London Telegraph
By Jonathan Petre
(Filed: 13/12/2004)
The Church of England’s second most senior figure said yesterday that he would be “hard-pushed” to describe Britain as a Christian country.
The Archbishop of York, Dr David Hope, said people were less committed to the Church and secularist tendencies were on the increase.
While many described themselves as Christians, how they expressed their Christianity had changed enormously, he said.
“I would be hard-pushed to say we were a Christian country because of the secularist tendencies, the fact that commitment to the Christian church is less than it was,” said Dr Hope. The Archbishop is the latest senior Church figure to warn of the decline of Christianity in Britain. Last week Jayne Ozane, a senior member of the Archbishop’s Council, said she felt the outlook was bleak.
Read the entire article on the London Telegraph website..
No one on the Democratic side makes this argument Jim, including Kerry operatives. They are frustrated the left can’t marshall their own media (Al Gore tried, Al Franken is trying), but you are the only one arguing that the free press is actually a vast right wing conspiracy.
Look, two bloggers brought down Dan Rather’s transparent attempt to influence the election three weeks before election day. Rather went with forged documents. Two guys figured out it was a fraud even from copies off the internet. If the blogosphere wasn’t there, a fraud would have been perpetrated (and Rather would still have a job).
This works from the other direction too. If a fraud is perpetrated on the right, liberals have the same tools at their disposal to ferret out the truth.
The same arguments used against torture can be used against any act of war. The same arguments can also be used against any action police officers take. Any violence of any type against a fellow human being defiles the image of God, both in the perpetrator and in the person who is the object of the violence. Violence is a fact of the fallen world, we are all victims of it and we all participate in it. Violence is inescapable. Even total pacifists who refuse to do any violence allow violence to continue by their inaction.
Given such a reality, one must look at violence from a pragmatic standpoint not from an idealistic standpoint. That is why we need to reclaim an ethic of war informed by the experience of communion with Christ. Unfortunately, there is no clean, completely moral way addressing the subject.
Two moral principals are, IMO, the foundation of any consideration of the appropriate use of violence: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”; “As you give, so shall you receive”. The first is a moral choice governing behavior, the second is a cosmic law.
Why are we even discussing the use of torture? The debate is a result of the barbaric fixation of the Islamists with beheading (in which they are only imitating their prophet) and the overall cruelty with which they conduct their attacks and treat their prisoners. The reaction of a substantial plurality of Americans is in line with the second principal. Does that excuse or allow a policy of cruelty on our part? No, but it does set in motion a series of events that inevitably leads to more aggressive treatment of the prisoners we hold. Since it is unlikely that the United States treatment of prisoners will ever come close to the barbarity of the Jihadists, the argument that U.S. soldiers will be treated in worse ways does not hold water.
To be appropriate, violence must be directed at protecting the innocent, establishing a just order, and be proportionate. There are times in which torture might be justified, just as, IMO, Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan was justified. To quote Mr. Spock, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one (or the few)”. We need to have the discussion of when (or if) to allow the use of physical/emotional violence against prisoners so that the soldiers and interrogators in the field will have clear guidelines that can be enforced and maintained. The discussion needs to be just that, a discussion, not a political/emotional bombast of self-righteous condemnatory rhetoric
Let’s see if I am reading Comment 150 correctly: Stories analyzed and commented on by the “right wing media” provide “simply is no distinction between fact and fantasy.” And then they, i.e., “right wing media”, dismiss criticism of this since “[i]f the stories are false, they can’t be blamed, because they are simply “reporting” what others have said.” And all this is presented as support for the position that one should not trust anything written by the likes of John O’Neill or published in the Weekly Standard, the National Review or on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, because they’re all part of the “evil” “Republican propaganda machine”. So far so good?
But I’m confused about something; when John Kerry sat before a Senate Committee in 1971 and repeated stories about War Crimes committed on a day to day basis by his fellow soldiers and sailors, with the full knowledge and support of the entire chain of command, during the Vietnam War, “he can hardly be blamed if some of that information was not accurate” because, after all, he is simply “repeating what had been told him … ”
I don’t know about other readers but this looks like a double standard to me.
I’m also wondering how it is that John Kerry can’t be blamed for “repeating what had been told him … ” when he is describing War Crimes that he, himself committed.
For the record, I don’t think that John Kerry actually committed any War Crimes during the Vietnam War. I do think that he lied and distorted his military service in order to promote himself within the anti-American Left and in order to advance his own political career.
Daniel writes: “Let’s see if I am reading Comment 150 correctly: Stories analyzed and commented on by the ‘right wing media’ provide ‘simply is no distinction between fact and fantasy.’ And then they, i.e., ‘right wing media’, dismiss criticism of this since ‘[i]f the stories are false, they can’t be blamed, because they are simply ‘reporting’ what others have said.’”
Yes, that’s correct. Also, it is convenient that the right-wing have a large number of pundits and commentators, since they are not held to the same standards. In other words, you can rightly accuse a “journalist” of bias, but accusing a “pundit” of bias is rather beside the point.
Daniel: “And all this is presented as support for the position that one should not trust anything written by the likes of John O’Neill or published in the Weekly Standard, the National Review or on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, because they’re all part of the ‘evil’ ‘Republican propaganda machine’. So far so good?”
No. It’s not that we shouldn’t trust what is said merely in virtue of the source. It’s that you have to look at the nature of propaganda in order to understand the information you’re getting.
Daniel: “But I’m confused about something; when John Kerry sat before a Senate Committee in 1971 and repeated stories about War Crimes committed on a day to day basis by his fellow soldiers and sailors, with the full knowledge and support of the entire chain of command, during the Vietnam War, ‘he can hardly be blamed if some of that information was not accurate’ because, after all, he is simply ‘repeating what had been told him.’ I don’t know about other readers but this looks like a double standard to me. ”
I didn’t explain myself very well. Kerry was not a journalist. He was not a researcher in an air-conditioned office in the Heritage Foundation. He was not a talk show host throwing out the latest entertainment before the commercial break. He was a very angry young soldier trying to bring home to the congress certain unpleasant aspects of the war that had not been adequately considered. These were both things that he had experienced and things that he had been told about in the context of a brutal and confusing war. You want to hold him to journalistic standards, fine; I don’t. While George Bush was abandoning his flight status and getting drunk and pissing in parking lots in Alabama John Kerry was commanding troops in battle. So I’m willing to cut the guy some slack.
Daniel: “For the record, I don’t think that John Kerry actually committed any War Crimes during the Vietnam War. I do think that he lied and distorted his military service in order to promote himself within the anti-American Left and in order to advance his own political career.”
See, that’s a perfectly valid opinion. I disagree, but I understand your point of view. But when you have Fox News, Sinclair, the big-name pundits, “news” show hosts, and hundreds of talk shows around the country continually harping on the point for months before an election, that’s not opinion. That’s propaganda.
Jim, your position is a double standard, as I’ve clearly shown. For you it is OK when John Kerry repeated inaccurate information, which you admit he did, but it is not OK when those on the Right, whom you feel are mere propagandists, do the same thing. This is the classic definition of double standard, which, according to Merriam Webster, reads: “a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another.” That you want to put Kerry and the Right’s so-called propagandists in different groups under different circumstances only reinforces my point.
BTW, which do you disagree with; my contention that John Kerry was not a war criminal (which he, wrongfully in my opinion, admitted in his 1971 testimony) or that he lied about and distorted his military service. If it is the latter that is something that a clear review of his complete military record, which Mr. Kerry never authorized for release, would either prove or disprove. If it is the former, why would you or anyone on the Left support a war criminal to lead the most powerful and best trained military force in the world?
Fr. Hans, Lawson, et.al.:
Land use and Christian Culture:
Widespread ownership and availability of fertile and productive land is the foundation for freedom, equality, and cultural vitality. The more concentrated the ownership (private or state), the less free the country and the less vital the culture. Continued fertility of land contributes greatly to a strong country and is correlated with lower levels of poverty.
Further: Our primary, God given, job is to dress and keep the earth. The fruitfulness of the land is directly tied to our ability to lead a God-pleasing life. Proper care of the land is founded in Incarnational theology. It is an element of sacramental living and therefore salvific in nature.
Machinery and theoretical economics can easily be de-humanizing. When combined in the approach to the land, they are tremendously destructive. While I appreciate the Amish approach to farming and community, I do not believe theirs is the only Christian approach possible. One can and should use machinery in appropriate ways that are economically profitable and growth oriented.
Factory farms that are founded on animal cruelty, industrial models of land use and look at natural resources as expendable capital inputs are a violation of our stewardship responsibilities, weaken our culture, diminish our freedom and increase poverty while destroying the environment.
I don?t have the time or space to fully support my contentions. They are the result of a lifetime of observation, experience, and study. If we want a strong, vibrant, Christianized culture, we need to approach land use in a strong, vibrant, Christian manner?not just in rural areas, but in urban areas too.
My public health officer father looked at inner city property use and care as a public health issue. He tried to develop an educational and finance program for inner city residents to help restore dignity, thereby decreasing crime and disease. Unfortunately, the prevailing governmental solution at the time was what was called urban renewal. Urban renewal essentially was a program to bulldoze all deteriorated inner city property, displace the residents and turn the denuded property over to commercial developers. My father strenuously opposed such an approach because it destroyed lives and only spread the problem.
In my experience, the vast majority of Christians have simply abandoned land use issues to industry, government, social workers, and the market place. In doing so, we ignore a fundamental cultural issue that is at the heart of our calling by God to follow Him and care for His creation.
Daniel: “Jim, your position is a double standard, as I’ve clearly shown. For you it is OK when John Kerry repeated inaccurate information, which you admit he did, but it is not OK when those on the Right, whom you feel are mere propagandists, do the same thing.”
The two situations are completely different. In Kerry’s case you are talking about a single round of testimony by an individual. And no, inasmuch as that testimony was inaccurate, for whatever reason, that would not be Ok. In the case of right-wing media we are dealing with literally hundreds or thousands of individuals, some of whom have financial relationships with the Republican party or with the many foundations or think tanks. You have TV networks such as Fox, and CBN, and media conglomerates such as Sinclair, in addition to hundreds of radio stations, exercising an enormous amount of control over the issues that are brought to people’s attention throughout the entire country.
In addition to the vast differences in scale, with Kerry you’re talking about testimony that occurred decades ago. With the right-wing media you’re taking about a current and ongoing enterprise.
Daniel: “BTW, which do you disagree with; my contention that John Kerry was not a war criminal (which he, wrongfully in my opinion, admitted in his 1971 testimony) or that he lied about and distorted his military service. . . . If it is the former, why would you or anyone on the Left support a war criminal to lead the most powerful and best trained military force in the world?”
Being a war criminal is a pretty subjective thing. If you’ve seen the recent documentary “The Fog of War” with Robert McNamara, you’ll recall the conversation he had with Gen. Curtis LeMay about the firebombing of Japanese cities. LeMay said that had the U.S. lost the war they all would have been tried as war criminals. McNamara agreed.
What I find interesting is that Kerry’s painful, frank, and heartfelt statement of over 30 years ago is now used against him, whereas he could have just come home and done nothing, and could never have even volunteered for a combat position to begin with. I guess skipping your flight physical and getting drunk in Alabama is a far better way to prepare for the presidency. At least it causes you much less trouble down the road.
Susan Sontag: Of Course she represents the Left
Jim, you may not have known about Susan Sontag but if you Google her name, OR, look for her on LEXIS/NEXIS you will see millions of entries.
Susan Sontage was a leader of the intellectual left of this country for decades. Her articles were published in leading academic journals, as well as respected popular magazines, such as Harpers. Her books were published by leading academic publishers. Her writings were assigned as readings in thousands of college departments all over America for decades. To suggest that Susan Sontag is not a exemplary leader of the intellectual left in America is to depart from reality.
Note 142: Quotes without sources are worthless. Produce the source and we’ll give it consideration.
Note 159:
Rush Limbaugh:”>Rush Limbaugh:
Anne Coulter:
Hannity & Colmes, June 22, 2001
Pat Buchanan:
http://www.realchange.org/hitler.htm
from the Chicago Tribune article
Michael Savage:
Why am I thinking that without hearing it straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak, some of us here will disbelieve these quotes?
As I said, I don’t believe these people speak for all conservatives. That was my point.
Where is the Horse’s Mouth?
AM I A KNEE-JERK REPUBLICAN? YOU SEEM TO THINK SO
First, the snide content of your comment suggests that you think that I am such an ideologue and such a partisan that I will accept anything said by anyone identifying themselves as a conservative and that I will defend the policies adopted by the Republican party no matter what. Basically, you are suggesting that I don’t really think issues through I just follow a knee-jerk approach.
Let me give you a little insight on my political history. I have followed history, politics and public policy since I was a teenager. I have an honor’s degree in economics from a nationally recognized university. I have a law degree with distinction in legal debate from a nationally recognized university. I have a degree in electrical engineering with membership in the national engineering honor society (Tau Beta Pi) and the national electrical engineering honor society (Eta Kappa Nu). I am also a membe fo MENSA. I have been a trial attorney for more than 20 years and have won more than 8 trials in a row in one two year stretch of my career. I have appeared in state and federal courts at both the trial level and the appellate level.
I was a card-carrying member of the Democratic Party for more than 15 years and I even did local political organizing for the Party. I no longer do so. This proves that I am not an ideologue who never examines my thinking. I have spent so much time examining my thinking that I concluded about 6 years ago that I could no longer support the Democrat Party. In the area in which I live and the work that I do, I would be better off professionally if I were a Democrat rather than a conservative.
I try hard to limit my opinions and comments to those areas in which I have bona fide knowledge. I am likely to discuss issues in the fields of economics and law and avoid putting in my opinion in the areas of theology, as I am not trained in that.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTATION:
You believe that you have caught Rush Limbaugh in a comment which proves that he is a despicable person. First, you have to prove that this is really his comment. Bona fide documentation of such a comment should come from:
A) a published book written by Rush Limbaugh which can be accessed at a library
B) an article written by Rush Limbaugh which could be accessed in the archives of the magazine or journal
C) a public appearance by Rush Limbaugh for which a record was kept by a neutral party. For instance, a transcript of an appearance at the National Press Club created by the National Press Club and maintained at their archives for public view.
What you have produced is a reference to a commentator. Commentators are fine, they are people who offer their opinions and conclusions. However, this commentator does not quote any of the acceptable sources I have mentioned, he simply referes to a SECOND COMMENTATOR. When the reader follows the link to the SECOND COMMENTATOR there is NO LINK TO THE RELIABLE SOURCE.
Given that you have not produced a reliable source for Rush Limbaugh, I feel no need to persue the other commentators.
ANN COULTER:
Whatever you think of Ms. Coulter, the fact remains that she is a graduate of a major law school. Do you think it reasonable to believe that she would allow herself to be quoted as saying that the Bible allowed people to “rape” the earth.
Tut, tut, tut. Find the original source archived by a neutral entity.
Kerry’s Status at the Congressional Hearing Reply to Note 152)
From Jim Holman
didn?t explain myself very well. Kerry was not a journalist. He was not a researcher in an air-conditioned office in the Heritage Foundation. He was not a talk show host throwing out the latest entertainment before the commercial break. He was a very angry young soldier trying to bring home to the congress certain unpleasant aspects of the war that had not been adequately considered. These were both things that he had experienced and things that he had been told about in the context of a brutal and confusing war. You want to hold him to journalistic standards, fine; I don?t. While George Bush was abandoning his flight status and getting drunk and pissing in parking lots in Alabama John Kerry was commanding troops in battle. So I?m willing to cut the guy some slack.
************************************************************************************
John Kerry begun his political career after he returned from Viet Nam. He joined the Viet Nam Veterans against the War (VVAW)soon after he returned home. While a member of the VVAW he organized the Winter Soldier hoax. At the Winter Soldier meeting supposed veterans of the Viet Nam war publicly claimed to have participated in or observed war crimes. The particularly crucial aspect of this Winter Soldier event is that the soldiers claimed SYSTEMIC war crime policies on the part of the American military, not EPISODIC war crimes which resulted from misconduct on the part of individuals and possible lax supervision by officers.
When John Kerry went to Congress, his testimony was part of his political plan to gain a high profile in the anti-war movement. [Remember this was 1971 and the American people were getting weary of the war started by Democrat John Kennedy and continued and escalated by Democrat Lyndon Johnson. ( President Eisenhowever declined to become embroiled in the mess the French left.) The road to political stardom appeared to be through anti-war activity which was on the ascendent.]
His testimony was part of a calculated political plan.
He provide for himself deniability by reporting hearsay. He even stated at the beginning that “he was not well prepared.” If something didn’t pan out, well, he could say that it wasn’t his testimony, he was simply repeating the testimony of others. However, this is disingenous because he arranged for those particular “others” to testify at the Winter Soldier event. He helped create the Winter Solder event, he helped pick those who would speak and he influenced the content of their speech.
Kerry knew full well that a Congressional hearing was the best place to put this anti-American propaganda into national circulation. He knew that the sensational parts would get wide distribution. He knew that he would appear to be the
“white knight” alerting America. He also knew that he would not be SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION. The entire episode was to his benefit for his could wide circulation of his claims BUT be free from any cross-examining attorney.
The actual testimony of the Winter Soldiers has been discredited in full long before this Presidential campaign. Several of the soldiers claiming to have witnessed war crimes, in fact, where never stationed in Viet Nam. Winter Soldiers was a fraud perpetrated by John Kerry and VVAW.
John Kerry did exactly what a Communist sympathizer in his position would do to discredit the honor the American military and undercut American will to fight and win. Subsequently published histories of the war emphasize that the North Vietnamese, just prior to Tet, had reached a point of exhaustion. Tet was a military disaster for them, but, American press coverage portrayed Tet as a VICTORY for the NOrth Vietnamese and lead by Chronkite convinced the American people that it was futile. That, dear friends, is why there is a Communist government persecuting Christians and Buddhists as we speak. John Kerry contributed to that, John Kerry is partially responsible for that.
The VVAW is PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE IMAGE OF VIET NAME VETS AS LOSERS AND BABY KILLERS. The primary reason anyone now uses the slogan “support the troops” is that John Kerry and his group VVAW worked so hard and so long to undermine the confidence of the American people in their own sons, brothers, and husbands serving in the Viet Nam.
John Kerry has partial responsibility for the deaths of millions of Vietnamese on his hands.
Missourian quotes: “After perusing the year-end (Dec. 27/Jan. 3) issue of Newsweek, I defy any editor there to deny this magazine is a mouthpiece for the political left.”
Well, this article certain proves that one can pull out the highlighter and find bias in anything. Note that the article profiles a number of people who bear watching in 2005. Santorum is portrayed as someone who might even run for president, which is hardly a slam.
The interesting thing to me is that, looking at the two profiles in question, the bias is not toward the left but toward the *center*. Obama is portrayed as a “purple” politician — as one who can draw people to the center through appealing to both blue and red states. Newsweek talks about the possibility that Obama can “work with the GOP on bridging Red-Blue divisions and getting some things done.” It quotes Obama as saying that “One party seems to be defending a moribund status quo, and the other is defending an oligarchy,” he says coolly. “It’s not a very attractive choice.” — certainly an implied criticism of both the Democrats and the Republicans. It mentions the fact that Obama wants to represent all Americans, not just blacks.
The comparison with Santorum focuses on Santorum’s very conservative and right-wing views, and his appeal to a right-wing constituency.
So the theme of the two profiles taken together is that Obama has to potential to bring people to the center, whereas Santorum’s appeal is definetly to the right.
Now tell me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that a bias toward the center is exactly what we would expect from a mainstream news magazine. Thus, in a mainstream magazine a politician who potentially can work in the center is going to be seen more positively than one who does not.
Of particular interest to me is that the author of the article quoted by Missourian — and possibly Missourian also(?) — perceives the political center not as the center but as the left! In that view, there really is no center; if you’re not right, you’re left, and the center doesn’t exist.
But the center is what glues a country together. If you lose the center you end up with chaos. Yeats poetically observed that when “the center cannot hold . . . anarchy is loosed upon the world.” In an Atlantic Monthly article of a few months ago James Fallows stated that one of the strengths of the Clinton adminisration was the presence of a strong Republican opposition in both houses of Congress. The balance of opposition is what draws both sides to the center and blunts the influence of the extremists. Without a balance — the situation we currently are in — the pull toward the center is diminished and the extremists carry the day. This is true whatever party happens to dominate.
RE: 160. Just because Rick “Man/Dog” Santorum once claimed that gay marriage would lead to an outbreak of human-canine sexual relations the outrageous liberal media is portraying him as strident. How dare they!
Note 164:
The Susan Sontag reference thus also constitutes hearsay, as she is quoted within an editorial by an evidently “conservative” writer without footnotes or references of any sort. Where did he get these quotes? He also speaks about her dining habits as if he knows her. Did he?
Note 164: The Ann Coulter reference can be found in about 100 links. Do a search on Google. Nevertheless, if it will make you feel better, I’ll contact FOX News and request a copy of the transcript.
Ms. Coulter may have an education, but for being a writer and commentator, her linguistic skills are wanting: her analogies are puerile and completely juvenile, she has no command of any style or tone outside of sarcasm and she is incapable of recognizing any nuance of reality: the “conservatives,good … liberals,BAAAD” mentality may be appropriate for a kid in a middle school debate class but not for someone with her background who gets as much air time as she does.
James writes: ” . . . the ‘conservatives,good liberals,BAAAD’ mentality may be appropriate for a kid in a middle school debate class but not for someone with her background who gets as much air time as she does.”
I think Coulter has an important role in right-wing media, and it’s no accident that she gets so much air time. First, she is so far out there that she makes any other right-wing pundit seem moderate. Second, her juvenile comments also serve to move the political dialog even farther to the right through legitimizing extremist positions. So when she says in books and on national TV that liberals are atheists, traitors, terrorists, etc., etc., that is a way of getting what would normally be considered aberrant views into the mainstream.
Once Coulter-like rhetoric is in play, the right-wing talk show hosts can run with it. Thus, you end up with call-in talk shows where the topic of the day is “Are Liberals Traitors?” A program topic such as that has two functions. First, it gives the show host an appearance of objectivity: “Hey, I’m not saying that liberals are traitors. I’m just asking the question.” Second, it makes the starting point of the discussion an extreme right-wing talking point. As the discussion moves around that talking point, eventually the concensus becomes “well, maybe not all liberals are traitors, but a lot are.” In other words, you can control how people think about issues through selecting what questions are asked in the public forum.
While all this is going on, the right-wing then accuses the mainstream media of “bias.” But once in a while the truth leaks out, as when Matt Labash, a senior writer at The Weekly Standard, exposed how the game works:
“JournalismJobs.com: Why have conservative media outlets like The Weekly Standard and Fox News Channel become more popular in the past few years?
Matt Labash: Because they feed the rage. We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it’s true somewhat. We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We’ve created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It’s a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It’s a great little racket. I’m glad we found it actually.”
http://www.journalismjobs.com/matt_labash.cfm
The situation with the right-wing media has gotten so extreme that the sheer weight of the inherent dishonesty will become too great and the right-wing will eventually drop all the blather about media objectivity and bias. Eventually the view will be “screw objectivity, we’re in control, we do whatever we want, we talk about whatever we want to talk about.”
Currently the right-wing folks on this blog still complain about “liberal bias” with a straight face. Prediction: a year from now, when people like me complain about right-wing media bias the response will be “yeah, whatever dude. Look, we’ve moved beyond all that. Get over it.” It will be refreshing, actually.
Note 164: I hope you appreciate this, Missourian. It cost me $9.95.
From Kamilla Hebron (khebron@fdchemedia.com), and a direct transcript of Hannity & Colmes:
ANN COULTER, CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY: I think conservation is a
terrible idea. She’s actually is taking the Unabomber idea.
PETER FENN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: No! Con…
COULTER: I take the biblical idea. God gave us the earth.
FENN: Oh, OK.
COULTER: We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees.
FENN: This is a great idea.
COULTER: God says, “Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.”
FENN: Terrific. We’re Americans, so we should consume as much of the
earth’s resources…
COULTER: Yes! Yes.
FENN: … as fast as we possibly can.
COULTER: As opposed to living like the Indians.
Let me know if you’d like me to forward it to you.
James, Note 170
I do appreciate it, thanks for spending the money. Since at this point, it doesn’t cost you anything, forward it to editor@orthodoxytoday.org showing the e-mail trail.
Thanks.
Note 171:
Forwarded, with full HTTP headers no less.
Nature of Free Speech:
The First Amendment protects all speech with only a few narrow exceptions for child pornography and very, direct and immediate incitement to violence. Political speech is most heavily protected.
Sidenote on “incitement to violence.” These cases arise in the context of the tradition of public political speaking in public areas. Typically, someone organizes a rally to promote some political position. Tempers often flare, rallys often attract hecklers and sometimes the police are called. These cases test the right of the police to arrest the speaker because the crowd is getting upset. The Court have created a consistent policy whereby the speaker is allowed to speak unless he directly, expressly and explicity tells the people immediately in front of him to pick up a weapon and kill someone immediately in front of him. So, don’t go on about tangential “incitements to violence.” It isn’t disresprecting an ethnic group.
Given that Americans do not have receive their news and commentary after it has been reviewed by a Truth Commission. The Courts call it the “marketplace” of ideas. Some ideas hold up under examination, some don’t. However, the U.S. Constitution states that everyone has the right to throw their ideas into the arena of public discussion.
Helen Thomas recently stated that she was upset that all of her favorite liberal jouralists (Tom, Peter and Dan) were leaving the scene through retirement. The reason that this is significant is not that they were liberal, BUT, that they pretended to be objective and concealed their point of view.
Everyone watching Sean Hannity has full knowledge that he has a conservative point of view. They are watching comment and commentary and interviews. You will note that the people Hannity interviews are generally public figures who have made a career of appearing in public and promotion their political ideas. For instance, one can expect someone like Peter Fenn, a lifelong, professional Democratic campaign consultant, to be very well equipped to state his case.
Sean should be able to broadcast if peopel want to listen to him. As I noted, Hannity brings on people who are very well equipped to present their side, such as Robert Kennedy, Jr. or Peter Fenn. Let people listen and decide for themselves.
A growing number of Americans have cable, as well as broadcast and internet service. People will get their news and opinions from many sources, they will sift out whom they wish to believe and they will reach their own conclusions.
Political Point of View? Fine. Concealing the Political Point of View? Dishonest
Just as Sean Hannity has a First Amendment Right to give his opinions on the air, if people want to listen to him, so does Dan Rather.
So, what is the difference?
Sean Hannity does not hide his political point of view. Hannity invites people who are fully capapable of speaking for themselves such as Robert Kennedy Jr. or Peter Fenn or many other people who are professional public speakers.
Dan Rather, held a position of great power, for a long time. During the 50′s Americans got their news from the local newspaper and only 3 channels. For a long time Dan was on of the three journalist who presented news to America. Rather’s liberal bias was not a problem, what was a problem, was his insistence that he had no bias and that anyone who challenged him was either crazy or an ideologue.
Dan Rather’s partial monopoly on the news has been broken. Dan Rather got fact checked by a source he couldn’t control.
Now everybody is subject to fact checking, right and left. This is only good.
Note 171: Thanks James, I await the Editor’s perusal
I stand corrected. It amazes me that someone with her experience in the public forum would say that. It undermines her credibility and her judgment. It doesn’t represent the Christian point of view. I won’t dwell on the theological issue because as I said I am not really qualified to comment on theology.
If you review some of my comments you will see that I explained that I had been an active member of the Democrat party. After a while, I had to admit that my allegiance to the Party, per se, was in conflict with my true principles. The lesson it taught me was that one should not have an unwavering, intellectual allegiance with an single human being, OR, with any single collection of human beings, political parties included.
An intellectually honest person can adopt a set of ideas or principles are guiding his conduct. You probably won’t believe it but I retain my skepticism towards political parties. I disagree with Bush on many issues and I have my differences with the Republican party. When asked I generally call myself an
“independent” or a “conservative” rather than a Republican. That may change, I may decide to become active in the Republican party, I don’t know. But as yet, I have not.
Note 175: My whole point was that just as “conservatives” are rarely best exemplified by the conservative media spokespeople such as Limbaugh, Coulter, etc, liberals are likewise typecast by the more outspoken members seen on tv. In real life, conservatives and liberals lead remarkably similar lives, in my experience.
Sontag does not speak for all liberals, just as Limbaugh and Coulter hold only coincidental similarities to many conservatives.