Brain Fertilizer

Why, how did Malkin know I run around calling people I disagree with "prude"? Boy, she really knows how to hit the nail on the head! Caught me! /sarcasm/

This is why I can read Peggy Noonan until the cows come home, but folks like Coulter and Malkin quickly become stale...in their view, those **** liberals are always calling nice conservatives names and acting superior, blah blah blah. Frankly, it's infuriating.

I invite any conservative writer to stay in my home, come with me to campaign meetings, etc, etc. I am tired of being villified and/or accused of saying (or even thinking!) things I do not.

We cease to understand the opposition when we just decide to quit listening; when we choose to assume what they think.

I feel sorry for anyone who does not take time to consider the opposite view, even if they disagree. I think it's negative on a spiritual level, and just causes an ugly rift in society where there need not be one.

Yeah, because Ms. Malkin actually mentioned you by name and all...

I've seen all these things with my own eyes, Jo, and I've heard them with my own ears. It may not be 100%, but the media coddles liberals and attacks conservatives. This has been proven. Christianity is constantly derided by liberal Hollywood and atheist Bureaucrats. This is what she is fighting against. I totally agree, and this is what I have been fighting against even before I started reading Ms. Malkin.

I'm betting you don't have any problem when liberal pundits use exactly the same technique when attacking conservatives, because if you did, you'd live in a cave and never read/watch/listen to any news or opinion. You certainly couldn't align yourself with pro-choice groups, because they are some of the worst at making broad, unsupportable accusations against pro-lifers.

Ann Coulter attacks liberals in the exact same way James Carville attacks conservatives. It doesn't make it right, but it is amusing to see liberals howl with indignation when they finally get a taste of their own medicine...except that the liberal media still coddles the liberals: please note that Ann Coulter was censored by USA Today, but they have no problem hiring Michael Moore. Things that make you go "hmmm"...

Still, you don't have to like it, read it, or approve of Michelle Malkin or her writings.

But I think everyone should acknowledge that both sides use the exact same techniques. That, in fact, it's merely a feature of Opinion Writing; that we all think our side made a good point, but the other side is engaging in unfair tactics...and the other side thinks the exact same thing.

I hate situations where I have to simply re-state what I already said, but here goes:

You will never see PEGGY NOONAN indulge in this sotr of thing...and that's why she's top-notch in my book, and respected almost universally.

And when you say "liberals say", that INCLUDES ME. News flash and all.

But when you say she wasn't referring to me personally, that is EXACTLY where the problem is. BOTH SIDES want to look at the opposition with blinders, ignoring who they are as people and boiling down a set of people to one ideaology, even if it means doing all you can to make each and every person who disagrees with you a complete and utter asshole. But doing so is, frankly, dishonest to one's self. Maybe even delusional.

Boo-hoo-hoo! Poor picked-on conservatives. The big, bad liberals need to stop picking on the poor, little conservatives.

Same "whine," new bottle.

Well, if nothing else, Jo, I'll be reading Peggy Noonan's pieces much more carefully from now on...and emailing excerpts every time she makes a generalization. [grin]
...although I still think it is nothing more than a perspective issue.
Martin,
You fail to realize that it is not the conservatives that are complaining about being picked on; it is liberals who call Ann Coulter all sorts of names like "hag", "skeletor"...it is liberals who feel that Fox News Channel needs to be shut down or restricted (as Howard Dean did) who are whining.
There is a huge difference between stating a fact and whining about it. I suspect you are confusing the two in exactly the same way that people like the Dixie Chicks and Linda Rondstadt confuse people no longer buying their CDs with censorship.

Jo, my final word is that you are getting a little prickly over a small issue. It isn't conservatives who are attempting to raise taxes, have universal, government-funded health care, expand welfare, maintain or expand affirmative action, etc. The dissenting votes on the Supreme Court for abortion didn't come from liberal judges, nor did the dissenting votes for child pornography being protected free speech. It wasn't a pro-life group trying to force medical students to perform abortions against their will, or saying that trying Scott Pederson for the murder of his unborn child might set a bad precedent. It isn't a conservative group trying to erase history by removing a cross from the Los Angeles seal. It wasn't a conservative Christian trying to get the words "under God" removed from the pledge.
These things were all done by liberals. Were all liberals behind each of them? Of course not.
Bill Clinton had no problem blaming the Oklahoma City bombing on Right Wing Talk Radio. Many liberal pundits have no problem claiming all the accusations against Bill Clinton were manufactured by a "vast right wing conspiracy"; heck, Hillary Clinton said so directly.
Howard Dean had no problem making sweeping statements about Republicans, conservatives, President Bush, and the Bush Administration...you were going to vote for him, and I don't remember you complaining once about his sweeping statements.
I might have missed a post/comment or two, but I don't remember you castigating Molly Ivins or Maureen O'Dowd when they did the exact same thing.
Have you totally ignored Democrat pundits calling the Religious Right worse than the Taliban? Have you totally missed Democrat rank-n-file comparing Bush and Ashcroft to Nazi's? You do realize that MoveOn.org, hardly a fringe group in the Democrat party, did not actually remove the 'Bush = Hitler' ad...they just moved it around so the casual browser couldn't find it easily?
If you don't make any attempt to distance yourself from what your group is saying, doing, and advocating, then you will be assumed to approve of it.
(for the record, you did come out and say the NARAL spokesperson in California was wrong to say that about Conner Pederson, as I remember)
The Chinese have a saying: "Stand too close to ink, and you get black." Much like our saying: "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas."

I realize this is turning into an essay, but human beings generalize all the time, and it is a survival trait and inherent to humanity. If I say, "Dogs have fleas", I think you would be overreacting if you angrily said, "MY dog doesn't!" or if you used the fact that your dog didn't as a pretext to ignore everything else I said about dogs. Because I didn't say, "All dogs, without exception, have fleas." Moreover, fleas do infest dogs worldwide, and in most parts of the country, it takes an active effort to prevent your dog from getting fleas.
And so Michelle Malkin is associating the liberal attitude of "Freedom" with liberal Hollywood with liberal feminist ideas of "sexual freedom for women" and Planned Parenthood's direct encouragement of teens to have sex because "everyone is doing it" and noticing that all these are liberal establishements or the result of liberal platforms or ideology, and saying "liberals". I happen to agree with that.
Sure, there is a difference between liberal Democrats and Socialists...but liberal Democrats adopt a great deal of Socialist dogma as being true. Liberal Democrats are pushing for more freedom and reduced standards and the eradication of Christianity and the degradation of morality. Are these planks in the platform? No. Does every liberal espouse those causes? Of course not, and I doubt you'd get even one to admit it.
But if you vote Democrat because of a single issue or even a few issues, you accept all the compromises that Democrats make in order to get elected...like Dennis Kucinich having to suddenly discover he was pro-choice in order to run for President.
See, by continuing to embrace Bill Clinton, by letting him speak at the convention and by cheering him on, Democrats have embraced sexual explotation and infidelity. "It's only about sex", you see...and that says something about Democrat attitudes, doesn't it? It also says something about Republican attitudes, too...but that's right in line with what Michelle Malkin was saying. If you don't care that President Clinton cheated on his wife, was caught, lied about it, promised never to do it again...but did. And did it with a subordinate in his office with a girl young enough to be his daughter. And lied about it again, under oath, and to the public. And when it was proven, he blamed Republicans. And if you look at all that and say, "It was only about sex,", then yes, YOU are a part of what Michelle Malkin is upset about: the trivialization of sex in our culture.
Abercrombie and Fitch, as a corporation, have shown themselves to be more on the liberal side; they market themselves toward liberal-leaning youths. NAMBLA is a liberal organization, and is not rejected from Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender gatherings, which are also very liberal events. Democrats embrace Hollywood...when is the last time you saw a national figure in the Democrat Party turn down a Hollywood celebrity for contributions or acting as a Spokesperson? As a group, Hollywood was very active in campaigning for Democrats, and represent the more liberal wing of the Democrat Party. And Hollywood is leading the charge with the sexualization of our youth. Check out the influence Madonna has had on youth, consider the influence she attempts to have with her recent live show...and consider that it wasn't a Republican candidate for President who conferred with her, it was a Democrat.
Are there Hollywood celebrities who are conservative? Sure. But is someone wrong if they identify Hollywood as one of the negative influences on morals and standards just because there are a handful of entertainers who promote conservative and moral ideals? Of course not.
You can only be Catholic and Democrat by ignoring the most basic principles of one or the other. They are in direct opposition. Abortion is another building block in the sexualization of our youth, since one of the key platforms of pro-choice advocacy is to allow 13-year-old girls to get govt-funded abortions without parental approval or knowledge...and then Planned Parenthood turns around and encourages those same 13-year-olds to go ahead and have sex because "everyone is doing it!" and that they can always get an abortion since Planned Parenthood is there to help "Because Accidents Happen."

So, yeah, I still think Michelle Malkin was correct. I am still glad I linked her piece. If I were to change anything, I would merely add "South Park Republicans" to the liberals, because, wittingly or not, both groups are enabling this sexualization of our youth and the "Girls Gone Wild" Culture. If you are a liberal and actively trying to turn the tide back and restore morality to our nation, good on ya. But your left hand is working at odds with your right.

I agree whole heartedly with you, Nathan, and with Malkin, what both of you write.

"Jo" and the Whiner Complainer here are just icing their liberal cakes, liberally. Read most public boards, messages, and there are always aggressors of the liberal kind, "correcting" Christians from a dummy perspective...while, many, many areas of the Internet are nearly saturated with lauds for Paganism, "majick" and the like, not to mention the routine hate fest "protest" sites that rally people to denigrate the religious right, also a pejorative to most who aren't Christians, or conservatives.

I enjoyed your comments, Nathan.

S-

Jo is actually my name. As Nathan knows. No need for quotes. Since I am taking the time to "ice my liberal cake", would you like a slice when I am done? Obviously, no cherries on top. ;)

HEY!

I've never called Ann Coulter a "hag" or "skeletor." I've often referred to her as "eyecandy." And I've been told I need new glasses for doing so.

And I watch Chris Wallace on Fox every Sunday. I think their Sunday News show is the best of the bunch. Why I even enjoy Brit Hume and Bill Kristol - and Kristol actually worked for Dan Quale!

I don't think W is a Nazi, but I think Ashcroft comes pretty close.

And sex is trivialized in our culture? Like who cares! Aren't there more important things to worry about than who is boning who? But that seems to be a REAL important issue on the right (or at least many of your readers, Nathan.)

Now Democrats are "pagans" that practice "majick"? That person is joking, right? Because I found that really funny.

Look, I know Nathan, that you enjoy reading the stuff written by the folks that mostly think like you do. And I also know that many of your readers all read the same stuff. I've visited Malkin's site thanks to you and McGehee. She doesn't write with anymore insight than you or Kevin. Anything one can see at her site one can see at yours.

My point? I don't know. Maybe just that I'm a Democrat! Always been one, always will be one. I like to read you and Kevin because you both sometimes have interesting stuff to say. But then you can get on your high-horse and blather all this "Oh the liberals are destroying the Country, blah, blah, blah..." And then there are your readers that come along with their "Oh they are just picking on us poor little Christians."

Get a grip, y'all.

Good point, and point taken.
But I rant when I blog; I blog when I care deeply about something. I'll try to rein it in somewhat, but you're probably best off just ignoring the parts that bug you...

"Jo":

It's a format thing. You display a user I.D., so, it's quoted, quotable.

I'm impressed that you didn't correct my spelling or otherwise, critique the sentence structure, however. There's still time.

Perhaps you can explain this phenomena that I notice in frequent occurence all over the Internet: liberals routinely assume and literally (as in, pertains to "literature") criticize how and what conservatives (or moderates, whoever isn't "liberal") write.

That is, I never read a conservative (or moderate, or anyone who isn't liberal) pointing out the misspellings or dropped copy written by anyone else. It's a thing that liberals appear to do and with increased frequency.

It isn't that other people --- who are not liberal --- don't notice misspellings and/or problematic sentence structure, but that most people (other than liberals) don't seem to presume to correct others as do liberals about the writing of others.

Much as you did with that "quotes" thing. I'd have completely moved on, by comparison, is what I express here, as would nearly anyone else, and yet you devoted time and attention to make that "correction" there. Does it actually matter that there are quotes or not, is the point here, so much that you'd write what you did? Same with misspellings --- most people see them, notice them, but focus on what's expressed moreso than how it is, and take the misspellings on the Internet in stride (fast typing, one hand, working on several things at once, even one-finger typing for many, such that misspellings are normally predictable and even expected on the Internet, so it's unusual that liberals take the time to actually point out misspellings and odd formats to others).

I think the behavior expresses some other message. That, it isn't the actual misspellings, dropped copy, convoluted sentence structure (people edit but not completely, results in odd words now and then, strange orders and such), and as you did, those "quote" marks.

Are liberals just presumptuous or are they interested in creating social disharmony? Or, both? For instance, someone who stops you and tells you your socks don't match and then walks on, without an invite or familiarity with you, is more or less being presumptuous. As in, it's no one's business. Same standard with the liberal critiques about misspellings, etc.

I had a very unpleasant troll recently on a site of mine who actually "critiqued" my opinions by ranting, "you aren't even pretty!" And, startled at that, I wondered, why would someone presume to write that, as in, who asked, what does what I look like or not look like even matter to what I'd expressed? (I'm not an unattractive person, but that's not the point here.)

Obviously, similar to criticizing misspellings, that liberal had to write something that would "correct" or even "punish" me and thus, seized upon the "you're not even pretty" comment. Not like I cared what that liberal critic even thought or thinks about how I look or don't --- non-related issues.

Anyway, you may just have to live with quote marks in my comments when I repeat another's user I.D. It's just a formatting. I went to college, too.

"-S-"

Insecure much? Sheesh...

"-M-"

Blah, blah, blah.

Where's Kevin and crew? I can appreciate conservativse that demonstrates a good sense of humor.

S, really. Whatever it is, get over it. Righteous indignation is incredibly boring. Thank goodness you're the exception to the rule...I have found most conservative bloggers sharp, interesting, humorous,...say, what is your traffic like?

Morgan, thanks for hitting the nail on the head.

Hey, you two, stop it! Am I going to have to send you to your rooms?
...I go on vacation for a few days, and sheesh!

Seriously, though, while everyone is welcome to come and comment and argue and discuss, let's confine it to the topic o' the moment, and avoid personal shots, okay?