Coulter takes a drive-by at Democrats - Page 11 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #101 of 109 (permalink) Old 07-11-2005, 03:27 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
RE: Coulter takes a drive-by at Democrats

I have changed my ways due largely to the powers of your persuasion -- I am no longer anti-gun.










I am now anti-bullet.

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #102 of 109 (permalink) Old 07-11-2005, 03:34 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
azimuth's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Coulter takes a drive-by at Democrats

Quote:
GermanStar - 7/11/2005 5:27 PM

I have changed my ways due largely to the powers of your persuasion -- I am no longer anti-gun.










I am now anti-bullet.
would that be the whole cartrige or just the bullet? I'm giving up my firearms for lightsabers anyway.

aborted Shop Forum member

azimuth is offline  
post #103 of 109 (permalink) Old 07-11-2005, 06:19 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Coulter takes a drive-by at Democrats

Ms Coulter hasn't freshened her webpage yet, so I went into her archives for this one.

Enjoy!

Liberals Love America Like O.J. Loved Nicole
January 6, 2005


Even the United Nations sponge who called the United States "stingy" immediately retracted the insult, saying he had been misinterpreted and that the U.S. was "most generous." But the New York Times was sticking with "stingy." In an editorial subtly titled "Are We Stingy? Yes," the Times said the U.N. sponge "was right on target." This followed up a patriotic editorial a few days earlier titled "America, the Indifferent."

America's stinginess is a long-standing leitmotif for liberals - which is getting hard to square with their love for America. When it comes to heaping insults on America, U.S. liberals are the nation's leading donors.

In 2003, the Center for Global Development - funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, despite the fact that it could have used that money on future tsunami victims - concluded that the U.S. ranked 20th out of 21 nations in helping poorer nations. This came as a surprise, inasmuch as the U.S. gives the highest absolute amounts of foreign aid to the developing world.

But as the study explained, the center "assesses policy effort rather than impact." As any liberal can tell you, it's not results that count, it's intentions! In other words, the CGD discounted some countries' foreign aid because the CGD decided it was the sort of aid that wouldn't work - even if, in the end, it did work.

The CGD's evaluation of "effort" somehow managed to bump U.S. contributions from the No. 1 spot to second-to-last. Sending the military to liberate millions of people from ruthless dictators, for example, did not count as "aid," whereas sending in peacekeepers afterward did.

The U.S. did not merely write a check to help the oppressed people of Afghanistan and Iraq: The U.S. did most of the fighting and liberating as well as a significant share of the dying. Where's Michael Moore with that up-to-the-minute body count of U.S. soldiers when you need him?

But in the words of the CGD, military aid doesn't count because "one country's security enhancement is another's destabilizing intervention" - you know, the way U.S. soldiers "destabilized" France in 1944. (My guess is, Presbyterian missionaries in the jungle don't get as many points as U.N. seminars on condom use either.)

Consequently, in 2003, Norway got 7.1 points for "peacekeeping." Denmark got 7.4 points. France got 5.2. The country that dispatched the Taliban and Saddam Hussein - and, before that, ensured that the above countries would not be speaking German or Russian - got 1.5 points for "peacekeeping."

But at least we beat Japan! Except in other studies by liberals - who certainly do love their country - that claim Japan beats the U.S. in foreign aid donations.

Among Al Franken's proofs that Bill O'Reilly is a "liar" - in addition to his jaw-dropping revelation that O'Reilly's former TV show won a "Polk" and not a "Periwinkle" Award - Franken attacked O'Reilly for having the audacity to say the U.S. gives more foreign aid than any other country in the world.

Responding to this outrage, Franken writes: "Japan gives more. Not per capita. More." (And Franken is the world's largest donor of mentions of his own USO tours.)

I guess there are as many ways to calculate "aid" as there are to calculate "love of country." According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in 2003, the U.S. gave $37.8 billion out of a total $108.5 billion in foreign aid from the world's major countries - notable for being more than three times the amount from the next largest donor, the Netherlands, clocking in at $12.2 billion. Americans make up about 5 percent of the world's population and give about 35 percent of the aid.

So it's interesting that a great patriot like Al Franken - who goes on USO tours regularly, in case he hasn't called you at home in the last 10 minutes to remind you - would choose the method of calculating foreign aid most disparaging to his country and call O'Reilly a "liar" for using a different calculus.

At a minimum, in order to discount the largesse of the United States, one must carefully exclude gigantic categories of aid, such as military aid, food aid, trade policies, refugee policies, religious aid, private charities and individual giving.

However "aid" is calculated, it is not that hard to calculate someone's affection for their country based on their propensity to tell slanderous lies about it.

Let's review.

The New York Times calls the U.S. "stingy" and runs letters to the editor redoubling the insult, saying: "The word 'stingy' doesn't even come close to accurately describing the administration's pathetic initial offer of aid. ... I am embarrassed for our country."

Al Franken flies into a rage upon discovering that O'Reilly imagines the U.S. is the most generous nation in the world.

The Washington Post criticizes Bush for not rushing back to Washington in response to the tsunami - amid unfavorable comparisons to German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who immediately cut short his vacation and returned to Berlin. (Nothing snaps a German to attention like news of mass death!)

The prestigious Princeton "ethicist" Peter Singer, who endorses sex with animals and killing children with birth defects, says "when it comes to foreign aid, America is the most stingy nation on Earth."

And has some enterprising reporter asked Sen. Patty Murray what she thinks about the U.S.'s efforts on the tsunami? How about compared to famed philanthropist Osama bin Laden?

In December 2002, Murray was extolling Osama bin Laden's good works in the Middle East, informing a classroom of students: "He's been out in these countries for decades building roads, building schools, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. It made their lives better." What does Murray say about bin Laden's charity toward the (mostly Muslim) tsunami victims?

Speaking of world leaders admired by liberals, why isn't Fidel Castro giving the tsunami victims some of that terrific medical care liberals tell us he has been providing the people of Cuba?

Stipulating that liberals love America - which apparently depends on what the meaning of "love" is - do they love America as much as they love bin Laden and Castro?
Botnst is offline  
post #104 of 109 (permalink) Old 12-08-2005, 04:50 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Coulter takes a drive-by at Democrats

And you thought this was going to be a Coulter Klash!

B

Wasn’t Hamilton-Burr the Ultimate Catfight?
The world according to MoDo.

By Mark Goldblatt

Maureen Dowd begins her book Are Men Necessary? with a confession: "I don't understand men." If only she'd left it at that, we could simply add "men" to the long list of subjects into which she has no particular insight: history, psychology, philosophy, religion, economics, literature, art, constitutional law, international diplomacy, and several other topics upon she comments in her twice weekly column for the New York Times. But Dowd had to go and write a book about men and women, and Putnam had to go and publish it, and now it's sitting on my desk, waiting to be reviewed, and I feel like Bugs Bunny, holding a freshly baked cherry pie, about to smash it into the face of the haughty but hapless magician Ala Bahma, thinking to myself: "If I dood it, I get a whippin' . . . I dood it!"

Dowd claims her book "is not a systematic inquiry of any kind, or a handy little volume of sterling solutions to the American woman's problems." She insists she has "no special wisdom about redemption in matters of sex and love," nor is she "peddling a theory or a slogan or a policy." She concedes that she's "as baffled as the next woman" and that her book "offers only the diligent notes . . . of a fascinated observer of our gender perplexities." As is the custom with intellectual cowards, Dowd wants her ideas taken seriously; she just doesn't want them judged according to traditional evidentiary and logical standards.

So be it.

If we read the book on Dowd's own terms, the critical question therefore becomes whether her "diligent notes" add up to anything worthwhile. She argues in her first chapter, for example, that successful career women are having trouble finding suitable romantic partners because "the aroma of male power is an aphrodisiac for women, but the perfume of female power is a turnoff for men." Much of Dowd's support consists of direct quotes from her often-anonymous friends . . . friends who, by a remarkable coincidence, say precisely what Dowd needs them to say in order to keep her argument going, and who, by an even more remarkable coincidence, say it in precisely the diction and cadences of Dowd's own prose. (Since Dowd's experience figures so prominently throughout her book, allow me a personal aside here: Why are women so often drawn to grand, totalizing theories to make sense of their individual regrets? I'm roughly Dowd's age and have never been married — a fact I account for not with an anthropological hypothesis but with the rather narrow observation that I've yet to find a supermodel PhD whose standards were low enough to have me.)

The problem with devoting a chapter to the notion that male power attracts women but female power repels men is twofold: In the first place, it's mind-numbingly trite. How many sitcoms through the years, from The Honeymooners to The Simpsons, have run episodes in which the male lead feels threatened by the prospect of his girlfriend or wife outdoing him? And in the second place, it's a grotesque oversimplification. How many straight single men in America would turn down a date with Angelina Jolie because she earns more than they do? Same question for Anna Kournikova, Amanda Peet, and Aisha Tyler. (And that's just the A's.) Clearly, a woman's looks factor heavily into the equation of whether men are attracted to her. It's not admirable. It's not fair. It's just the way things are. So what's left of Dowd's initial observation? Perhaps the more modest truth that while a woman's power isn't necessarily a turn-off for men, it's not especially a turn on.
Is this a newsflash to any sentient adult?

But now the overriding silliness of Are Men Necessary? emerges. The minimal coherence of the first half of the book depends on Dowd reiterating, every 50 pages or so, her grand theme that men are intimidated and ultimately repelled by powerful women: "Men, apparently, learn early to protect their eggshell egos from high-achieving women" (p.53); "Many women are already afraid that, as they get more powerful, they get more scary, and this will repel men. Women are attracted to male power. Men are threatened by female power" (p.117). Along the way, she makes other breathless discoveries: "Women don't want to be men — except in the way men often grow more attractive and powerful as they age. . . . And we'd like to be like men in the way they can look good in many different ways, whereas women are expected to endlessly replicate themselves at twenty-five. . . . "

Well, yes. Men have been hardwired by evolution to prize the appearance of youth in women because it connotes childbearing potential; women, by contrast, have been hardwired by evolution to prize the appearance of power because it connotes the ability to provide security for her offspring. Since there are more ways to appear powerful than to appear youthful, women tend to be more forgiving of men's looks than men are of women's looks. You read a passage like Dowd's, and you wonder where she's going with it. But then you realize, several pages later, that she wasn't going anywhere. She'd already gotten there: That was her insight. The problem is not that it's wrong; the problem is that it's the kind of pronouncement a thirteen-year-old doing a book report finds eye opening. For whom, exactly, does Dowd think she's writing?

This is the pattern of the book. Banality follows banality follows banality — after which Dowd steps back and declares her conclusions merely tentative. It's as though she's so desperate not to go out on a limb, she winds up hugging the trunk of the tree. Imagine Christopher Hitchens saying, Well, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that certain aspects of Western Culture seem to be upsetting certain segments of the Muslim population.

Ya think?

According to Dowd, men's fear of powerful, independent women has led to the eclipse of iconic feminist characters like Mary Richards and Murphy Brown — who've been replaced in prime time by "postfeminist fictional heroines," like Carrie Bradshaw, Ally McBeal, and the desperate housewives of Wisteria Lane, "a gaggle of neurotic, insecure, man-crazy women indulging, variously, in too many cocktails, cigarettes, pills, shoes, kinky sex and bad affairs." The retrograde message is ironic, Dowd argues, because in real life it's "male temperament and illogic that are causing alarm." She cites the "world class catfights" between Colin Powell and Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld's "hot flashes over 'Old Europe,'" Cheney's "hormonal mood swings" and Paul Wolfowitz's "feline grooming practices"; she calls Karl Rove "a devious little gossip."

Is it possible Dowd actually believes that stretching a metaphor constitutes a logical analysis — that by labeling the Cabinet-level wrangling, temper tantrums, and classified leaking of Bush-administration officials "mud wrestling," "diva fits," and "gossipmongering," she has fastened onto a sea change in male politicians' behavior? Couldn't the feminizing tropes be as easily applied to the generation of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison? Wasn't Hamilton-Burr the ultimate catfight?

The second half of Dowd's book consists of a series of rambling, over-generalized, hyper-familiar meditations on the causes and consequences of men being threatened by women's power. Because men fear powerful women, they're drawn to women who appear brainless and submissive; because powerful women fear they're losing their sex appeal, they're abandoning the ideals of feminism and downplaying their accomplishments; because female politicians seek power, male-dominated institutions are lining up against them; because religion is patriarchal, it continues to be an instrument to deprive women of power. Each of these ideas contains an element of truth, ranging from a smidgeon to a dollop, but haven't de Beauvoir, Friedan, and Steinem already bled this vein pretty dry?

Perhaps the most intriguing section of the entire book comes in a chapter summarizing the latest biological evidence that the Y chromosome, the seat of male-pattern behavior and masculinity itself, is evaporating from the evolutionary picture, that the human race might be hurtling towards a future in which men go the way of dodo birds. But even here Dowd's attempt to lasso this information into her larger theme forces her into the ludicrous suggestion that men somehow sense the inevitability of their collective decline and are individually reacting to the prospect even now. With advances in cloning technology, the "Y populace" is terrified "that science would cause nature to return to its original, feminine state and men would fade from view."

Yep, she's put her finger right on the pulse of the male psyche.

Most disappointing of all, from the standpoint of Dowd's legions of fans, is that the book is littered with excruciatingly bad sentences. On a mentor of hers: "It was a truth universally acknowledged, as her idol Jane Austen wrote, that nobody could write with the sense and sensibility, the luminous prose and legendary reporting, of [Mary] McGrory." On the film Mr. and Mrs. Smith: "Interestingly, that movie was described as retro because of its salty battle of wits between two peppery lovers."

Such passages remind us that Dowd has never been more than an inside-the-Beltway version of Erma Bombeck — a comparison I make with reluctance only because it doesn't do justice to Bombeck's sanity and good humor. Dowd, after all, was at the top of her game during the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. Why? Because for those fleeting months, which resulted in her 1999 Pulitzer Prize, Dowd was no longer holding forth on politics per se — a conceptual realm in which she's so out of her depth she should be wearing a snorkel at the keyboard. Rather, she was writing about naughty boys and naughty girls, about pee pees and hoo hoos.

In the final analysis, Are Men Necessary? is an important book not for what it actually says but for what it inadvertently reveals about the caliber of mind currently occupying the prime intellectual real estate of the op-ed page of the Times.

— Mark Goldblatt's novel, Africa Speaks, is a satire of black hip-hop culture.

Botnst is offline  
post #105 of 109 (permalink) Old 12-08-2005, 04:55 PM
worst mod in BW history
 
ThrillKill's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2005
Vehicle: ML CLK Iridescent Hyundai Accent lol,GoPed Freightshaker & Volvo semi's, c'mawn?
Location: Chicago
Posts: 27,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
RE: Coulter takes a drive-by at Democrats

Jeez, blow off the cobwebs on this'n.

ThrillKill is offline  
post #106 of 109 (permalink) Old 12-08-2005, 06:30 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Coulter takes a drive-by at Democrats

Quote:
ThrillKill - 12/8/2005 6:55 PM

Jeez, blow off the cobwebs on this'n.
You said blow, heh, heh-heh.

B
Botnst is offline  
post #107 of 109 (permalink) Old 12-08-2005, 07:02 PM
worst mod in BW history
 
ThrillKill's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2005
Vehicle: ML CLK Iridescent Hyundai Accent lol,GoPed Freightshaker & Volvo semi's, c'mawn?
Location: Chicago
Posts: 27,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
RE: Coulter takes a drive-by at Democrats

Don't mind me, I'm openly Cray


ThrillKill is offline  
post #108 of 109 (permalink) Old 12-08-2005, 07:03 PM
worst mod in BW history
 
ThrillKill's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2005
Vehicle: ML CLK Iridescent Hyundai Accent lol,GoPed Freightshaker & Volvo semi's, c'mawn?
Location: Chicago
Posts: 27,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
RE: Coulter takes a drive-by at Democrats

Don't mind me, I'm openly Cray


ThrillKill is offline  
post #109 of 109 (permalink) Old 12-08-2005, 07:06 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: Coulter takes a drive-by at Democrats

Stereo.

Stereo.
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome