1

>> What's a "World Cup"?

The World Cup is a competition which takes place every 4 years. The game is Association Football, also known as soccer. You might think of it as somewhat analagous to baseball's World Series. Except that it isn't annual. And it involves teams from all around the world. :)

PS Spot on re Coulter!

2

also known as soccer

Soccer? I think I've heard of that. Isn't that like a sport that people play in countries that don't have the NFL?

3

There's part of Couulter's persona that's an act, but I got the feeling that she's a political conservative behind the shtick. Her act is to play agent provocateur, and she does it with gusto. In many ways, she's Rush in a miniskirt, with a bit more bile and a bit less humor.

She's not my first choice, but I have a hunch there's a conservative behind the agent provocateur.

4

Judging from book sales, LaShawn isn’t the only one who appreciates “Coulter-Shtick.” But what I wonder is what will her admirers think when she taps out the conservative market and pulls a David Brock-style conversion to liberalism in order to sell even more books. Make no mistake: Coulter is playing you all for patsies.

Ann uses hyperbole. Jesus also used hyperbole. I do not consider myself competent to judge her motives good or bad, but her arguments are persuasive. Rather than judging her style, why not offer a critique of the substance of her arguments?

5

My reply on Klein is here.

Trackback not working.

6

Joe said: Read the rest.

I did. And I read the comments. And what I got from the combination of the two is that the author was the only one who "gets it". The commenters, almost universally, appeard to be the same clueless Kos-ites as we normally see. These are either folks with an incredibly low collective IQ, or they are so blinded by their liberal hate that they don't realize that they are guilty of precisely the same thing that they accuse the "Christian Right" of.

7

Talk about bile, Joe. Comparing her to David Brock? Your ongoing reaction to Ann Coulter makes me wonder if she rejected your advances once upon a time, or at least someone like her on the debate team. Or is it you wish you had her facility with language? (I think you're pretty close.) Anyway, the notion that she will flip like Brock or Arianna is laughable. As a Christian, I feel exactly the way Ann writes and talks. If I could write and talk like that, I probably would. It's because she is so staunchly conservative that her anger is palpable. Don't forget where she first came to public attention--during the Clinton years. She wrote High Crimes and Misdemeanors; she is a constitutional attorney. She was outraged by the notion, like so many of us, that Clinton could actually contemplate staying in office. (He didn't even have the courtesy, like Nixon, to sweat on his upper lip when he lied.) Maybe she needs to get slapped down and I believe she probably will. She is still quite young and will learn to temper her talent. But I defy you to find anything wrong in the facts that she presents; unlike Michael Moore to whom she is so often compared. Many of us feel the outrage that she expresses about the blindly hypocritical liberal culture around us. I have learned the hard way that my opinions are too strong for friends and family--I don't talk politics with them anymore. Perhaps Ann's words are cruel. But, God forgive me, I love her for it. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

8

Joe: you are spot on about Coulter. And I am disappointed to hear people say that because Jesus used hyperbole and strong rhetoric that it is ok for Coulter to. Last I checked, Coulter is a human sinner, just like the rest of us. The truth of her commentary gives her no free pass to be rude or hateful to others. It is time to boycott Ann Coulter

9

The definition of the word "pleasure" has the word "satisfaction" in it. I do see what you are saying. Evil has been overcome and that is good. The perspective we hold should be from God's point of view on this.

Yes. The Bible says that God "does not take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked." However, in the NT, it also says that when the disciples entered a home and the resident there rejects the gospel message, then the disciples should "shake the dust from their sandals" and leave. This indicates that they (person/people in the house) choose to remain in reprobation and do not want to be reconciled with God. They outrightly rejected the quickening of the Holy Spirit.

We can pray that they one day will change their minds, but we can't force them to accept the gospel message we share.

In Zarqawi's case, his reprobation was solid and complete. Like the hardened heart of Pharoah, his fate was sealed as well.

10

Regarding Ezra Klein. Doesn't it strike you that he and his "theistic acquaintances" regard the Christian right as lower middle class boobs who are barely capable of dragging themselves to the polls to vote for like-minded upper class boobs? Klein and Darksyde have been forced "to perk up and notice." And JOe says, give me less Ann anger and more of that condescension from Ezra. You must be a really spiritual guy, Joe.

11

I guess Dignan is very spiritual, too.

12

Ann uses hyperbole. Jesus also used hyperbole. I do not consider myself competent to judge her motives good or bad, but her arguments are persuasive. Rather than judging her style, why not offer a critique of the substance of her arguments?

Dignan

Joe: you are spot on about Coulter. And I am disappointed to hear people say that because Jesus used hyperbole and strong rhetoric that it is ok for Coulter to. Last I checked, Coulter is a human sinner, just like the rest of us. The truth of her commentary gives her no free pass to be rude or hateful to others. It is time to boycott Ann Coulter

I was merely pointing out that hyperbole is a valid form of expression. If you have reason to criticize the efficacy of her hyperbole or the substance of her points, please do so.

13

JD It's because she is so staunchly conservative that her anger is palpable.

Anyone who thinks Coulter is "staunchly conservative" probably doesn't understand what conservatism means.

You must be a really spiritual guy, Joe.

You're right. I'm not nearly as spiritual as Ann, who seems to be the model of Christian charity.

But I defy you to find anything wrong in the facts that she presents;

Coulter presents facts? Hmm, they must get lost in such invective as:

* "liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots..."
* "I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning."
* "Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the President."
* "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too."
* "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."
* "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."
* "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee."

So are you saying that all liberals are traitors/idiots, that we should nuke Korea, that the justification for executing people is to intimidate political rivals, that McVeigh should have bombed the NYT building, that the 1st Amendment is worhty of scorn, and that a Supreme Court justice should be poisoined?

Or are you going to hide behind that lame execuse that she is simply using hyperbole and isn't really a hateful, racist, murderous, shrew?

14

19 When Pharaoh's horses, chariots and horsemen went into the sea, the LORD brought the waters of the sea back over them, but the Israelites walked through the sea on dry ground. 20 Then Miriam the prophetess, Aaron's sister, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women followed her, with tambourines and dancing. 21 Miriam sang to them:
"Sing to the LORD,
for he is highly exalted.
The horse and its rider
he has hurled into the sea."
Exodus 15

In a more traditional war where Geneva conventions are observed, I'm not going to cheer when people are killed. I can't imagine anyone delighted over the devastation of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. But when you have a butcher like Zarqawi, my emotional reaction goes beyond passive, underlying satisfaction.

15

Soccer?

Yeah, it's kinda like metric football.

16

Ann uses hyperbole. Jesus also used hyperbole. I do not consider myself competent to judge her motives good or bad, but her arguments are persuasive. Rather than judging her style, why not offer a critique of the substance of her arguments?

Joe Carter

* "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."

Or are you going to hide behind that lame execuse that she is simply using hyperbole and isn't really a hateful, racist, murderous, shrew?

You have merely restated your distaste for hyperbole. I suspect that, if you backed her in a corner, Ann would decline an opportunity to bomb the New York Times building.

17

You have merely restated your distaste for hyperbole.

Hyperbole is when you use exaggeration for emphasis or effect. Saying you wished someone were poisoned or that a terrorist should have bombed another target it not hyperbole. If someone on this blog were to say ""We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Bevets oatmeal..." would you think it was mere hyperbole, akin to something Jesus would say?

I suspect that, if you backed her in a corner, Ann would decline an opportunity to bomb the New York Times building.

Well, of course she would since she doesn’t actually believe what she says. She just says that type of thing for the same reason that some comics make racist jokes: because they think that it will appeal to a audience who actually thinks that way.

I’m really shocked that you are defending Coulter’s disgusting invective. If you overheard a fellow Christian making such comments in public would you not chastise them for it? Why is Coulter—who claims to be a Christian—given an exemption?

18

A time to rejoice? -- Paul Schafer from Boar’s Head Tavern raises a couple of interesting questions: “As Christians, are we supposed to rejoice with our nation when our nation killed al-Zargawi? As Christians, are we supposed to rejoice that one of our physical enemies of Christians and Jews is dead?”

I think you hit the nail on the head here. People should rejoice that this man will no longer be beheading innocent hostages, blowing up Mosques, killing Muslims and others. They should rejoice not that he died but that dozens of people will now not be killed. I found Nicholas Berg's father totally annoying. He said he felt bad because even though Zargawi killed his son on video, now another family has lost its son.

Angela Wu has an interesting post on the Federal Marriage amendment and same-sex marriage. While she is pleased the FMA was shot down in the Senate she does recognize that same-sex marriage will eventually lead to restrictions on religious freedom...

Here is her example:

The really interesting issue, I think, is that same sex marriage is going to butt up against religious expression. The issue is less tax exemption than it is discrimination laws. And every other law that entails the word "marriage"--and there are TONS. You can picture a housing discrimination claim against a religious school that won't give married student housing to same sex couples. Now, if you think of sexuality discrimination in the same way as racial discrimination, you might think that that's just fine--religious institutions shouldn't be able to hide behind religion in order to discriminate over sexuality, just as we don't let them discriminate against blacks.

1. Religious institutions can discriminate against gender and even race if they want too.

2. Must I again point out that we already have a glaring case where civil marriage law conflicts with the marriage law of a MAJOR mainstream religion? The Catholic Church does not recognize divorce and remarriage as valid. They also have a huge array of educational institutions many of which have policies that require co-habitating studends to be married. Are they being discriminated against?

The solution to the religious freedom problem isn't to ban same sex marriage, it's to have a decisive expressive association exemption. The Catholic Church shouldn't have to accept teachers in private schools who are engaged in same sex marriage, for example, even though current laws prohibit discrimination based on marital status. This isn't as simple as it seems. Just think of the Boston Catholic Charities adoption issue (this isn't about whether or not gay couples should be able to adopt, it's about whether or not Catholic Charities should be forced to adopt to gay couples).

What she doesn't realize is that this already exists. How many private schools not only prohibit 'same sex marriage' but also require their teachers to be believing and practising Christians? Quite a few. Catholic schools do not impose such requirements on their teachers not because it would be illegal to do so but because they choose not too (either because they don't think it is necessary for teachers who do not cover religious subjects or because they believe it would be economically unfeasible).

19

Ann uses hyperbole. Jesus also used hyperbole. I do not consider myself competent to judge her motives good or bad, but her arguments are persuasive. Rather than judging her style, why not offer a critique of the substance of her arguments?

bevets would be the type of person who has trouble telling the difference between Jesus and Ann.

jd
She was outraged by the notion, like so many of us, that Clinton could actually contemplate staying in office.

Yea, well he did actually win two elections you know. I noticed that quite a few of you people back then seemed to have this presumption that Clinton had some type of duty to give you back the White House.

But I defy you to find anything wrong in the facts that she presents; unlike Michael Moore to whom she is so often compared

Her 'facts' have been debunked numerous times. I suggest trolling thru the archives of The Daily Howler and other sites if you really want to go there.

she is a constitutional attorney

What does this mean exactly? She no doubt graduated law school and passed the bar exam and is licensed to practice law but what makes her a constitutional attorney? Has she argued any cases that revolve around the Constitution? Did she just intern at a law firm that had a few constitutional cases and now uses that to pad her resume?

20

Even as Christians, aren't we allowed to "get angry but do not sin?"

Personally, I think that more Christians need to get angry and enter into the political debate. Our religious freedoms face extinction from the gay agenda under the guise and false application of "tolerance" if we don't speak out against it!

I probably would not have chosen the same words as Ann did, but I understand why she did it. It certainly gets people's attention!

I have found that when others perceive my posts at my blog as "intolerant", "bigoted", "hateful" etc. it is not me that they are rejecting, it's God's Word that I share that they really hate. Sharing Bible verses that condemn homosexuality, abortion, porn, adultery, fornication etc. is not popular with the secular humanist crowd or the liberal left churches.

Jesus called the Pharisees a "brood of vipers." That wasn't subtle. He also said that "anyone who would offend little ones (children) would be better off drowned in the depths of the sea." That's certainly a condemning statement.

21

I have found that when others perceive my posts at my blog as "intolerant", "bigoted", "hateful" etc. it is not me that they are rejecting, it's God's Word that I share that they really hate.

That's interesting, I went to your blog and searched for any posts referencing 'intolerant' or 'bigot' and the only results that came up were things you had written. Do these people who often call you an intolerant bigot do so on your blog's comments section? Is this another round of playing the victim?

22

He also said that "anyone who would offend little ones (children) would be better off drowned in the depths of the sea." That's certainly a condemning statement.

Let's run with that one. Coulter says that the only thing she regrets about McVeigh is that he didn't target the NY Times. McVeigh murdered little children in a daycare center. Coulter apparently doesn't regret the shredded toddlers, just the politics of the target.

Coulter says we should nuke north Korea. How many little ones would that "offend?"

Should we drop Coulter into the sea?

If Jesus called the Pharisees vipers, I wonder what he would call Coulter and her supporters. Somehow, I don't think it would be complimentary.

23

Well I'll stand corrected on saying that legislation doesn't matter, and I hope the rest of the post makes that clear. Legislation clearly does matter, or I wouldn't be supporting a religious exemption in the event of same sex marriage. However, the law does have its limits--you can make divorce hard, but you can't make people be healthily married. I still think the best you can do in a plural society, if that's what you want to maintain, is make room for different people to live according to their conscience, within the limits that permit society to continuing functioning and host a diverse dialogue (so we have laws against assault and incitement to riot, but we preserve the church's right to preach against homosexuality).

Still, she concludes, “I don't see the integrity of the church's message on sexuality being made any stronger by trying to use the arm of the law. There's a reason why Jesus wasn't interested in legal reform or regime change.”

This is an odd, and I believe illegitimate, argument for a Christian to make. Replace “personhood” for “sexuality” in Angela’s sentence and we have a justification for not passing the 14th Amendment. She also makes another odd claim in stating “no amount of legislating other people's lives is going to help preserve marriage of any kind.”

The church can and should change people's hearts on issues like personhood, God's holiness, purity, grace, and stewardship for the poor. I'm not suggesting it shouldn't. But it was not the 14th Amendment that did that. In the same way, there had to be a groundswell in order for Brown v. Board to have any social legitimacy. I think what I'm saying is, if the churches were doing their jobs right, we wouldn't need the FMA. In the meantime, given the limits of the law that we have here on earth, there aren't legitimate legal justifications for the FMA, and instead, the churches aren't able to communicate what man and what woman is to God, why it matters, and why it starts with who you are, made in His image instead of what you shouldn't be doing. It's not like the FMA is going to stop anyone from having homosexual sex.

I wasn't just talking about the law generally, or even family law generally, which can legitimately make people take partnership seriously. I was talking specifically about same sex marriage, not just any law. Is having same sex marriage really going to change the divorce rate? Is forbidding it going to make Christian men lay down their lives for their wives the way Christ did for the church, and make Christian women sacrificially love and serve their husbands more? It's disingenuous to suggest it will.

On Ann, try this NYTimes article on her criticism of 9/11 widows: "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much,' Ms. Coulter writes, according to The Associated Press. "And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they better hurry up and appear in Playboy." On another topic, this Coulter quote is choice: "'We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." (National Review Online on Sept. 13, 2001.)

What a great Christian witness! There is nothing reflective of Christ's hyperbole here. This isn't just hyperbole; I'm willing to say it's the devil's influence.

24

Actually there was at least one case I read about where a couple had seperated and were on their way to divorcing before 9/11 happened. I recall a writer in Salon mention how this women he or she knew hated her husband until 9/11 and then she started acting like he was a saint. Needless to say, though, Ann's vile wasn't directed at that woman but these:

Ms. Coulter's attacks in the book were aimed at four New Jersey widows — Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza — known in Washington for their political activities, including pushing for the 9/11 commission and seeking more rigorous security measures.

Indeed, these widows committed the sin of advocating something that Bush didn't happen to feel like supporting. Since people like Coulter have drinken all the Kool-Aide and consider the RNC to be their God it is no surprise that she has such hatred for these women.

25

As C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity: "War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken. What I cannot understand is this sort of semi-pacifism you get nowadays which gives the people the idea that though you have to fight, you ought to do it with a long face as if you were ashamed of it."

Condensed and paraphrased by Yoda in The Empire Strikes Back:

"Do. Or Do Not. Is no 'try'."

26

Ann uses hyperbole. Jesus also used hyperbole. I do not consider myself competent to judge her motives good or bad, but her arguments are persuasive. Rather than judging her style, why not offer a critique of the substance of her arguments?

I suspect that, if you backed her in a corner, Ann would decline an opportunity to bomb the New York Times building.

Joe Carter

Well, of course she would since she doesn’t actually believe what she says. She just says that type of thing for the same reason that some comics make racist jokes: because they think that it will appeal to a audience who actually thinks that way.

I’m really shocked that you are defending Coulter’s disgusting invective. If you overheard a fellow Christian making such comments in public would you not chastise them for it? Why is Coulter—who claims to be a Christian—given an exemption?

I wonder if anyone ever pulled Jesus aside and said 'You know thre are people out there, that are crazy enought to pluck their own eyes out'?

I do not pretend to know whether or not Ann is a saint. I am only making the case that this is a reasonable possibility. I suspect a case can be made that her hyperbole is counterproductive, however I am still waiting for any of her detractors to make this argument. Rather than whining about what she says, please critique what she means and whether her communication is effective.

27

If people are talking more about her invective than her ideas, clearly her communication is not effective.

28

Bevets again,

Also clearly Jesus was using metaphor, and of course there are crazy people who won't understand that. Heck, there are perfectly sane Christians who don't apply the same intelligence they do with any other book to distinguish between history, literalism, metaphor, and parable, when reading the Bible.

But Coulter isn't using metaphor. She's just being mean.

29

I do not pretend to know whether or not Ann is a saint. I am only making the case that this is a reasonable possibility.

Really, what exactly is the reasonable case for Ann being a saint?

I wonder if anyone ever pulled Jesus aside and said 'You know thre are people out there, that are crazy enought to pluck their own eyes out'?

Good point, perhaps this is why Jesus never said that people should go around plucking other people's eyes out. Ann, on the other hand, can go around saying terrorists should kill people she disagrees with and that's OK.

But I defy you to find anything wrong in the facts that she presents; unlike Michael Moore to whom she is so often compared

Hmmm, so if Michael Moore said it was too bad that the 9/11 hijackers were not able to crash into the White House and kill Bush you would just excuse that as hyperbole? Doubtful.

Anyway, here's a taste of how good she is with the facts:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072302.shtml

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072202.shtml

30

Boonton,

Al Franken told Matt Lauer that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby should be executed. Matt Lauer laughed.

Perhaps they should have had a heart to heart about the meaning of hyperbole.

Or consider:

“They voted on one article of impeachment already. And I come back from Africa to stained dresses and cigars and this and impeachment. I am thinking to myself, in other countries they are laughing at us 24 hours a day and I’m thinking to myself, if we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together, [starts to shout] all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! [crowd cheers] Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I’m not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families. [stands up, yelling] What is happening in this country? What is happening? UGHHH!"
--Alec Baldwin on Conan O’ Brien

In this case, it sounded like a bit more than a tee-hee joke.

I'm willing to discuss whether or not hyperbole and invective are the best tools for political discourse. But either everyone should avoid it, or it's okay at times for both sides.

31

That's an odd example Henslow because as I recall it Baldwin ended up taking quite a bit of heat for those comments.

But whether or not everyone should avoid it is not really a valid point. It is a childish point most often evoked by children, "but mom, Jimmy swears a lot and his mom doesn't punish him!" Conservatives like to argue, and back in the Clinton impeachment days they argued this a lot, that they were committed to higher principles and ethics. So what's wrong with living up to that?

32

“no amount of legislating other people's lives is going to help preserve marriage of any kind.” I think this is patently false. If this were true, then we should simply scrap all divorce laws since their restrictions would “legislate people’s lives” in a way that would not preserve the institution of marriage.

I think she is recognizing that there is a limit to what legislation can do. Not that its pointless.

Anti-discrimination laws (of any kind) do not magically remove discrimination and prejudice from society once they are passed.

Laws affect the secular, contract provisions of marriage. They cannot make the marriage moral. You need a church to do that. If not would you really rather have the State do it? Its why I believe that passage of the MPA would restrict religious freedom, not protect it.

33

Boonton,

You left off commenting on the Al Franken "execute them" comment. He made similar comments on the Letterman show.

Your mention of my point being childish and comparing it to children trying to get out of trouble isn't accurate.

I wanted to establish two things.

1) Sarcasm, satire, ridicule, invective, and all other rhetorical styles are not unique to one side of the political spectrum. Some would rail against conservatives or liberals as being mean and hateful, as if the whole group can be summarized in one easy caricature.

2) In your Jimmy case, there's already agreement that swearing is wrong. He's just trying to pass the blame. I'm opening up the question whether a strident tone in politics is valid. Al Franken and Ann Coulter both use biting satire. The question is whether it's appropriate or useful.

34

Joe:

It's hard to argue that Coulter's "invective" is acceptable. When backed into a corner, I guess I might say that Coulter is over the top in the way she says things sometimes.

But let's take just the one example that has her in the spotlight now: the criticism of the Jersey girls. These are women who lost loved ones in 9/11. They are grief stricken. They are angry. They can't accept the fact that their husbands are dead. They want to blame someone. They want to lash out at someone for what has happened to them. They could be angry at the terrorists. But no, that's too, well, Republican. Instead, they can be angry at Bush. Bush let 9/11 happen. In other words, they become completely irrational. It's too bad, but that happens when people lose loved ones. But guess what? They find willing ears for their irrationality. In fact, they are treated as if they are wise beyond all wisdom. They become media stars. They actually force the US government to form the completely politicized and useless 9/11 Commission. They use their newfound fame to blast Bush and support Kerry. And because they are supposed to be grief stricken, they are above criticism. That only works to a point. I would say it works to the point where their irrationality impacts national security. Once they start using their unquestioned positions as 9/11 widows to support commanders in chief, they are fair game. So I ask you: how exactly should Ann Coulter have said that the Jersey girls have enjoyed the deaths of their husbands too much?

As for her not being a conservative. Aren't you a little over the top? Aren't you confusing Christian behavior with conservatism? I'm sure you would be one of the first to say that conservatives are not necessarily Christians. Couldn't an "obviously" non-Christian fellow traveler be a conservative?

35

Joe:

Maybe you can explain what conservative means to one of us patsies.

36

2) In your Jimmy case, there's already agreement that swearing is wrong. He's just trying to pass the blame. I'm opening up the question whether a strident tone in politics is valid. Al Franken and Ann Coulter both use biting satire. The question is whether it's appropriate or useful.

Actually in my Jimmy case one can imagine the child probably doesn't agree that swearing is wrong. Children are also masters of the double standard as well (swearing is wrong for you but not me!). But sarcasm, satire, etc. are very delicate tools. If you're not able to handle them well it's best not to use them. IMO, Coutler does not use them very well. Is it fair that the left may have some people that can use them very well (Colbert, Franklin etc.) but not the right? Perhaps but if that happens to be the case...well life isn't always fair.

jd
Instead, they can be angry at Bush. Bush let 9/11 happen. In other words, they become completely irrational. It's too bad, but that happens when people lose loved ones. But guess what? They find willing ears for their irrationality. In fact, they are treated as if they are wise beyond all wisdom. They become media stars. They actually force the US government to form the completely politicized and useless 9/11 Commission.

According to wikipedia:

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission, was set up in late 2002 "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the" September 11, 2001 attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The commission was also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks. Some have compared its important, and potentially controversial, role to that of the Warren Commission of 1963-1964.

Now you're free to disagree that the Commission was a good idea, although it seems sensible to have an independent commission examine the causes for something as important as 9/11 if we had one to investigate such things as the Challenger explosion.

The Commission's final report was a very lengthy book, based on extensive interviews and testimony, but its primary conclusion was that the failures of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation permitted the terrorist attacks to occur and that had these agencies acted more wisely and more aggressively, the attacks could potentially have been prevented.

This doesn't sound like your simplistic accusation that the 9/11 wives were irrationally just blaming Bush. The above is a perfectly rational and not exactly earth-shattering conclusion & it wasn't over the top for the families of some of the victims to advocate for an independent commission. If the above conclusion is correct it does seem as if the Executive Branch has an inherent conflict-of-interest in investigating itself. Furthermore, from what we have seen of this President's admin. since 9/11 there can be little doubt that there was any good reason to be able to trust this admin. to conduct any serious, impartial and no holds barred investigation of itself.

37

JD Aren't you confusing Christian behavior with conservatism? I'm sure you would be one of the first to say that conservatives are not necessarily Christians. Couldn't an "obviously" non-Christian fellow traveler be a conservative?

Of course. I'm not saying that just because she is acting in a manner that is un-Christian that she is therefore also being un-Conservative.

Maybe you can explain what conservative means to one of us patsies.

Actually, I've already written a post on that topic: Same Song, Different Tune: The Difficulty of Defining "Conservatism"

But I think it could be summarized in Russell Kirk's six principles that define the essence of conservatism:

Russel Kirk outlines six common principles that help us to define the essence of conservatism:

1. The principle of moral order -- a belief in a transcendent moral order to which we ought to try to conform the ways of society.
2. The principle of social continuity -- Conservatives prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know.
3. The principle of prescription -- A reliance on the “wisdom of our ancestors.”
4. The principle of prudence -- Public measures should be judged by their long-term consequences.
5. The principle of variety -- A healthy inequality is necessary for civilization.
6. The principle of imperfectability -- Since man is imperfect, no perfect social order can be created.

38

Boonton said, "That's interesting, I went to your blog and searched for any posts referencing 'intolerant' or 'bigot' and the only results that came up were things you had written. Do these people who often call you an intolerant bigot do so on your blog's comments section? Is this another round of playing the victim?"

Yes. They are in the comment sections. Many are in earlier posts, too. Also, many convos started (or continued) on other blogs, and it is there that some felt comfortable in their element so they resorted to calling me names and spewing their hate against what I wrote.

I wasn't trying to play, "the victim." I was attempting to contribute to the dialogue here.

39

This is the most pathetic batch of comments i have read in here some time.

Joe offers some folks a chance to publically redeem themselves and they throw dust on his voice.

Sad.

40

All:

First, I see Mr Lord is back, and in a [relatively] good tone. Welcome back.

Second, I observe this snippet from Mr Klein:

We in the blogs experience the Religious Right as a political force, waxing crazy on abortion and gays and modernity. But the believers powering that force don't experience it as a political venture at all. They experience it through community, or sermons on forgiveness, or charity, or neighbors. We look at the Christian Right and see crazy because, when we see them on Crooks and Liars or Kos or The Daily Show, they're acting nuts. But we're not watching the world's most representative snippets.

--> Perhaps, he needs to think again about how his own worldview and its agendas shape how he views others? [For instance, through inappropriately politicising moral and justice issues, i.e. the plainly well-warranted complaint on turning judges into legislators in service to an ideology/agenda. Similarly, modernity and modernism or post-modernism are not at all the same. Moral concern on the death of 47 million unborn infants and counting, or on the evident forced disintegration of marriage at the hands of legislating judges -- the subtext of the recent debate on the Federal marriage Amendment -- in a context in which the implications are liable to be severe, is not the same as craziness or irrationality.]

--> I would also point out that on the reports, Kos et al are hardly exemplars of balance or fairness, and it would be very hard indeed for a conservative voice to come across as balanced in such a context, given the tactics of glamourisation of evil and demonisation of those who object that seem to have come to dominate the public square.

--> In this context, the legislation of the utterly immoral under false colour of law has personally and socially destructive implications.

--> But once law has been warped, it normally has powerful interests that gain especially financial advantages from it. These will as a rule fight long, hard and dirty in the cause of what in the end is indefensible: cf. here slavery and the American Holocaust, 47 million and counting. The ongoing overthrow of marriage in a climate that refuses to think through what is going on, from the days of no-fault easy divorce laws to today's latest moves on "polygamous" same-sex unions, is telling.

--> I would think that on the underlying issue of morality in the community, the Christian faith has from the days of Jesus' ministry in Galilee and Judaea, pointed out that we are struggling sinners, who need to acknowledge that fact if we are to function effectively in the cause of reformation:

MT 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

MT 7:3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

MT 7:6 "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces . . . .

12 . . . in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

ROM 13: 9 The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

--> Here we can see that morality in the Judaeo-Christian framework calls for a coherence in behaviour, one that builds the community:

a] It is far easier to see moral error or evil when we are on the receiving end. That means we all have to face our own moral challenges or else we become impotent, mutually finger-pointing hypocrites while the society disintegrates. [IMHCO, this unfortunately is happening to the USA and elsewhere, on BOTH sides of many debates.]

b] The challenge of reformation therefore calls for a personal commitment to the path of penitence and forgiveness, in the community of the penitent. That is what discipleship is about, and what national reformation is about. [And this is a big struggle, speaks the voice of bitter experience.] It is worth excerpting here from the call to prayer and penitence issued by the US Congress in 1776:

May 1776: In times of impending calamity and distress; when the liberties of America are imminently endangered by the secret machinations and open assaults of an insidious and vindictive administration, it becomes the indispensable duty of these hitherto free and happy colonies, with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publickly to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God; to confess and deplore our offences against him; and to supplicate his interposition for averting the threatened danger, and prospering our strenuous efforts in the cause of freedom, virtue, and posterity.. . . Desirous, at the same time, to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty, devoutly to rely, in all their lawful enterprizes, on his aid and direction, Do earnestly recommend, that Friday, the Seventeenth day of May next, be observed by the said colonies as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; humbly imploring his assistance to frustrate the cruel purposes of our unnatural enemies; . . . that it may please the Lord of Hosts, the God of Armies, to animate our officers and soldiers with invincible fortitude . . . and to crown the continental arms, by sea and land, with victory and success: Earnestly beseeching him to bless our civil rulers, and the representatives of the people, in their several assemblies and conventions . . . and direct them to the most efficacious measures for establishing the rights of America on the most honourable and permanent basis—That he would be graciously pleased to bless all his people in these colonies with health and plenty, and grant that a spirit of incorruptible patriotism, and of pure undefiled religion, may universally prevail; and this continent be speedily restored to the blessings of peace and liberty, and enabled to transmit them inviolate to the latest posterity . . . [Cf fuller excerpt and discussion here]

c] Further, the love the neighbour principle is the foundation of morality. As Paul pointed out, once we see and love our neighbour as we love ourselves, we immediately see that certain behaviours are utterly inconsistent with neighbour-love, and lo and behold, these behaviours are those of the second table of the Mosaic Decalogue. [I hardly need to elaborate here on the historical fact of the foundational role of these 10 commandments in Western jurisprudence and social reformation. The current wave of hostility to these is utterly and sadly revealing about the all too frequent underlying attitude: hostility to God, who made us in his image, which is what gives us the value that merits treatment with respect. Indeed, that is what your DOI of 1776 starts from!]

d] This principle, in a world of struggling sinners, leads immediately to another much derided point, often put in terms of: LOVE THE SINNER, HATE THE SIN. That is, we must always value and respect the person [starting with ourselves and immediately extending to others, equally made in the image of God], but must correct and if necessary expose and oppose the destructive, rebellious behaviour. At the level of Government, that comes to the principle of justice: giving to each his due, and in particular, protecting the innocent from those who would prey upon them.

e] In some cases, when we are dealing with violent evil doers, such as the now late Mr Zarqawi, and one is acting as an agent of Government in protection of justice, one "does not bear the sword in vain." [Rom 13:4] One does not rejoice in the death of the sinner if one is at all like God, but one must do what is required to protect the innocent from predators such as the late terrorist of Jordan, active in Iraq.

Finally, much of the thread of discussion has centred on Ms Coulter. I think Joe has raised several troubling points about this lady and her unfortunately all too sharp tongue. The protests from some seem a bit strained, though, given the all too often quite blatant want of either concern for accuracy or fairness or even basic respect on the other side of many of the issues she raises. But fighting fire with fire is a dangerous and potentially self-defeating tactic, and “turnabout is fair play” does not excuse her own sharpness and points where she seems to have missed the mark of accuracy. [I do note though that there is a difference between inaccuracy on points that is often highlighted to dismiss a point, when in fact the material issue is dead on. We must not slip into that error.]

++++++++

Grace, open our eyes and soften our hearts as struggling sinners

Grace be to us all

We need it . . .

Gordon

PS: A quick note to B on the 9/11 Commission. Sadly, it was hopelessly compromised from the moment the very author of the separation policy that arguably led to critical gaps in intelligence sharing was put on it. More could be added, but that should be enough to bring out the point that the principle and the execution are two very different things.

41

Perhaps Gordon but I think we can agree that isn't the fault of the widows who wanted an independent commission and it doesn't justify Coutler's unnecessary attack on them.

42

B

I have not set out to defend Ms Coulter in the above. Nor, did Joe.

What I have pointed out is that the folly tricks game has all but hopelessly snarled up the US in its handing of the Islamofascist world war. Indeed, to the point where it took three years for the US Administration to actually publicly identify the enemy! [Terror is a TACTIC, not an opponent.] This includes as well the politicising of grief -- and I here have in mind especially Mrs Sheehan -- to create "un-criticisable" spokespersons for agendas and movements that would not otherwise stand serious scrutiny. Someone else up above has already pointed this out.

Insofar as Ms Coulter seems to have tried to address this propaganda tactic, she has raised a material point. HOW she did so is another matter entirely.

I therefore note again that: [1] the panel of investigation was more or less inevitable, on long track record, but [2] the key problem with it was its composition which [3] hopelessly compromised its aboility to get at the material facts and dynamics. Let's just say that the recent ruckus over "domestic spying" underscores the point, esp. when we contrast the UK observcation on why the 7/7 bombers got through.

Canada's almost laughable attempts to not say the obvious aboutt he recently captured 17, and the French inability to speak out on the affiliations and ideology of recent rioters are similar points.

but that drifts from the core point: public discourse in the West is drifting into the rhetoric, propaganda and politics of demonisation of the good, whilst winking the eye at or even condoning or glamoutrising evil. That is not a good sign, given Rom 1 - 2.

Okay

Gordon

PS: I note too that the Baigent/Brown court case in the UK reveals that the DVC's financial backer is Mohammed Yussef, tpot he tune of 100 Mns Sterling. Had say Mel Gibson produced a moivie that told the unvarnised truth about Mohammed [the DVC movei is a factually inaccurate smear!], the riots across the Muslim world would have put the cartoon riots into the pale. In short there is a double standard at work here.

43

PS: I should add, back on point:

{Sorry on my laziness to paste to Open Office Writer on that last; I thought eyeball mk 1 would be good enough. Us Dyslexics should never trust eyeball mk 1 it seems . . . even when it is adding an afterthought before hitting post; another point to persist in the path of doing good a la Rom 2:6 - 8.)

Going back to my first post above, it is interesting to contrast Jesus' recommendation on how reformation should be undertaken -- let the repentance process start with plucking the plank out of one's own eye so that one may see clearly to help others with the sawdust in their eyes.

I find the US Congress of 1776 starts from acknowledging guilt and a call for penitence then a prayer for blessing. [NB: I'd love to hear some feedback on its implications for understanding the DOI of a few months later . . .]

Similarly Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural address highlights penitence.

Today, I find mutual finger-pointing and the follytricks of manipulating emotions as Aristotle warned from the hindsight of seeing how Athens' Democracy self-destructed, judicially murdering Socrates in the process. Not a good sign.

How can the West move to the dynamics of penitence rather than hardening of hearts in sin and folly?

++++++++

Grace, open our eyes and soften our hearts to penitence.

For, we desperately need it.

Grace be with us all

We need You!

Gordon

PS Open Office is turning out to be excellent. Step I on getting out of Bill's Turf. Next, Ubuntu is on the cards for experimentation. I also see the $100 laptop is at working prototype stage. Garish and smallish screen but it seems to work -- and uses Red Hat Linux! Maybe Linux is getting there on usability . . .]

44

Welcome back, Larry! I, for one, have missed your rapier-sharp pen.

Re: Coulter. First, Joe Carter has done something very important with this post, namely, he has stepped up to publically disavow and condemn Coulter as a representative voice of conservatism. As a US senator recently pointed out, either Republicans now formally chastise Coulter and shun her from their midst, loudly, visibly, and forcefully in the strongest language, or by their tacit silence apply a stamp of approval upon her "literary stylings."

Those here who fiddle with their neckties, looking downward shame-facedly at their shoes while mumbling something incomprehensible about "hyperbole" are worse than liars, because they are lying to themselves. The sound of hate, the voice of bigotry, you don't "mistake" that for excessive zealotry - you know exactly what it is when you hear it. The voice of Coulter is unmistakable - and its purpose is astonishingly simple: Divide Americans into two warring camps.

The specific examples of her speech provided above by Joe suffice to prove the point; yet, it is her mischaracterization and caricaturization of liberals that defines her agenda of demonizing all who disagree with the Republican Party line. In a perfect Ann Coulter world, there would be no dialogue whatsoever.

Where I'll disagree with Joe is on the suggestion that she might go "turncoat" and experience a liberal change of heart. Well, I guess she could try, but she cannot erase the reams of written repugnance that constitute the Coulter cannon. The necrophic train of diseased flesh that trails behind her leperous shadow cannot be cleanly snipped away in a moment of epiphanous rapture. Rather, she will instead (in the best-case scenario) become a neo-Schafley, the elder stateswoman of arch-conservatism, content to work the B-circuit of religious programming and parochial evangelicalism, where she'll always find welcoming arms.

No, Joe, you guys created Coulter, and you'll be stuck with her. When you look over at the progressive side of the aisle, and you see the kinds of deeply spiritual, caring, Christian individuals who stand up and take personal risks to indentify themselves as opposing everything this evil, torturing, spying, theiving administration stands for, when you see that your "opponents" in public discourse are the most creative and positive artists, musicians, academics, philosophers, writers, and comedians among us - and likewise that your spokespeople are the mean-spirited and cruel, the vapid (can somebody give me a "Brittney"? Hallelujah!), and the just-plain ignorant, you have to sometimes wonder in the quiet hours of the evening whether you have chosen the wrong horse with which to pull your epistomological wagon.

We get Bruce Springsteen, Russ Feingold, Patrick Leahy, the Dixie Chicks, Jon Stewart, et al., and you get Bill Bennett and Ann Coulter, Toby Keith and Tucker Carlson.

And you're stuck with them.

45

Insofar as Ms Coulter seems to have tried to address this propaganda tactic, she has raised a material point. HOW she did so is another matter entirely.

Except her attack seems to be more about the fact that these widows were NOT being good propagandists for Mr. Bush, not that the Commission they wanted established may not have been perfect. Furthermore, note that her attack was entirely personal on the widows. From just looking at her attack one would have no idea that the 9/11 Commission was what she actually was complaining about. Joe, IMO, is correct. This was more about getting publicity for being outrageous rather than expressing a useful idea or argument. There's nothing wrong with being outrageous but it's a bit like being a circus performer without a net. If you are good at your craft then it may work very well but if you're not its best to use the net.

This includes as well the politicising of grief -- and I here have in mind especially Mrs Sheehan -- to create "un-criticisable" spokespersons for agendas and movements that would not otherwise stand serious scrutiny. Someone else up above has already pointed this out.

Indeed except for the fact that Mrs Sheehan has been anything but uncriticisable. She has been amply criticized and often on very valid grounds. The GOP taught us in the last election that not only was no one uncriticisable, even what should not be criticized (a distinguished military record, for example) could be if it advances the GOP agenda.

46

PS: A quick note to B on the 9/11 Commission. Sadly, it was hopelessly compromised from the moment the very author of the separation policy that arguably led to critical gaps in intelligence sharing was put on it.

But let's compare it to what Bush wanted, which was essentially nothing but glory for standing on the rubble of the WTC. Not a single person was punished or disciplined for the intelligence failures of 9/11. There was not even an alternative investigation by the Executive Branch to articulate the intelligence problems that festered in the pre-Bush (aka Clinton) days. The objection about the author of the separation policy sitting was less about the conflict of interest problem in itself but more about deflecting any criticism of the Bush administration.

Needless to say we paid the price again during Katrina and its aftermath.

47

Liberal pundits seem to compete among themselves as to who can make the most offensive, over the top, comments about conservatives on any given day. But when the "thin blond line" between freedom and dehimmitude gives them a taste of their own medicine, they suddenly feel rightious indignation.
They call for boycotts, censure and even condemn her from the floor of the US Senate.

One of the most colorful of Solomon's proverbs says:
A beautiful woman without discretion is like a gold ring in a sow's ear."

Perhaps that aptly describes Ann Coulter. If she were a 300 pound man with tatoos, instead of a blond bombshell in a black miniskirt, she would not be taken so seriously. But I think what really boils the bunny of most liberals is that her book "Godless," effectively describes the religious nature of secular humanism in a way that is both amusing and alarming.

In past debates (at the EO) covering secularism and religion, several of the points that Coulter raised in her book had also been expressed here -- namely that the state has it's own religion and its cathecism is expressed in the tenets of secular humanism. Instead of the debate raging over these weightier issues, they are usually dismissed off hand as "hate speech" because of Coulter's predilection for using the exact same tactics as her presumed enemies.

Example: A small but vocal group of 9-11 widows said that Bush 'murdered' their loved ones. Coulter responds that they are exploiting their tragedy for their own personal gain -- blah, blah, blah. Both claims should be repudiated, but the MSM treats the former with all the respect given a foreign diplomat and the latter as a micrcosm of everything that is wrong with conservativism.

Personally I think that there are several writers on this blog who have a better grasp of the "weightier" issues than Coulter. But they are not as witty and do not look as good in a black mini-skirt. I am not here to defend her because many of her remarks are indefensible, but for those who may be interested, this is what she had to say in reviewing her own book:

June 8, 2006

My review of my book

By Ann Coulter

If The New York Times reviews it at all, they'll only talk about the Ann Coulter action-figure doll, so I think I'll write my own review.

"Godless" begins with a murder at the Louvre and then takes readers on a roller-coaster ride through the Church of Liberalism in a desperate game of cat and mouse in which the hunter becomes the hunted — with a twist at the end you simply won't believe! It's a real page-turner — even the book-on-tape version and large-print edition! Who knew a book about politics could make such an ideal gift — especially with Father's Day just two weeks away!

The main problem with "Godless" is that I had to walk through the valley of darkness to find it. You will have to push past surly bookstore clerks, proceed past the weird people in the "self-help" section, and finally past the stacks and stacks of Hillary Clinton's memoirs. If all else fails, ask for the "hate speech" section of your local bookstore. Ironically, if you find "Godless" without asking for assistance, it's considered a minor miracle.

This is not a book about liberals. I stress this in anticipation of Alan Colmes hectoring the author to name names. (For people who resented being asked to "name names" during the 1950s, these liberals sure aren't shy about demanding that conservatives do the same today.)

It is a book about liberalism, our official state religion. Liberalism is a doctrine with a specific set of tenets that can be discussed, just like other religions.

The Christian religion, for example, frowns on lying and premarital sex. That is simply a fact about Christianity. This does not mean no Christian has ever lied or had premarital sex. Indeed, some Christians have committed murder, adultery, thievery, gluttony. That does not mean there's no such thing as Christianity any more than videotape of Rep. William Jefferson accepting cash bribes means there's no such thing as congressional ethics rules.

Similarly, the liberal religion supports abortion, but that doesn't mean every single liberal has had an abortion. We can rejoice that liberals do not always practice their religion.

"Godless" examines a set of beliefs known as "liberalism." It is the doctrine that prompts otherwise seemingly sane people to propose teaching children how to masturbate, allowing gays to marry, releasing murderers from prison, and teaching children that they share a common ancestor with the earthworm. (They haven't yet found the common ancestor ... but like O.J., the search continues.)

The demand that their religion be discussed only with reference to specific individuals — who is godless? are you saying I'm godless? — is simply an attempt to prevent us from talking about their religion. This tactic didn't work with "Slander" or "Treason," and it's not going to work now.

It's not just that liberals ban Reform rabbis from saying brief prayers at high school graduations and swoop down on courthouses and town squares across America to cart off Ten Commandments monuments. The liberal hostility to G-d-based religions has already been copiously documented by many others. "Godless" goes far beyond this well-established liberal hostility to real religions.

The thesis of "Godless" is: Liberalism IS a religion. The liberal religion has its own cosmology, its own explanation for why we are here, its own gods, its own clergy. The basic tenet of liberalism is that nature is god and men are monkeys. (Except not as pure-hearted as actual monkeys, who don't pollute, make nukes or believe in God.)

Liberals deny, of course, that liberalism is a religion — otherwise, they'd lose their government funding. "Separation of church and state" means separation of YOUR church from the state, but total unity between their church and the state.

Two months ago, the 9th Circuit held that a school can prohibit a student from exercising his First Amendment rights by wearing a T-shirt that said "Homosexuality Is Shameful."

Even the left's pretend-adoration of "free speech" (meaning: treason and pornography) must give way to speech that is contrary to the tenets of the church of liberalism on the sacred grounds of a government school.

How might the ACLU respond if a school attempted to ban a T-shirt that said something like "Creationism Is Shameful"? We'd never hear the end of warnings about the coming theocracy.

In fact, students are actually required to wear "Creationism Is Shameful" T-shirts in Dover, Pa., where — thanks to a lawsuit by the ACLU — the liberal clergy have declared Darwinism the only true church, immunized from argument. Ye shall put no other G-d before it. Not one.

Liberals believe in Darwinism as a matter of faith, despite the fact that, at this point, the only thing that can be said for certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1).

If only Darwinism were true, someday we might evolve public schools with the ability to entertain opposable ideas about the creation of man.

_________________

How is it that the sky falls when Coulter makes an irresponsible statement but the most popular political blog in the world can turn out the most insensitive bile imaginable and still get over a million hits a day -- plus attract guest commentors like Dean, Kerry, Pelosi, Boxer and Kennedy? Where is all the hand wringing and rightious indignation when the victim is not a liberal?

Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, also known as “Daily Kos,” comments on the gruesome deaths of four American GIs in Fallujah whose charred copses were hung from a bridge:

"Let the people see what war is like. This isn’t an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush’s folly."

"That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them."

48

Example: A small but vocal group of 9-11 widows said that Bush 'murdered' their loved ones. Coulter responds that they are exploiting their tragedy for their own personal gain -- blah, blah, blah. Both claims should be repudiated, but the MSM treats the former with all the respect given a foreign diplomat and the latter as a micrcosm of everything that is wrong with conservativism.

Of course as a matter of respect people that lost loved ones are given a measure of defference even if they are wrong. Coutler, though, fancies herself a pundit. Shouldn't we feel freer to attack her political opinions when they are stupid as opposed the opinions of a civilian that are at least partially motivated by intense personal loss?

How is it that the sky falls when Coulter makes an irresponsible statement but the most popular political blog in the world can turn out the most insensitive bile imaginable and still get over a million hits a day -- plus attract guest commentors like Dean, Kerry, Pelosi, Boxer and Kennedy? Where is all the hand wringing and rightious indignation when the victim is not a liberal?

When liberals make 'irresponsible statements' there is more than enough hand wringing, rightious indignation, self-serving condemming etc. Then again there are times when right wingers make such statements and do not get criticized. On this very list for example, another yoyo compared Coutler to Jesus Christ. You seem to be under the bizaar impression that Coutler is being attacked by liberals. Her prime critics seem to be fellow conservatives...and not just Joe Carter on this blog.

Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, also known as “Daily Kos,” comments on the gruesome deaths of four American GIs in Fallujah whose charred copses were hung from a bridge:

Indeed, Kos has yet to obtain the status of Coutler (or the status that Coutler used to have before she started getting a bit too far out there). Probably because Kos is a internet 'star' while Coutler started as a TV one. We are not quite yet at the point where star bloggers are as big as tv stars.

But the deeper problem here is the undertone of this type of dialogue. What you are seeing among the right these days is intellectual bankruptcy and symptom #1 is the arrogant tone of self-rightousness among its pundits. Hannity writes a book whose title equates liberals with terrorists. Coutler's books spread equal hatred against her political opponants. Even the higher grade right wing intellectuals are pretty shabby (how about that _Party of Death_ book?) One would think these creatures are living in an America where conservatism was a dirty word rather than one where conservatives hold ALL THREE branches of gov't.

What you see here is not ideas but grunts. "We are good, they are evil, hahaha". This isn't the first time an intellectual movement went down this path. At the end of liberalism's age (let's say late 70's) it too descended into this self-congratatory (we are great) mode combined with bitter hatred of everyone else (the rest of America is ruled by racists, bigots, fools etc.).

49

"but were the bulk of these ministries not palatable and relevant to the everyday experiences of lower middle-class Americans"

Faint praise.

50

Coulter is no fake conservative. That was the most undiscerning part of Joe's post. Coulter is the real thing. I know because I am too, and we recognize each other kind of like a god can always recognize another god no matter what form they are taking at the moment.

If Ann Coulter angers you or makes you indignant or anything similar use it as a sign that you've yet to get out from under the control of your old man (talking biblically). Ann is on the mark. What makes her stand out is she is bold (and very much not lukewarm) like some types who get instantly banned on internet forums. Only nobody can ban her books, as much as some may like to...

51

All:

Busy Sunday, I see.

A few remarks are in order, I think.

1] Following up: Is A C a "Christian"?

Someone up above has raised this as a claim she makes. Kindly provide documentation, as that changes the issue materially [as it did for Mr Sullivan].

I wonder though at one of her "outrageous comments" ie, more or less: conquer 'em and convert 'em [at gunpoint one presumes].

Unfortunately, that is so close to what some islamofascists advocate that it may well be a case of "sauce for the gander/goose" as an example of satire. That is, she may not at all be actually advocating forced conversion but instead highlighting what is unfortunately actually on the ground on the other side of the current world war. [I can call up cases in Indonesia for instance. And yes, there is only a semantic difference between a “Global war” and a “World war,” especially now that the GWOT is about to go nuclear if the Mullahs get away with their game . . . ANOTHER case of a material issue being ducked by those who WILL not see what does not suit their preferences.]

Similarly, if the 9/11 widows in question are actually accusing -- without solid evidence, let us note -- Mr Bush of murder in respect of the incidents of 9/11, then they are equally out of order. That is, they needed to be called on their intemperate remarks, but the issue is how.

Similarly Kos et al are utterly beyond the pale of civil discourse and are in serious need of being called on their slanders, well-poisoning, abusive remarks and hate mongering. Again the issue is how. Thirdly, the pattern of close association between the likes of Kos or Mr Moore of Fahrenheit 9/11 infamy and senior leaders of the US Democratic Party and their rhetoric is a sad sad sign of where that once great party has gone. [Cf here for John Leo on some cases in point.] The question is HOW to call them on that. Finally, it is plain that several major media houses in the USA have lost all connexion to fairness and balance, i.e. they have in the main become undeclared advocates for especially the Democratic party {Mapes and Rather's attempt to tilt an election by making use of patent fake military documents is a clear case in point, as is the way that those who exposed this have been mistreated]. The major media houses need to be called on this. Again the issue is: HOW. I could go on: Judges, Profs, and more . . . there is a plain agenda of poisoned discourse in the public square in the USA and a LOT of it is coming from the side Ms Coulter is exposing or trying to expose.

She evidently thinks she has to shout to be heard at all -- and maybe with good reason.

It seems Ms Coulter is simply not a good example of How -- and all the more so if she does in fact claim to be a Christian.

Are there any good examples out there that can be called up? Able to consistently make the point on facts and logic, and able to hold mass attention?

How can the principles of Matt 7:1 - 5 be applied to the bogosphere, especially given the example set by the US Founders in 1776 in their call for fasting and prayer: penitence first, not loud demands for one's rights. For, Liberty is a blessing from God [cf. Preamble US Constitution, 1787.]

The time for a major reformation of public manners has plainly again come!

2] Godlessness, accusation of the good and approval of evil

This is of course precisely the pattern identified in Romans 1 as what happens when people turn their backs on God. TM has aptly pointed this out. [And, BTW, Raven, as a victim of false ands slanderous accusations of Nazism and the like from LL in his former incarnation, I think that there is a whole other side that you need to deal with. Otherwise your admiration for your favourite sharp tongue in a context of denunciation of another sharp tongue lies revealed as and example of a double-standard. ]

In short, let those of us who take the Scriptures seriously observe what the Apostle to the nations has had to say on the sort of pattern we are seeing:

RO 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

RO 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened [contrast US Founders, 1776]. . . . RO 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Those who do not take the Bible seriously, should pause and see just how accurately their pattern of thought and life was captured in this classic analysis of what happens when a culture turns its back on God. That takes us to . . .

3] The main issue

TM excerpted the self-review by AC, and in it is a major point that needs to be reflected on honestly and carefully, especially by the secularist commenters in this blog:

The liberal hostility to G-d-based religions has already been copiously documented by many others. "Godless" goes far beyond this well-established liberal hostility to real religions.

The thesis of "Godless" is: Liberalism IS a religion. The liberal religion has its own cosmology, its own explanation for why we are here, its own gods, its own clergy. The basic tenet of liberalism is that nature is god and men are monkeys. (Except not as pure-hearted as actual monkeys, who don't pollute, make nukes or believe in God.)

Liberals deny, of course, that liberalism is a religion — otherwise, they'd lose their government funding. "Separation of church and state" means separation of YOUR church from the state, but total unity between their church and the state.

In earlier threads, Joe pointed out that secular humanism, as a broad and powerful cultural movement, can be understood to be a religion. I pointed out its creed: spontaneously evolving matter is ultimate reality and 'Science' is its prophet.

I think this is the key point that needs to be properly faced, having discounted the issues on invective and one etc; as it arguably best explains the sort of double-standard that Ms Coulter and many others have pointed out.

In short, it is all too easy to end up chasing a red herring based on attacking the person rather than addressing the material issue. Let us instead address the material issue, if we are serious -- and I think the US DOI on the roots of rights and the proper role of Government in light of the implications of the 1776 call to prayer I cited and linked above is a good place to begin. [Cf my discussion on modern liberty's roots and Government under God here.]

++++++++

Grace, open our eyes

Gordon

52

PS: OOPS -- BLOGOSPHERE, not BOGosphere.

I also think that Mr Leo's remarks are worth excerpting, putting in numbers and breaks on several cases in point:

Writing in Rolling Stone, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. assures us that the 2004 presidential election was stolen. This popular conspiracy theory has attracted many Democrats, from the clearly unbalanced to John Kerry himself . . . . This may not be breaking news, but if an assertion reflects a widely shared emotion, it can make great headway in this culture without any need to prove its truth. We have been through this many times.

[1] The 2000 election was allegedly stolen, though no credible investigation backed up the claim, not even the one by the Civil Rights Commission, which was then firmly in Democratic hands.

[2] The Katrina theory that blacks died because of racism wasn't true, but it fit both the emotions and the beliefs of the political and media establishments.

[3] The Duke rape case also unfolded along the lines of conventional liberal beliefs about privileged whites and allegedly dumb jocks. The leadership at Duke should be ashamed. As the facts emerge, ever so slowly, it is becoming apparent that the prosecutor should be disciplined for his shocking behavior.

[4] . . . . many of President Bush's detractors are saying that his argument for keeping troops in Iraq -- to achieve a democratic transformation -- is a new rationale meant to distract from the missing WMDs. The New York Times made that charge in an editorial on April 27. But it isn't true. Bush listed democratic transformation in Iraq as one of his aims before the war, as the Times acknowledged in an editorial on Feb. 27, 2003. Distilling the president's various arguments on Iraq down to the one on which a lot of people think they were snookered -- the WMDs -- is a distortion, but it accurately expresses a popular feeling, so who cares if it isn't so? . . . .

I think that sets a context that helps balance this thread's discussion.

GEM

53

PPS: Ollie North has a solid point too:

a week from now, whip it out and ask a "representative sample" of your family, friends and associates two questions: "What happened at Baqouba?" And then, "What happened at Haditha?" Tabulate the results. Prediction: 8 of 10 will be able to tell you something about "Marines accused of killing civilians" in Haditha. Fewer than 3 in 10 will know anything about Baqouba and only a few will even know it's in Iraq. Baqouba, in case you have already forgotten -- or never heard -- is where Abu Musab Zarqawi, one of the most brutal terrorists in history, was tracked down and killed by Joint Task Force 145 -- a special air-sea-ground unit of the U.S. Special Operations Command. That was good news -- and, therefore, transitory. Haditha, on the other hand, is here to stay . . . .

The dissonant reporting and commentary about the two places -- Baqouba and Haditha -- reflects far more than a difference in what's "known" before you hear, see or read the "news" from each. From bloggers to broadcasters, few of today's "reporters," editors or news directors require two or more sources to corroborate a story. Journalists blame intense competition for ratings and circulation in a "24-hour news cycle" for "minor factual errors" and an "if it bleeds it leads" mentality. Politicians claim they need to be "out front" on issues important to their constituents.

These are lame excuses for what's really going on -- and the Baqouba-Haditha stories are perfect examples of what has been happening in this war since Baghdad was liberated. Critics of the Bush administration and those who seek political advantage in denigrating America's military have decided: Haditha -- like Abu Ghraib -- will be beaten like a rented mule. Baqouba -- like the capture of Saddam outside of Tikrit -- will be "buried" like every other "good news" story coming from this war. And the Washington politicians are helping make sure that happens.

GEM

54

Some of the remarks here regarding the DailyKos website suggest that the writers who made those comments were doing so from a position of incandescent ignorance. It's as if there's some established litany of liberal excesses one is supposed to trot out and Kos is a particularly choice morsel.

So for the record, I'll explain why, on every single day of the year, the DailyKos gets more traffic, more unique visitors than all of the right-wing conservative blogs combined.

At first, DKos was similar to most weblogs, and Markos penned his thoughts there, but soon the site evolved into a community forum and collection area for breaking news. Here's how it works: Anyone can register and post a story to the website - posts are called "diaries.

All new diaries go to the lower left review window. Anyone can read those diaries, and anyone can vote on them. The choices are "recommend," or the reader can do nothing at all and move to the next item. Diaries that get sufficient numbers of "recommend" clicks move to the upper right gallery, and these are considered the "must-read" entries of the day (or hour, depending on traffic).

Then there's the main window. Sometimes Markos pens an entry, but he doesn't contribute much. The top writers are Georgia10, SusanG, Darksyde, and a few occasional specialists, like Hunter. These individuals can "promote" a diary from the upper and lower right windows to the main page if they deem the content worthy of general consideration.

So it's a merit-driven, vote-based system of quality refinement that makes DKos such an outstanding source of user-contributed news and insight. And let me assure you, the quality of writing you'll find there is far and away better than you'll ever find at a Redstate or Little Green Footballs. And a LaShawn Barber or Baldilocks or Dr. Sanity could post diaries to the lower left all day long and they'd never garner a recommend click because their skill with language is insufficient.

The prize for a good writer, of course, is eyeballs. A well-placed diary could net 100,000 readers, and it could potentially get picked up by a major news service or magazine. That's why people research and craft their diaries with such care - they work as hard as anyone in commercial publishing. Yes, there are poor postings there, but these never migrate to the upper panes. The community is self-policing so that only quality material emerges from the competitive fray.

Challenge to EO readers: If you think you have something to say, post a diary at DKos and see how much traffic you get. Joe Carter could pull it off, Boonton, sure. Larry would be a natural. You want a big soapbox to stand on? The agora never closes.

55

Raven, Raven, Raven... All that you describe is great and everything, but the content of Daily Kos is still of the level of: "Bush is a monkey and a liar, and Zarqawi was dead (if he really is dead) long before they decided to trot out the corpse. He most likely was killed by Iraqis themselves considering U.S. military boys are scared of their own shadow over there..."

I kept that clean - unlike what you'll find on the Kos site - in respect to Joe's site...

56

Christaan: Considering the tremendous volume of posts over there, I would bet that with enough time and effort you could probably find a few examples of what you're talking about, but you're describing, what? Five percent of the total? Maybe.

Remember that anyone is free to post there. You don't want to read something of that nature, then just eschew the lower right pane - nothing of such poor quality would migrate upward.

Y'know, just a few days ago, Markos himself posted that he has no patience with "they stole the election" posts and requested that people let the matter drop. Or, take this front-page entry from yesterday as representative language:

If there is one thing that does motivate voters in this vile political climate of capitulation and pandering, it is authenticity, that refreshing and quenching attribute which is so rare that it has become a delicacy of sorts in the political world. Let's look at recent strong showings on the Democratic side. Paul Hackett, Jon Tester, Barack Obama, Brian Schweitzer. They span the ideological spectrum, but they were all embraced by Democratic voters, in large part I think because they are authentic. They didn't shrink from discussing controversial issues, and when they did address them, their words rang true, not hollow. They were unapologetic to voters, true to self, and radiating an authenticity that the voting public lapped up.

So, if I were penning a "step by step" guide for Democrats, there would really be only one step. Step 1: Be authentic.

Now, I don't know about you, Christaan, but I wouldn't term an essay of this nature to be "vile invective," just "dripping with profanity." The only people who describe DKos that way are people who do not visit the site. End of story.

57

Speaking of Daily KOs. This today from National Review . . .

June 12, 2006, 7:33 a.m.

What Fame Will Bring to DailyKos
With recognition comes scrutiny.

By Byron York

Las Vegas—The YearlyKos convention ended here Sunday in a blaze of publicity. The nation’s top political reporters came to the Riviera Hotel to get a first-hand look at supporters of DailyKos, the nation’s most popular liberal website, and they didn’t leave before writing thousands of words about it all.

But much of that coverage, especially in the largest papers with the broadest readerships, involved simple explanations of what DailyKos is, who is involved with it, and why Democrats like Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, Senator Barbara Boxer, and presidential candidate Mark Warner traveled to Las Vegas to speak to them. “This community first demonstrated its power by supporting Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign,” the Washington Post reported in a typical passage, “helping him raise tens of millions of dollars and propelling him into front-runner status for the Democratic nomination until his candidacy imploded.”

There will undoubtedly be more of that sort of thing in the days to come; after all, many readers know little or nothing about DailyKos. But at some point, coverage of the DailyKos phenomenon will move into a new cycle. In politics, no person, and no movement, can attract as much attention as DailyKos has received recently without eventually attracting scrutiny. And that will likely bring attention to what is said—and who says it—on the website.

The obvious focus will be on DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas himself. While his writings—and the controversies they have caused—are an old topic in the blogosphere, they have remained largely unexamined in major media outlets. For example, one of Moulitsas’s most famous statements, involving the brutal murders of four American contractors in Fallujah, Iraq in 2004—“I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.”—has been the target of extensive criticism on conservative blogs and in conservative media outlets, but, according to a search of the Nexis database, has never been mentioned in the Washington Post. (It was quoted, once, in the New York Times, deep in a September 2004 feature story on bloggers.) Nor has it been reported in any major newsmagazine or been the topic of conversation on any major television program.

The same is true for other things Moulitsas has written. For example, in January of this year, Moulitsas reflected on the Bush administration’s conduct of the war on terror:

These blowhards pretend they are macho even as they piddle on themselves in abject terror from every “boo!” that comes out of Osama Bin Laden’s mouth.

Also in January, Moulitsas found extensive common ground between Republicans and Osama bin Laden:
Okay, who said:

“Who can forget your President Clinton’s immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he ‘made a mistake’, after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?”

And who said:

“We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication [and] homosexuality...”

That’s Osama Bin Laden. And wow, he sounds just like Republicans!…

Let’s not forget that ultimately, Osama’s vision for the Arab world is far more akin to the Right’s vision of America… On homosexuality, on militarism, on women’s rights, on religion in school, on capital punishment, on free speech, on curtailment of civil liberties, and on a million different other issues Islamic fundamentalists don’t share many disagreements with the ideologues running our country.

The reason we hate Islamic fundamentalists is pretty much the same reason we’re fighting to take back this country from the Republicans. They are two peas from the same pod, and diametrically opposed to everything we liberals stand for.

And that’s just this year. Critics looking for more material will likely find plenty in Moulitsas’s writings since he began blogging in 2002.

One theme of coverage of the YearlyKos convention is that Moulitsas and his followers are playing an active role in the 2006 and 2008 campaigns. Left unsaid is whether they will be an asset or a liability for the candidates they support. It seems reasonable to expect that any Democratic candidate who allies himself with Moulitsas, or accepts DailyKos support, will be asked, by Republican opponents, whether he or she endorses some of the things Moulitsas has written and said.

Indeed, Moulitsas himself has set an example for withdrawing support from—and threatening—those who have anything to do with statements that Moulitsas finds objectionable. For example, in January, he reacted angrily to a comment from Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf, who, in an interview with the Washington Post, discussed the role of netroots activists in future campaigns. “The trick will be to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left,” Elmendorf told the paper. In response, Moulitsas wrote:

Mr. Elmendorf almost got it right. The trick, in reality, is to stop appearing like our Democrats are held captive to sleazebag amoral lobbyists. Here’s notice, any Democrat associated with Elmendorf will be outed. The netroots can then decide for itself whether it wants to provide some of that energy and money to that candidate.

In his remarks introducing Mark Warner in Las Vegas last week, Moulitsas praised Warner for being one of the first to recognize the power of the liberal netroots—for realizing, in Moulitsas’s words, that “maybe we weren’t these far-left extremist wackos that everybody else seems to think we are.” Indeed, many participants in the convention expressed frustration with the way in which bloggers are sometimes portrayed. Yet the remarkable thing is how little scrutiny Moulitsas’s writings have received in major media outlets. Now, after