I ‘hate America’, and so on, that I gave up messaging.
So, time to time, I dryly say “I think such ‘n such is a poor policy because, you know, I hate America.” The grain of truth isn’t that I ever think that about America. The grain of truth is that people have groundlessly accused me of thinking like that.
I like America, and I worry about her. See? I still have this inner need to make that clear, just in case.
Anyway, I went at this topic because my fear here is the building of a meme: “On the Daily Show, Soderberg admitted repeatedly that Democrats are hoping for American failure in the Middle East.” I don’t think that’s earned.
Comment by Mark — March 4, 2005 @ 10:34 am
There’s a little truth in every jest.
Comment by Taste of Liberty — March 4, 2005 @ 4:09 pm
Well of COURSE they were trying to be funny.. But frankly it’s not! I suppose you could make sarcastic jokes about September 11… maybe something like the people in the Twin Towers were all little Eichmans. You don’t need to dig too deep to find statements by Democrats at nearly every level that belittle the progress (and the sacrifice) that has been made. Remember when Kerry Advisor Joe Lockhart referred to Iraqi PM Allawi as a “puppet.” Then of course there are the really disgusting comments you find on Democrats Underground actually hoping that Americans are killed in Iraq and the whole thing fails.
Best of the Web at Opinion Journal has been at the forefront in exposing the utter shallowness of the left and sarcasm or not, for a person of Soderberg’s supposed stature to jest about things like this is unacceptable. Trent Lott was deposed as Senate Majority Leader for less. Thank God Soderberg is not going to be back in office anytime soon… FOUR MORE YEARS!!!
Comment by Mike on Hilton Head — March 4, 2005 @ 10:36 pm
Mike,
Opinion Journal portrayed the comments as not being in jest, which is unture and thus the piece is just hackery.
Nor are her comments analogous to joking about Sept 11, or anything else you raise.
Feel free to critique the offensive and idiotic comments of some loonies at DU. I’m with you on that. The question I have is whether you have anything else on Soderberg that turns her comments from being a satirical commentary on some of the hyperbole found on the right into an exposee of some personally-held view. I’d be very interested in that, as it could change my take on the interview.
I know little about her aside from her credentials. I thought little of Clinton’s foreign policy, by the way. Just to be clear.
Comment by Mark — March 5, 2005 @ 12:10 pm
Well i wonder how democrats if Bill Frist ” joked ” about an minority group, joke or not dems would demand blood. remember Trent Lott.
Comment by ron romano — March 6, 2005 @ 3:45 am
Trent Lott was not joking.
Comment by Karl — March 6, 2005 @ 5:22 am
Regardless, they are unconnected events, rationally.
Comment by Mark — March 6, 2005 @ 8:50 pm
why is this funny? she really should not have gone on the show and made those comments. Why do we have to decide if these comments are her true feelings. Very tacky.
Comment by lynn — March 7, 2005 @ 2:04 pm
Mike on Hilton Head, do you really think that Ward Churchill is a Democrat? wow. Kerry’s comment about Allawi was fueled in part or in whole by the fact that Allawi’s speech to Congress was vetted and written with the assistance of Bush’s CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE. Which is, to me at least, fairly odd behavior for an independent foreign leader.
Comment by tom sullivan — March 7, 2005 @ 2:05 pm
Mike: She was obvious joking, and more importantly, she was joking about people’s attitudes about Democrats, NOT about failing in Iraq! Can’t you see that she really doesn’t want us to fail? That’s what makes it a joke: the idea of her (or other Democrats) wanting us to fail in Iraq is so ridiculous, as are people who think that it’s the majority position of Democrats.
The problem is that when someone hits the third rail of criticizing current Iraq policy they are blasted on talk radio, in print, on TV, and in blogs. If this is OK to do (I do think free speech is nice), then we should call it what it is: THE NEW POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. Remember when the White House was telling us to watch what we say? Political correctness goes BOTH WAYS.
You’ll likely say that some Democrats actually do harbor a tiny little desire for us to fail in Iraq. I agree there are some fringe elements out there that believe that. But weren’t there a few Republicans hoping we’d fail in Bosnia to show up Bill Clinton? Political hacks exist on both sides; the key it to point out those actually doing it rather than branding half of America as America-haters.
Comment by blake — March 7, 2005 @ 2:36 pm
I can’t figure out who the “me” is on this website. To whom are you referring? Your name appears nowhere on the page.
Myopic Zeal adds: Jane, excellent question. I am referring to myself when I use the term “me.” :-)
Comment by Jane Stern — March 7, 2005 @ 3:50 pm
“What is it that makes satire funny.”
See, now there is another example of how your original drive by of the point occured. This statment, taken alone, could admit to several meanings. Is is a genuine comment? Is is a rhetorical quesition? Is it a scarcastic backslap at the original comments?
Far too many people today cart about a collection of opinions that they believe to be facts. Has idology created the ‘lazy intellectual’? Blogs and radio have made it so easy to fill oneself with a steady diet what you want to hear, when you want to hear with it even the barest of skepticism applied that actual discourse has been MTV’d into nothing more than empty lip service.
Comment by Ray Setzer — March 7, 2005 @ 5:30 pm
Her humor was self-deprecating, poking fun at the quandary many Democrats find themselves in for opposing Bush’s foreign policy. I guess a corollary on the other side would be Bush’s tasteless jokes at that press dinner at which he showed a video of himself looking under his desk, unsuccessfully, for WMD. The difference is that Bush’s jokes, while poking fun at himself, came at the implicit expense of over 1,000 American soldier’s lives AND the trust among all of our children that their government will not lie to them.
Comment by EV — March 7, 2005 @ 5:44 pm
Stop making joke about america. you must hate america if you make funny on a comedy show. america is at war. funny shows is not patriotic. TV should play national anthem and show parading soldiers 24hrs a day till war over then all will be good in america. Then show seinfeld but not until war over. seinfeld hates america if he makes funny during war.
Comment by Gunter — March 7, 2005 @ 5:55 pm
Sarcasm or no… it was totally inappropriate for someone who formerly had the literal power of LIFE AND DEATH in their hands to banter in this way… Unfortunately, these attitudes PERVADE the Democrat Party from the top (Howard Dean: “I hate Republicans” ) all the way down.. And while I am at it a few asides:
BLAKE: Political correctness a two way street? When was the last time you were on a college campus. How many Republican Professors can you name?
And speaking of college professors, TOM: You think Ward Churchill voted for BUSH? Maybe he’s some commie freak anarchist and NOT a Democrat..but he’s certainly in tune with the whacko left….
Mark: Glad to hear you have a more seasoned view of Clinton’s foreign policy shortcomings… I hope you can appreciate the wisdom of what I call Bush’s “Keystone Strategy” in Iraq.
Comment by Mike on Hilton Head — March 7, 2005 @ 7:35 pm
I wonder what MSNBC and you all would be saying if the “joking” was about homosexual behaviour or blacks for instance?
It seems the left is always either “joking” or didn’t really mean it or really isn’t trying to undermine anything or isn’t against America or is just exercising its freedom to aid and abet the enemy or defining what “is” means or doesn’t mean or that there is a crisis, no there isn’t a crisis, yadayadayada.
Hey you guys at MSNBC, want to know why this thing got legs? It’s because you pashas on the left have no credibility.
Comment by Taste of Liberty — March 7, 2005 @ 7:54 pm
Hey look! This right winger admits he’s myopically zealous! Right in the name of his blog! See, they’re all dumb and humorless and proud of it!
[Myopic Zeal adds: rowrbazzle, you win today’s prize. I’ve been waiting for hours for one of the astute Alterman readers to notice the connection with the name of the blog and the Ratheresque zealousness which led to the lack of sufficient vetting of the information prior to the original posting!]
Comment by rowrbazzle — March 7, 2005 @ 8:01 pm
“This thing” has legs because some people don’t understand humor. There is no correlation between making fun of the President’s Middle East agenda and gay/black-bashing. Why do people who watch the Dailyshow get to be “MSNBC” guys. That network has featured Chris “dumbass” Matthews for years, see Alterman. Someone, please make a reasoned argument as to why Nancy Soderberg “hates America” because this crappy analysis is getting old.
Comment by Derrick — March 7, 2005 @ 8:12 pm
hahaha! they made you look (even more) like fascists, condemning humor as anti-american! You’re all on a witch hunt looking for a liberal or a dem to hang. you poor, sorry, propagandized victims. The fools you play in real life.
Comment by Bill T — March 7, 2005 @ 8:13 pm
To the pashas at MSNBC,
Good try. But we all know that one of the tactics of the left is to advance your political agenda through humorous ridicule in national forums like Comedy Central (or on your website, like the Kinsley quote). It gets the message out and if it backfires then it’s only comedy.
Clever, but not clever enough.
Like, “We’re only reporting the news.” Ya right.
Now let’s see…who is the real doofus?
Comment by Taste of Liberty — March 7, 2005 @ 8:29 pm
Well, I think Bush has done a lousy job as president, but that’s just because I’m an America-hating, terrorist-loving liberal.
*Gasp!* I just made a joke about hating America - that means I must really be a traitor!
Comment by Crane — March 7, 2005 @ 8:32 pm
Thank you Derrick. You made my point. Do you see your reaction? I thought humor was humor.
Comment by Taste of Liberty — March 7, 2005 @ 8:39 pm
Mike! We’ve crossed paths before!
You’re all over blogs leaving very similar messages under anti-Soderberg blog posts.
You forgot to say ‘4 more years!’ at the bottom of your post here.
Clinton’s foreign policy was based upon containment, which was just an adoption of The Powell Doctrine, as I recall. Clinton did have more emphasis on anti-terrorism than the current president. It took 9/11 to wake Bush up to current realities.
Anyway, I see from your blog that you are quite the republican! Even worked in Reagan’s White House. I was quite the Reagan fan, but the Iran-Contra thing really took me for a spin, especially when I researched the Contras. Not. Very. Nice. People. Didn’t like the Sadinistas either, of course. I note that they all decided to get along in the end. Guess you don’t always need violent change.
Of course there isn’t anything offensive about Soderberg’s behaviour. She gave credit where’s it due, and made very reasonable opposing points. Have you watched the clip yet? Remember the CBS lesson: check your source!
Keep in mind that in the rush to claim credit for everything, you may not learn from living history. If the going’s on in Lebanon have nothing to do with Bush’s “Keystone Strategy”, and no one chooses to notice that, then perhaps we’ll learn the wrong lesson.
Comment by Mark — March 7, 2005 @ 8:50 pm
Who cares if Nancy was joking? The fact that she thought it to be funny implies an element of truth in the humor! If there isn’t at least a tiny hint of truth in a joke, it falls flat. People just don’t get it. It doesn’t seem funny. Many (including Nancy) seemed to find it either funny, or close enough to what they’ve heard from liberals recently so that it smelled like a position she’d really take. Is that the fault of a well-meaning blogger? No WAY!
Naturally, I responded in kind to Eric Alterman, who kinda rubs me the wrong way anyhow (see below). Thank goodness for bloggers. Especially Myopic Zeal, who retracts IMMEDIATELY when he realizes a mistake. Dan Rather and the rest of the tired, cranky, REALLY myopic mainstream liberal media could take a lesson from you.
- - - - -
Hey, Eric!
I used to think that even a liberl college prof out to make a few bucks by writing a trash media column on the side could afford someone to check spelling, syntax, context, etc (”…making him far more of mensch that Rush or Laura.”). ‘Course that was before Dan Rather… Speaking of old Dan, what’s he doing for work these days, anywho?
Thank goodness for bloggers like Myopic Zeal. They may not have the education you have (not sure if that’s a good or a bad thing yet), they may not get it perfect every time, but without guys like him we’d have never heard about Dan Rather’s self-serving, idiotic “Bush Papers” fiasco. I’m old enough to remember the old days when the media just reported stories, and didn’t work so hard to create ‘em from scratch. Ah, the old days…
Nancy’s “joke”, as funny as it may or may not be, reminds us that if something is funny its usually because there’s an element of truth there (a REAL one, not one produced by the liberal media). If the element of truth had not been there she wouldn’t have thought the joke to be funny, and wouldn’t have made it.
Maybe, instead of tripping all over yourselves to remind us that it was a joke, you guys could work a little harder to take the actions needed to reduce the perception that you hate America and lose a little “liberal identity” whenever we Americans win. Help the rest of us Americans celebrate the victories without finding the smallest fault in them. Stop preaching the “Bush lied” propaganda in the classrooms, and lay out the facts for the students to judge on their own. I could go on, but I’m sure you get the picture.
You guys could easily change things. With a little work, if Nancy were to make a similar joke in the future, nobody’d get it. As it is now, people seem to easily mistake her joke for her real position.
Can’t say as I blame ‘em.
Jim Davis
Phoenix, Az.
USA
Comment by Jim Davis — March 8, 2005 @ 12:03 am
“Maybe, instead of tripping all over yourselves to remind us that it was a joke, you guys could work a little harder to take the actions needed to reduce the perception that you hate America and lose a little “liberal identity” whenever we Americans win.”
Maybe instead of tripping all over yourselves to portray an obviously facetious comment as an “America hating” position statement you should learn to LISTEN to what people say. It’s really not that hard to figure out that she was joking. It is, after all, a comedy program. Arguments like this are usually intentional misinterpretations (or in this case an example of myopic zealousness).
Comment by Karl — March 8, 2005 @ 1:55 am
Problem is, there’s blogs all over not correcting this error. I pointed the problem out days ago to this blog. Myopic Zeal adjusted, but that was it. It’s not until Alterman’s acerbic column showed up that people even started to notice. So that’s the MSM correcting the blogosphere, if I’m not mistaken.
Frankly, this whole blogosphere vs. the MSM thing is a meme that deserves to be mangled. The former isn’t eclipsing the latter as some claim; at best, there’s a relationship developing. And blogs are proving just as spectacular at spreading partisan crap — more so, actually, as they add so much more velocity to the bull.
The element of truth in Soderberg’s joke is that there are close-minded people who argue that’s what many liberals think. That’s what the grain of truth is. That’s her satire. Clear as day.
To argue that because some unnamed left-wing loonies somewhere have expressed a desire for America to lose means that’s what was in Soderberg’s mind is fallacious thinking. Coming to conclusions is all about moving from the general to the specific. To do so you need evidence. What’s the evidence that she thinks such crap? Watch the entire interview. She seriously says the complete opposite in many places. All the misconstrued commentary is clearly humour. And it isn’t satire based on anything on her side of the aisle either. There isn’t evidence to substantiate any accusation that she ‘hates America’ or whatever the latest hard right-wing propaganda narrative is supposed to be these days. So such specific allegations can’t be made, and shouldn’t be.
This matter does not speak ill of Soderberg. It speaks ill of James Taranto, who wrote nothing more that a piece of blatant agitprop - the sort of thing that should cost him his job lest he cough up an apology - and it speaks ill of many bloggers who, despite the recent Dan Rather debacle, apparently haven’t learned that they too should verify their sources. Soderberg did not write a transcript. She was interviewed on a comedy show on television. I found few bloggers who even thought to compare the transcript with the readily available clip of the interview.
Is any of this the fault of liberals? No!
It’s the fault of right-wingers ardently believing their own propaganda.
Comment by Mark — March 8, 2005 @ 2:40 am
Mike: I am currently a student, and I’ve run into quite a number of conservative professors on campus, although they are definitely outnumbered by liberals. Both types are greatly outnumbered by those who either don’t care or keep their views to themselves. As an example, one conservative professor here has lots of religious images/sayings posted on his door, including invitations to an on-campus bible study group and more off-campus church groups. Just two doors down, a liberal professor posts articles denouncing the war.
You know what? I like it. The “war of ideas” is a big part of the college experience, and has really changed over the past 10-12 years I’ve been in and out of school. Conservative groups on campus are very strong and getting stronger. I disagree with just about everything they say, but I’m glad they’re around to keep us all engaged on real issues. Of course, young collegians with little real-world experience tend to be pretty naive (Reps and Dems alike).
So Mike, when was the last time you were on a college campus? A lot of “evidence” of a destructive liberal bias seems to be anecdotal and from the 70s and 80s. The game has changed.
Comment by blake — March 8, 2005 @ 12:03 pm
Blake: Two conservatives on a college faculty does not make for any balance in the “war of ideas” Especially if those two conservatives are in the math department. Maybe you go to a school which bucks the norm, or perhaps you have a different idea of what a conservative is and what they have to do to compete on a level playing field in a campus setting. I can point you to any number of resources documenting what students with conservative views face today on campus and it is the SAME as when I was there. The only difference is that when I was there we lacked resources to fight back.
Oh, MARK: you really do need to let it go… You can defend Soderberg till you turn blue, but that doesn’t make her comments in that venue appropriate NOR acceptable from someone formerly on the NSC. Point fingers and boo hoo about bloggers or conservatives, and Opinion Journal all you want… It’s what we call more “wah, wah, wah…” Talk about right wingers believing their own propaganda… you sure do know something about self deception don’t you?
Oh.. one final thing before I ignore you hopeless causes on planet Pluto: Did you see the comments of Teresa Heinz Kerry in Seattle about the GOP control of voting machines… and you think GOP’ers are scary???? I posted more on the subject, but don’t trouble yourself by reading… I don’t want to be responsible for further undermining your fragile ego-ideology.
Just remember the old hippie bumper sticker: “HATE IS NOT A FAMILY VALUE” good words to live by if you can.
Comment by Mike on Hilton Head — March 8, 2005 @ 7:02 pm
Mike,
You are, seriously, the kind of person Soderberg was satirizing. I checked your web site out the other day.
I most certainly do not think that most dems or repubs are scary. It’s the wingnuts of the right and the loons of the left I go after. And anyone who’ll write and spread agitprop.
I may take a look at Heinz - she’s never been inspiring. I’ve also been wondering about all the rumours re: Ohio. But, frankly, let it go guys! Unless there’s some massive fascist black ops program in place to manipulate elections, move on!
My favourite bumber sticker is still the old ‘Who would Jesus bomb?’ Hilariously satirical. Or, how about, ‘Love thy neighbour’?
Comment by Mark — March 8, 2005 @ 8:31 pm
Mike:
“school which bucks the norm” — no, it’s one of the top 5 largest universities and in a strong blue state besides. I suppose PoliSci and Journalism schools may tend liberal, which is why conservative bloggers who have taken lots of these classes get upset. With that limited exposure, I might too. To ignore other more conservative programs (i.e. math) is ignoring a significant part of students and faculty.
“resources documenting what students with conservative views face today” — this sounds like the anecdotal evidence I mentioned earlier. Maybe conservatives’ feelings about academia (and the media, for that matter) are based on stories they heard rather than actual weighted evidence. Kind of why flying feels more dangerous than driving despite evidence to the contrary — it just seems like it should be so. Conservatives are so used to complaining about the bias they neglect the possibility that it may no longer be the case.
I opposed the Iraq war, and I really felt reluctant to express that opinion to anyone, especially certain profs. That self-censoring attitude is a result of what I referred to as the new political correctness. I was much more conservative when political correctness was peaking (changing spelling to ‘womyn’ in papers, etc.). Now that I have swung more liberal, I recognize the same signs. For example, why does Fox insist on referring to suicide bombers as “homicide bombers”, even to the point of re-writing AP copy? Now if somebody opposes the Iraq war, hard-line right-wingers say they don’t support the troops or they hate America. Is this any more ridiculous than the PC assertion that the word “black” is inherently racist? Does the rational centrist exist anymore?
Comment by blake — March 8, 2005 @ 9:44 pm
Oh these kids today…
It has been a few years since I was at Columbia University in New York (blue state last time I checked). Back then (before you were born), Jeanne Kirkpatrick, our Ambassador at the UN, the most intelligent women ever to hold that job, had planned to speak at her alma mater, Barnard College (long a part of Columbia). Well of course the left, who with frightening regularity seems to shout down anyone who might voice an opposing view, did just that to Kirkpatrick and the tumult in advance of her planned visit caused her to cancel.
Sound familiar? Not just anecdotal anymore is it??? You really need ME to dredge up the ever so long list of similar occurences from THE PAST FEW MONTHS????
Somehow I doubt it would make the slightest difference. It’s not just a red state/blue state kind of thing with some of you folks (and you know who you are). You’re intellectually blind (we used to call it “knee jerk”) opposition to anything Bush is proof enough of the lack of credibility surrounding your arguments.
Is the above HARSH? Yep… and sorry, it is not my intention to offend. But since that bile has replaced brains in much of the left, I am losing my patience.
If you think I am going over the top, read Mark Steyn and you’ll see how restrained I am: http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=5759&issue=2005-03-05
Oh, one more thing BLAKE: Do you think those killers blowing up busloads of men, women, children and babies are freedom fighters? Come on over to Mike’s America and see the photos I took at a German Concentration Camp to help you grasp some perspective here.
Comment by Mike on Hilton Head — March 8, 2005 @ 11:40 pm
As a man in my 30s, being called a “kid” is becoming a compliment. As for shouting people down, anyone who familiar with O’Reily, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. can say that the right is also quite talented. That doesn’t excuse shouting down Kirkpatrick, but it illustrates that left & right politics can be equally annoying to pay attention to.
Since when did I oppose everything Bush? All I did was enter into this one discussion, and now I’m a knee-jerk liberal? Or was the “intellectually blind” comment meant for the collective liberal populace? You seem to be responding to someone other than me. Not over the top comments, but perhaps misdirected?
On suicide bombers: they are bad and are going to hell. My comment was to illustrate the language describing them, not endorse them (did you even read what I wrote?). I don’t think of them as freedom fighters, and they must be stopped. I guess describing myself as liberal-leaning and mentioning the words “suicide bombers” led you believe all sorts of bad stuff about me. Just when you thought this conversation was diverting from the point of the thread, we come back to it: Twisting words to make someone else look bad and to increase traffic at your blog.
Comment by blake — March 9, 2005 @ 12:05 am
Mike,
Actually, your story about Jeanne Kirkpatrick could only be categorized as anecdotal. Do a quick google on “define: anecdote” and the first listing is: “short account of an incident (especially a biographical one)” And I can’t really blame the liberals on campus about not wanting to see her speak. Her right-wing name calling and ridiculous generalizations would make even you proud. And yes, I realize that she used to be a “democrat.”
Comment by Karl — March 9, 2005 @ 4:36 am
Karl,
I’ll back up Mike on this one. Although his story is anecdotal (from his own experience at Columbia), it can be easily verified with news articles, etc. at the time. On that note, liberal loud-mouthed schnook Michael Moore has also been shouted down and actually kept off-campus. It cuts both ways, man. Everyone can claim “victimhood”, not just Republicans.
Comment by blake — March 9, 2005 @ 9:29 am
testcomment968
Comment by testanchor1 — October 15, 2005 @ 5:59 pm
testcomment518
Comment by testanchor520 — October 16, 2005 @ 12:08 am
To the loser who wrote the comments about Nancy Soderberg. Show me where you got your quotes. Reference them; don’t just quote hearsay. If you are going to present an arguement, then do so properly. Don’t take a person’s words out of context. What crap!
Comment by Reply to Previous post — November 23, 2005 @ 1:09 am
Here ?
Comment by ARICEPT — April 21, 2006 @ 8:52 pm
Comment by AUGMENTIN — April 22, 2006 @ 11:44 am
Comment by AVANDIA — April 22, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
Comment by BACTRIM — April 25, 2006 @ 7:30 am