Anti-war protestors. No one cares.
The US isn't as blind as I thought.
<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/011203/opinion/3john.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/011203/opinion/3john.htm</a>;
The chattering classes are sullen. The president they were sure was a stupid bumbler is doing rather well. He has been patient and forceful. He glued together a coalition that includes a Labor prime minister of Britain, a Russian president, and a Pakistani dictator. A number of prominent Democrats admitted?anonymously, of course?that they are relieved that Bush is president, not Gore. Here in New York, the news for the chatterers is almost as bad: Rudy Giuliani, the mayor they derided for so long as a reckless demagogue, has emerged as the American Churchill. How irritating. The big picture is galling, too. Leading roles on the national stage haven't been played by the
thinking elite but by the semidisdained nonchatterers who act physically in the real world?the military, the police, firefighters, agents of the CIA. And the values of the nonchatterers?heroism, patriotism, self-sacrifice?are on the rise. Crowds aren't lining the streets and holding up "Thank you, chatterers" signs as pundits and professors drive by.
The rest of the article is just as good.
[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/011203/opinion/3john.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/011203/opinion/3john.htm</a>;
The chattering classes are sullen. The president they were sure was a stupid bumbler is doing rather well. He has been patient and forceful. He glued together a coalition that includes a Labor prime minister of Britain, a Russian president, and a Pakistani dictator. A number of prominent Democrats admitted?anonymously, of course?that they are relieved that Bush is president, not Gore. Here in New York, the news for the chatterers is almost as bad: Rudy Giuliani, the mayor they derided for so long as a reckless demagogue, has emerged as the American Churchill. How irritating. The big picture is galling, too. Leading roles on the national stage haven't been played by the
thinking elite but by the semidisdained nonchatterers who act physically in the real world?the military, the police, firefighters, agents of the CIA. And the values of the nonchatterers?heroism, patriotism, self-sacrifice?are on the rise. Crowds aren't lining the streets and holding up "Thank you, chatterers" signs as pundits and professors drive by.
The rest of the article is just as good.
[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
Comments
In his 1995 book, The Revolt of the Elites, the late social critic Christopher Lasch wrote that the new bicoastal elites were seceding from the common life of America. He said the elites "have lost faith in the values, or what remains of them, of the West" and now tend to think of Western civilization as a system of domination and oppression. This attitude helps explain why so many in the elites seem offended by a war of self-defense-and why their intellectual confusion won't fade as the war goes on.
I think that describes many of the people posting here.
<strong>So, is the columnist who wrote that just a left-wing chatterer with no values?</strong><hr></blockquote>
He's not left-wing anyway. But I didn't know that left-wing automaticaly meant "no values". Hmmmm.
And what about all those conservative pundits on TV and radio and in opinion columns. Are they value-less chatterers, too? Then why didn't he talk about them?
To me, this is the worst of post- 9/11: It's using terrorism to pointlessly blame and criticize other Americans. This is just a conservative searching for a way, any way, to bash the libs and their traditional punching bag, the media.
Conservatives get mad that libs blame the US, but there's just as much blaming coming from their side, too. I've seen plenty of Clinton-blaming, "liberal American culture"-blaming, and even gay-blaming out of some.
So, is it OK to criticize and blame Americans during this period, as long as those Americans are liberals? You can't criticize conservatives, or you're un patriotic. But if you blame Clinton, gays, media "chatterers," professors, and liberals, you're fine?
One other thing: the idea that the media is angry that there's a successful war is absurd. When did CNN become important? During the Gulf War. The media absolutely love this kind of thing. It's The Big Story®. They don't care if it's OJ, or the Gulf War, or the War on Terrorism, as long as it's something the whole country is talking about, the media become important.
Oh, and one other thing: Did you like the way the "prominent Democrats" who are glad Bush is president were anonymous? That way he doesn't have to prove that it's true.
This was just a hack-job. If it's not as disgusting to you as liberals blaming the US, ask yourself why not.
<strong>
So, is it OK to criticize and blame Americans during this period, as long as those Americans are liberals? You can't criticize conservatives, or you're un patriotic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What are you talking about? Holy hell rained down on Falwell and Robertson a little while ago - deservedly so. Did they suddenly become liberals when I wasn't looking?
[quote]<strong>Oh, and one other thing: Did you like the way the "prominent Democrats" who are glad Bush is president were anonymous? That way he doesn't have to prove that it's true.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This isn't the only place where this has been reported. You are saying he's lying?
[quote]<strong>This was just a hack-job. If it's not as disgusting to you as liberals blaming the US, ask yourself why not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Journalist Andrew Sullivan has been sharp in detecting the anguish of the chatterers. "Not a sentence of celebration" appeared in the New York Times after the Northern Alliance broke through, and the same gloom prevails at the BBC and National Public Radio, he wrote. Why? Sullivan thinks the media chatterers of the left feel disempowered by the war. They are used to being in charge. They played a big role in ending the Vietnam War and ousting Nixon. But in this war, Sullivan wrote on his Web site, "the pundits and editorialists and cable news executives have been knocked down a few pegs in the social hierarchy. They have much less power than they had before September 11." As a result, Sullivan thinks angry media elites will get even angrier and will soon step up efforts to disparage and undermine the war.
Think again. Lawrence Summers, the new president of Harvard, had something to say about the elites, too. "The post-Vietnam cleavage between the coastal elites and certain mainstream values is a matter of great concern and has some real costs," he said. He urged the academic world to rethink its attitudes toward patriotism, which must have sent hundreds of his professors into a swoon. He said Harvard has a responsibility to support all public servants, especially "those who fight and are prepared to die."
Yes, shocking, disgusting stuff.
<strong>I'll tell you one thing: Since 9/11 I've been watching MUCH more news like CNN, foxnews, and abcnews. It accounts for about 50% of my viewing now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fox news is pure, ratings-driven crapola. The worst collection of sensationalist half-truths one can find short of "A Current Affair." Do yourself a favor and watch some other channel's news. Fox is clueless. It is their brand of news and "reporting" that is in part responsible for the "dumbing down" we always hear about.
Do right by America: boycott Fox.
[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
<strong>
Fox news is pure, ratings-driven crapola. The worst collection of sensationalist half-truths one can find short of "A Current Affair." Do yourself a favor and watch some other channel's news. Fox is clueless. It is their brand of news and "reporting" that is in part responsible for the "dumbing down" we always hear about.
Do right by America: boycott Fox.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What did they report that was wrong? Unlike the NYT and CNN Fox seems to do a good job keeping the news away from the "news analysis". Maybe you're confused about which shows are news analysis and which ones are hard news.
<strong>What are you talking about?</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm talking about the fact that some of the same people who find it offensive to blame America are those who gleefully post and rah-rah some op-ed column that baselessly blames and accuses liberals. [quote]You are saying he's lying?<hr></blockquote>So, the burden of proof is on me to show that he's lying? Usually when writers publish articles, the burden of proof is on them to support their own statements.
[quote]Yes, shocking, disgusting stuff.
<strong>
So, the burden of proof is on me to show that he's lying? Usually when writers publish articles, the burden of proof is on them to support their own statements.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, this was reported elsewhere. Leo wasn't breaking any news here. I think it's obvious why Democrats who feel that way would choose to remain anonymous.
[quote]<strong>Yes, I think insinuating that liberals are upset because of a military success is disgusting. If you don't see anything disgusting about it, and can only "roll your eyes" at the idea that it's wrong, you have some values amiss.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So what was Larry Summers talking about? He's not a conservative. Michael Kelly did a humourous piece in a similar vein about a week ago. At least one liberal friend recognized what he was talking about. Maybe if Leo had tried to be funny his point would not be so resented by you.
<strong><a href="http://www.mediaresearch.org/"; target="_blank">http://www.mediaresearch.org/</a></strong><hr></blockquote>; <a href="http://www.fair.org/"; target="_blank">http://www.fair.org/</A>;
Here's a touché for you, AppleMaster.
<strong>Sounds to me like it's conservatives whining. About peace protestors. And the media. And professors. And chatterers. And pundits. And the elite. Wah wah wah. They're all so bad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, Larry Summers is not a conservative. There are a lot of tough minded people on the left who have come out solidly behind the President and the war effort. Leo was only holding up to scrutiny those who haven't. He did nothing that wasn't done to Falwell and Robertson or those Republicans who couldn't resist partisanship during Kosovo. Or maybe you believe some people are beyond criticism?