Ann and Michelle? These aren't really your articles, are they? They are? Hmm...
I happened to read two articles today in which the respective authors went off the respective deep ends of the left and right, respectively. What rattles my chain is not that Ann Coulter is racist and hates Muslims--she's not and doesn't--or that Michelle Cottle is a far-left lunatic--she's not--but that each columnist chose to use their public forums to write empty diatribes, with the emphasis on EMPTY and not partisan. No insight; no recommendations on what I should do about Islamic fundamentalism or the current administration; no research. The articles were a waste of space and a waste of my time.
Coulter resorted to simple taunting which I will not reprint here, as I don't want pseudo-racist slurs to appear in this blog. Cottle (get log-in here) wrote the unbelievable paragraph below:
"[Cheney] cannot stand the idea that he should in any way be accountable for anything to anyone--much less the weak, sniveling, unwashed mass of voters he ostensibly serves...The man could be caught on film slow roasting babies over a burning, swastika-adorned crucifix and he would simply shrug, sneer, and growl something about national security and the unitary executive theory."
Michelle, Ann? Have something else on my desk by 8 AM Monday. And get me some Starbucks.
posted by CharlesPeirce @ 4:48 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Word.
Although, like I said in my email to you on this subject, I'm all with Coulter when it comes to bombing Syria.
Someone at breakfast this morning suggested we have a 'world peace day' where every country has to stop fighting or we bomb them. I think it was an American.
I thought the Cottle column was okay. The paragraph you called unbelievable was indeed over the top, but I might give it a pass on the "harsh jokes for harsh times" principal.
Josh Marshall has the final word on Cheney: "moral coward."
Go to www.talkingpointsmemo.com and paste the following in after the "com":
/archives/007711.php
Coulter is American conservatism's raging id, isn't she?
I can't roll with you on this one, minor prophet--Cottle's article edifies no one, neither liberal nor conservative. It's pointless. Sometimes there is a point to rage, or to a polemic, or to angrily pointing out something that everyone is missing--but she didn't do that.
Coulter: the interesting question is whether she really believes everything she says, or whether she's created something a stage personality for herself.
That last comment was me--I don't know why my blogger ID didn't show.
Well, fair enough. I thought Cottle was pointing out why the Washington press corps went nuts about Cheney shooting Whittington, why they couldn't be expected to do anything esle, and why it was not "liberal bias" that made them go nuts.
When George Bush, then running for Governor of Texas, shot a protected killdeer in 1994 he personally called reporters on the phone and then discussed it at a press conference. Over a bird. Whittington was and is a human being. Dick Cheney shot him. There was a huge story here. Maybe Cottle let off a little too much steam. But still.
Post a Comment
<< Home