I’m not a health care professional, so I really don’t know anything about disease pathology. But if someone has some kind of a communicable illness, doesn’t it make more sense to isolate the patient than to grant this person a public forum, thus potentially allowing the disease to spread?That’s my reaction to the news that Ann Coulter will appear on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno,” along with George Carlin and singer/musicians K.T. Tunstall.
Granted, Carlin won’t back down, thus making it interesting television (which is all NBC cares about, of course). He’ll be hampered, though, because the show will have to make sure he doesn’t let any bad language slip (it will be edited out, never fear, especially since the broadcaster fines were just raised to the stratosphere; I’m sure Leno’s show is still pre-recorded – I haven’t watched that stuff in ages, so I don’t know).
However, the fact remains that Coulter is a cancer. She is a disease. You don’t allow the disease to spread and mutate. You isolate it and allow it to expire (and don’t worry…I’m being metaphorical only with that one). The fact that NBC is exposing the disease means that the network doesn’t care about the mental health of this country.
However, as long as NBC is going to grant Coulter a forum for her sick, twisted views, I think Leno could at least check out this Media Matters link and get an idea of what he should ask her later today.
And if you want to tell The Peacock Network what you think of this moronic decision, click here.
6 comments:
While I get the sarcastic nature of your post, I have to wonder what you would prescibe for the headache which is Micheal Moore, the nausea that is Hillary Clinton, the regergetatory nature of Ted Kennedy, and the flu of liberal + liberal worldviews.
And while I am no authority on "disease pathology" either, I have to wonder if your methods of "disease" contamination would work on, ah lets say Aids, HIV virus? Probably not but good try anyway.
Signed
OneForTheRoad
OK, let's see...
"The headache that is 'Micheal' Moore," huh? Let me ask you this question in response, then; have you actually seen the movie "Fahrenheit 9/11"? If not (and there are points in the movie you could have a legitimate beef with, I'll admit, but not in its entirety as far as I'm concerned), then I don't understand your complaint.
"The nausea that is Hillary Clinton"...yes, I admit that I get frustrated with her flirtation with right wingers, but not to the point where I become physically ill (though somehow I don't think that's what you're talking about). Besides, as I said previously, she ends up doing the correct thing as far as I'm concerned when push comes to shove.
And as far as Ted Kennedy goes, I should tell you that I couldn't find "regergetatory" in my Merriam-Webster Dictionary, though I could find "regurgitory," having to do with throwing up (gosh, somehow I get this feeling that you don't like Democrats, since this is apparently a common theme with you). What exactly is it that displeases you about Kennedy? His advocacy for a federal minimum wage? His support of other causes on behalf of workers rights? His military service for our country?
(oh, I get it - that tragic car accident that happened over 30 years ago...riiiight.)
The most important fact to consider here, though, is that this post has nothing to do with any of these people. It has to do with Ann Coulter and her repellent words and behavior. Mentioning the typical freeper hate icons is just another cheap attempt at diversion from the real issue.
Do you agree with her? If not, are you then prepared to repudiate her? If you agree with her, what does that say about you? Even some of your brethren such as local area demagogue Michael Smerconish have retreated from her, as noted on The Huffington Post today (of course, I doubt seriously if he would have done that had this not been an election year).
Oh, and one more thing; I wasn't being sarcastic at all. Coulter should be banned, shunned...whatever it legally takes to get her out of the spotlight.
And if you can explain to me one day what constitutes "the flu of liberal worldviews," then I would only ask that you keep it to yourself all the same.
Forgive me for my spelling errors, I type fast.
No I have not seen "Fahrenheit 9/11" but I've been to the website. My distaste for Democrats is limited to the "Liberal Democrats" of the Clinton Era. I'v said it for years if I were living in the 60's I would have probably been a Democrat. But I simply cannot and will not "bow by knee" to individuals who support abortion, same-sex marriage, social reform ( in the form of redistribution of wealth)and "cut and run" strategies to war. These are issues which, as I am sure you do to, feel strongly about. I appreciate your response to my first comments. Finally in regards to Ann Coulter, What exactly is your beef with her? I've heard her speak, I curious as to what it was that sparked your "down with the cancer" Coulter.
I’ll give you a break on the spelling mistakes since you are apparently interested in a dialogue and not a name-calling session, which is a refreshing change. I’m glad my earlier response seemed to be helpful.
If you don’t support a woman’s right to choose, then I will only say that I disagree and leave it at that. Also, I should point out that, though I support same-sex unions, I don’t support same-sex marriage, which is where Bob Casey, Jr. comes down in this state for what it’s worth (representing an important difference to me). And as far as the redistribution of wealth is concerned, that has been going on in this country particularly for the last 30 years while well-intentioned individuals and shouters alike have been at it with each other whether we like it or not (and there are many barometers of this, one being CEO compensation relative to individuals who fall into lower tax brackets).
However, I’ll acknowledge that you seem to be talking about not supporting funding for government programs. If that’s your position, I respect that, but I again disagree with you. I want to add, though, that my beef is really not with fiscal conservatives; they’re people in my experience who are honest and up front about their beliefs, unlike the current cabal running our government which is supposed to represent fiscal conservatives but whose policies are directly opposed to that (I noted something today from an article that states the amount of money this administration has borrowed, which has exceeded the total of all administrations that came before it in this country). And though I’m not happy about what you call a “cut and run” strategy, I am furious about the total lack of pre-war planning for occupied Iraq which makes this strategy an unfortunate option (I don’t have a military background, but neither do the people in this administration since Powell is gone, and I at least never started an unprovoked war…however, I realize you have a strong opinion on this also, and I’ll acknowledge that we probably won’t reach a “meeting of minds” on this issue and perhaps others).
Finally, I’m going to pass on the topic of Ann Coulter since the documentation out there of her hateful attacks for lo these many years is legion. She is an antagonist and nothing more, and at least you have it over on her in that you are at least acknowledging another point of view (and apparently, everyone was on their best behavior last night anyway on Leno’s show, with this hateful harlequin actually receiving a warm welcome from Leno’s no-doubt-lobotomized audience).
In terms of a supposed right to choose abortion, consider this, does having the right to do something make it right to do it?
As to same-sex unions do you believe in the "slippery slope" dilema posited by conservatives? Meaning would you agree that allowing same-sex unions you would all so have to allow bisexual unions, multiple partner unions etc.
As to Social reform, would you agree that America has become a nation of wealth because of private enterprise rather than government control. ( I sumbit France in contrast to America, the recent riots were sparked by a new law that would have made it easier for employers to fire "young workers").
As for Ann Coulter I am ashamed at my original comments, as a Christian I should have done my homework before criticizing some one elses blog post.
I believe the answer to your first question (sometimes) is no. However, we know couples who have dealt with very painful decisions about terminating a pregnancy when they would have done ANYTHING to avoid doing that, but they realized what kind of care would be involved for the newborn, and we’re talking about a delivery that would have been necessary after about 20 weeks. Aside from the fact that we’re talking about severe quality of life issues for the newborn, we’re also talking about at least one situation where the couple already had incurred a lot of medical expenses, and the additional expenses would have ruined them completely (bankruptcy from medical costs being the number one cause of divorce, by the way, not foolish credit card debt as others would have you believe, though that’s a problem also). These are real-world decisions made by real-world people, not barking heads in the media or anywhere else who are experts at everyone else’s lives except maybe their own. Sometimes the decisions are right and sometimes they’re wrong, but that’s the way it goes; that’s why I think abortion should be kept safe and legal as an option of absolute last resort.
As for same-sex unions, I only advocate a position which, as far as I’m concerned, is in keeping with many other countries (though I wouldn’t want to see a dime of my tax money used to support “multiple partner unions,” and anyone who says people of my political persuasion want to support such unions is stupid). I know we’re talking about a slippery slope here, but I and probably everyone else knows someone who doesn’t quite fall into the perfect hetero model, and I don’t think those people should be neglected and told to go back into the closet, and it sickens me to hear people like Santorum who supposedly represent my religion calling for that, which is the net effect of his rhetoric and his actions.
I agree that America has become a nation of wealth primarily because of private enterprise, but I also believe that government can be used efficiently to complement private enterprise or regulate it when necessary if it doesn’t police itself. When I think about this, I consider the fact that our government invested heavily in universities after World War II to fund technological innovations to make our lives better, and then after doing so basically got out of the way and let the market take over. I think that’s as it should be (and our lack of doing it since then has been part of the reason why we’ve slipped a notch when it comes to technological innovation). Another example is the fact that Al Gore oversaw government funding for developing the Internet in the 90s (not by himself, of course), and partly because of that, the Internet is a vital tool for commerce and an important part of our lives (witness our communication). Of course, he got smeared for that…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/wired-owes-al-gore-an-apo_b_19980.html
And as far as France is concerned, I think you mentioned part of the problem, but I think there’s also a problem with a huge Muslim population that can’t get jobs or housing, and that contributed to the riots also. I don’t know enough about that to comment on who exactly is right and who is wrong, but with Asia basically becoming the dominant player economically in the world, I would say that France’s economic issues aren’t that relevant unfortunately (just hope nobody says the same thing about us one day).
Finally, don’t beat yourself up on Coulter. She’s hoodwinked a lot of people, and to your credit, you at least have enough of a conscience to admit it. I originally defended Judith Miller of the New York Times on this site, so I’m definitely not perfect either.
I’m not sure how much we agree or disagree at this point, and I don’t think I’m going to be able to keep up this thread, but thanks for taking time to comment.
Post a Comment