Saturday, April 30, 2005
If a liberal rants in a forest...
Sigh. I'm very busy writing papers, so I probably should not dedicate myself to bashing conservative high school aquaintances.
Or at least I shouldn't bash them so thoroughly, going point by point on their post.
It's just if you follow the link to Lyon's post you'll see that equating Coulter and Franken is a strong belief of his. And honestly if someone of any political persuasion becomes more than casually familiar with Franken's work, and reach the conclusion "Oh, he's just the liberal Ann Coulter.", then that upsets me, because it indicates a dismissal of political dialogue that can include sharp satire, friendly debates and discussions, and an apolitical humor that indicates a personality beyond yelling and demonizing their opponents. There are meaner liberals out there, such as Lyon's friend Ward Churchill and Mike Malloy, a fire-breathing late night radio talk show host which I admit is a guilty pleasure for me to listen to sometimes, but will be more difficult to take seriously once Democrats get some hold on power.
If you want to view liberal talk radio as the opposite of conservative talk radio, and say that Franken is the "liberal Rush Limbaugh", then fine. Both have different things going on in their shows, but they do have to remain partisan in their own unique way and keep a show giving the audience what they want for 3 hours. But Ann Coulter is a whole other animal. As my links have shown she is incredibly dishonest in an escalated way, where instead of bending malleable truths she creates ones, and not primarily to promote a conservative viewpoint, but to give flimsy backing to her neo-Nazi rhetoric against liberals and liberal journalism. Compare her malvoelence and her outright lying to Franken's gentle ribbing and factual analysis, and you can see they aren't the same partisans. The fact that Coulter is a popular attack dog for the right (and according to Time magazine a legitimate political figure now) while the few equivalent partisans on the left hardly have a voice is, if anything, an indication of what type of ideological spokesperson hardcore conservatives are willing to prop up.
Yeah, so that's what I have for tonight.
Or at least I shouldn't bash them so thoroughly, going point by point on their post.
It's just if you follow the link to Lyon's post you'll see that equating Coulter and Franken is a strong belief of his. And honestly if someone of any political persuasion becomes more than casually familiar with Franken's work, and reach the conclusion "Oh, he's just the liberal Ann Coulter.", then that upsets me, because it indicates a dismissal of political dialogue that can include sharp satire, friendly debates and discussions, and an apolitical humor that indicates a personality beyond yelling and demonizing their opponents. There are meaner liberals out there, such as Lyon's friend Ward Churchill and Mike Malloy, a fire-breathing late night radio talk show host which I admit is a guilty pleasure for me to listen to sometimes, but will be more difficult to take seriously once Democrats get some hold on power.
If you want to view liberal talk radio as the opposite of conservative talk radio, and say that Franken is the "liberal Rush Limbaugh", then fine. Both have different things going on in their shows, but they do have to remain partisan in their own unique way and keep a show giving the audience what they want for 3 hours. But Ann Coulter is a whole other animal. As my links have shown she is incredibly dishonest in an escalated way, where instead of bending malleable truths she creates ones, and not primarily to promote a conservative viewpoint, but to give flimsy backing to her neo-Nazi rhetoric against liberals and liberal journalism. Compare her malvoelence and her outright lying to Franken's gentle ribbing and factual analysis, and you can see they aren't the same partisans. The fact that Coulter is a popular attack dog for the right (and according to Time magazine a legitimate political figure now) while the few equivalent partisans on the left hardly have a voice is, if anything, an indication of what type of ideological spokesperson hardcore conservatives are willing to prop up.
Yeah, so that's what I have for tonight.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Coulter does not equal Franken, pt. 1
Only their tactics differ, but their strategy, to attempt to invalidate their political opponents, more through emotion and prejudice than logic, are one and the same.
The prime case of this, I witnessed during the 2000 election. During an appearance on Conan o’Brian’s late night show, Al Franken compared Bush’s light military service to John McCain’s service. McCain, he informed us, hung by his toenails, while Bush was avoiding service in Vietnam.
If Franken had painted The Oath of the Horatii, he would depict one soldier with gray hair and a puckered face failing to lift a sword in the air, while the two others do so with capable ease. How is this fairer than the conservative ad hominem partisan’s heavy handed approach?
So, let me get this straight. You admit earlier that you have heard Ann Coulter say some nasty things, which is a light way of putting it, in my view. And there are documented records of her saying those nasty things, including "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is that he didn't go the New York Times building." among many verbal atrocities. I need to know if Franken actually talked about that painting on Conan of it that's your own interpretation of his remarks through a difficult to understand analogy. Seems a little obscure for Conan viewers. I looked up the painting you referenced and would appreciate some background into the symbolism of that painting so I can understand what you are trying to say. If your first evidence of Franken=Coulter is your own symbolic interpretation of how he would depict a historic artwork, there's some real weakness in your statement.
And McCain was a Vietnam POW and Bush served sporadically in the Texas National Guard, taking occasional time off when he felt like it to work on political campaigns. The Powerline interpretation of the one piece of shoddy evidence against Bush doesn't take the fact away that he was here, and McCain and Kerry were over there. Or does Bush get a free ride on his history because of Dan Rather? Clinton sure as heck didn't get any slack for not serving.
And if you are going to use an appearance on Conan O'Brien as the basis for your views on Franken, that's a big problem. Conan is a wacky comedy show, not a poltical discussion forum. I actually remember a Franken appearance where he gave clumsy and shallow potshots at Republicans, because I don't think context is what Conan viewers are looking for. But I did notice that when he was trying to explain the very serious and real issue of whether Bush operatives in the South Carolina primary push-polled primary voters about McCain having an illigetimate black child (McCains adopted a Bangledeshi and their daughter appeared in campaign coverage) and other rumors about his wife being crazy, etc. But that portion of the interview was slipped in at the very end, and some clumsy editing of the show actually ended the interview abrubtly after that remark. Who knows what a evil partisan he would have not seemed if he was allowed the opportunity to provide context and create, yes a logical progression for his remarks. Which brings me to Al Franken's books and radio show. And this is where you come in Erin, because you can get Air America in NYC, the radio network that has the Al Franken show. I'm not going to be a huge Al Franken defender, but he does write good satire, well-researched books, and he runs a radio show 3 hours every weekday where he can explain his reasoning. Now will the political talk show format allow him to use inflamed rhetoric to make a point? Of course, allthough these days there is a lot of absolute outrage for anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman to discuss. Outrages layered upon outrage, as my Schiavo post indicated, its hard for liberals to calm down these days. But the show features a variety of guests, liberal and conservative, including a segment with a long-time Dittohead friend of Franken, which I think is most indicative of Franken's willingness to discuss opinions with opponents, and overall, just being relatively nice about it. Ann Coulter doesn't give herself a lot of forums like this to show off how reasonable she is. She is a very nasty, cruel public conservative spokeswoman, and from what I've read it is almost entirely an act to appeal to a niche that likes sex appeal along with inflammatory murderous political talking points. And I've been following the Time cover story controversy, and putting her in that kind of spotlight legitimizes her to a level that she doesn't deserve. When Michael Moore was on the cover of Time the main caption read "Is he good for America?". Ann Coulter's main caption was "Is she serious or is she just having fun?". Coulter isn't your average idealogue, and Al Franken is not the liberal Ann Coulter. I don't think its fair to refer to them as scum in the same breath (as well as John Edwards, where did that come from? A Democratic candidate for President can't use partisan rhetoric?) without a demonstration of Al Franken going to far to the level of Coulter, because I actually think Franken is a far more light-hearted, funny, and legitimate liberal spokesmen than other figures like Micheal Moore, Ward Churchill etc.
I think I'll break up your letter to comment on over time, just so I don't get overloaded. I'm sure Lyon you can understand how hard it is to get around to responding to arguments, especially when they're ones that you started. ha ha, all in good fun.
More to come!
The prime case of this, I witnessed during the 2000 election. During an appearance on Conan o’Brian’s late night show, Al Franken compared Bush’s light military service to John McCain’s service. McCain, he informed us, hung by his toenails, while Bush was avoiding service in Vietnam.
If Franken had painted The Oath of the Horatii, he would depict one soldier with gray hair and a puckered face failing to lift a sword in the air, while the two others do so with capable ease. How is this fairer than the conservative ad hominem partisan’s heavy handed approach?
So, let me get this straight. You admit earlier that you have heard Ann Coulter say some nasty things, which is a light way of putting it, in my view. And there are documented records of her saying those nasty things, including "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is that he didn't go the New York Times building." among many verbal atrocities. I need to know if Franken actually talked about that painting on Conan of it that's your own interpretation of his remarks through a difficult to understand analogy. Seems a little obscure for Conan viewers. I looked up the painting you referenced and would appreciate some background into the symbolism of that painting so I can understand what you are trying to say. If your first evidence of Franken=Coulter is your own symbolic interpretation of how he would depict a historic artwork, there's some real weakness in your statement.
And McCain was a Vietnam POW and Bush served sporadically in the Texas National Guard, taking occasional time off when he felt like it to work on political campaigns. The Powerline interpretation of the one piece of shoddy evidence against Bush doesn't take the fact away that he was here, and McCain and Kerry were over there. Or does Bush get a free ride on his history because of Dan Rather? Clinton sure as heck didn't get any slack for not serving.
And if you are going to use an appearance on Conan O'Brien as the basis for your views on Franken, that's a big problem. Conan is a wacky comedy show, not a poltical discussion forum. I actually remember a Franken appearance where he gave clumsy and shallow potshots at Republicans, because I don't think context is what Conan viewers are looking for. But I did notice that when he was trying to explain the very serious and real issue of whether Bush operatives in the South Carolina primary push-polled primary voters about McCain having an illigetimate black child (McCains adopted a Bangledeshi and their daughter appeared in campaign coverage) and other rumors about his wife being crazy, etc. But that portion of the interview was slipped in at the very end, and some clumsy editing of the show actually ended the interview abrubtly after that remark. Who knows what a evil partisan he would have not seemed if he was allowed the opportunity to provide context and create, yes a logical progression for his remarks. Which brings me to Al Franken's books and radio show. And this is where you come in Erin, because you can get Air America in NYC, the radio network that has the Al Franken show. I'm not going to be a huge Al Franken defender, but he does write good satire, well-researched books, and he runs a radio show 3 hours every weekday where he can explain his reasoning. Now will the political talk show format allow him to use inflamed rhetoric to make a point? Of course, allthough these days there is a lot of absolute outrage for anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman to discuss. Outrages layered upon outrage, as my Schiavo post indicated, its hard for liberals to calm down these days. But the show features a variety of guests, liberal and conservative, including a segment with a long-time Dittohead friend of Franken, which I think is most indicative of Franken's willingness to discuss opinions with opponents, and overall, just being relatively nice about it. Ann Coulter doesn't give herself a lot of forums like this to show off how reasonable she is. She is a very nasty, cruel public conservative spokeswoman, and from what I've read it is almost entirely an act to appeal to a niche that likes sex appeal along with inflammatory murderous political talking points. And I've been following the Time cover story controversy, and putting her in that kind of spotlight legitimizes her to a level that she doesn't deserve. When Michael Moore was on the cover of Time the main caption read "Is he good for America?". Ann Coulter's main caption was "Is she serious or is she just having fun?". Coulter isn't your average idealogue, and Al Franken is not the liberal Ann Coulter. I don't think its fair to refer to them as scum in the same breath (as well as John Edwards, where did that come from? A Democratic candidate for President can't use partisan rhetoric?) without a demonstration of Al Franken going to far to the level of Coulter, because I actually think Franken is a far more light-hearted, funny, and legitimate liberal spokesmen than other figures like Micheal Moore, Ward Churchill etc.
I think I'll break up your letter to comment on over time, just so I don't get overloaded. I'm sure Lyon you can understand how hard it is to get around to responding to arguments, especially when they're ones that you started. ha ha, all in good fun.
More to come!
Pre-rant
Well, Lyon asked for it.
But make no mistake, Franken is scum. Coulter is scum. They are the same scum.
Much more to talk about (when I'm at my home computer and after I've rested... late night paperwriting and going to an internship the next day don't mix.)
But here's a two part, link based presentation on why Al Franken and Ann Coulter are not the "same scum".
Exhibit A: Ann Coulter advocates murder of masses of people and consideres it a legitimate component of an "ad-hominem" partisan attack. And reading on you'll see that her less publicized backtrack from that unfortunate remark is to advocate less mass murder, but murders of large groups nonetheless. AL FRANKEN DOES NOT USE A TRAJEDY TO ADVOCATE OR DARKLY JOKE ABOUT MURDERING POLITICAL ENEMIES!
Exhibit B (long link, worth the read): Ann Coulter adopts a deep multi-layered intellectual dishonesty that distorts and provokes the worst kind of ignorance among rabid right-wingers. She references facts and statements in popular books using an absolute absurd and manipulative technique that if I used would get me kicked out of college instantly. Al Franken might reach overgeneralized conclusions about different statemetns and facts, BUT WHEN AL CITES SOURCES AND STATEMENTS IN HIS WRITINGS, THE SOURCES ARE LEGIMITATE!
So whether its shockingly advocating murder of your political opponents, or more boringly but much more sneakily manipulating words on the page to create a bias that isn't there, Ann Coulter and Al Franken are not the same scum. If the equation is just partisan=scum, then yes they are the same, but looking at your letter, I don't think you are saying that. I will discuss more later.
Erin, thanks for saying hi and all, but agreeing with Lyon on Al Franken being scum? tsk tsk, I'm dissapointed.
But make no mistake, Franken is scum. Coulter is scum. They are the same scum.
Much more to talk about (when I'm at my home computer and after I've rested... late night paperwriting and going to an internship the next day don't mix.)
But here's a two part, link based presentation on why Al Franken and Ann Coulter are not the "same scum".
Exhibit A: Ann Coulter advocates murder of masses of people and consideres it a legitimate component of an "ad-hominem" partisan attack. And reading on you'll see that her less publicized backtrack from that unfortunate remark is to advocate less mass murder, but murders of large groups nonetheless. AL FRANKEN DOES NOT USE A TRAJEDY TO ADVOCATE OR DARKLY JOKE ABOUT MURDERING POLITICAL ENEMIES!
Exhibit B (long link, worth the read): Ann Coulter adopts a deep multi-layered intellectual dishonesty that distorts and provokes the worst kind of ignorance among rabid right-wingers. She references facts and statements in popular books using an absolute absurd and manipulative technique that if I used would get me kicked out of college instantly. Al Franken might reach overgeneralized conclusions about different statemetns and facts, BUT WHEN AL CITES SOURCES AND STATEMENTS IN HIS WRITINGS, THE SOURCES ARE LEGIMITATE!
So whether its shockingly advocating murder of your political opponents, or more boringly but much more sneakily manipulating words on the page to create a bias that isn't there, Ann Coulter and Al Franken are not the same scum. If the equation is just partisan=scum, then yes they are the same, but looking at your letter, I don't think you are saying that. I will discuss more later.
Erin, thanks for saying hi and all, but agreeing with Lyon on Al Franken being scum? tsk tsk, I'm dissapointed.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Yom Hoo-le-deh Sa-me-ach (Happy Birthday in Hebrew)
Good morning!
Before I get to work, just want to wish my brother a happy birthday. He's 20! I have a very busy day so I maybe might forget to call him. But if you want to click the "Brother!" link on the left and leave a comment wishing him well, he would get a kick out of it.
Before I get to work, just want to wish my brother a happy birthday. He's 20! I have a very busy day so I maybe might forget to call him. But if you want to click the "Brother!" link on the left and leave a comment wishing him well, he would get a kick out of it.
