Friday, April 21, 2006
Ann has a point
I know most of you probably don't read Ann Coulter. Well, I do and her column this week is the kind of thing we should be hearing from the media in light of Duke, Natalie Hallowell, et al. But we won't. In this age of moral relativism, we can't comment on the actions of others. For the most part, this article is non-political. She does take a couple shots at liberals, but I think it is worth reading. So, before you spout off about her political bias (which I freely admit) and send me links to liberal columns or Sojourners, read it and see for yourself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Mike,
the article was okay. But again she ruins what might have been a decent point by using Michael Moore tactics of demonizing those she doesn't like...something the "christ" that she quotes at the end never did.
I agree with much of what she said concerning the culture. But she just couldnt help herself from bashing those she sees as the problem (liberals, muslims, etc.).
Where were the attacks at Tom Delay and other conservative members of congress for their "integrity" issues? Where was the criticism of Halliburton's no bid contracts all over the world while they continue to do business with Iran (which is against the patriot act) while humanitarian muslim organizations get shut down without a trial an without seeing the evidence against them.
I'm not asking you to start reading moore instead of coulter. I'm asking you to stop reading only one side. Stop reading sides at all...actually try to find people who are decent journalists and commentators. If you've seen her bias, why are you content to still listen to it? Our job is to be truth seekers, not complicit in partisan politics and the wrangling of information.
Be well
Brandon
I suppose I come at this from a different angle. I did read Coulter for the longest time, due to the fact that a) I came into the political discussion about 4 years ago and b) she was entertaining because of her bravado.
I used to read her column every Tuesday, read "Treason" and owned "Slander". With that in mind, I have to say that even when it comes out somewhat sensible she's still a pundit. That's her job. Her job is to crush anything left of her (which is a large category) and she does it quite well. I think it's effective for what she, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. are trying to accomplish.
I say that in the same turn as this: Franken, Maher and the like do the same frigging thing every day. Bash those who disagree through the vehicle of assumed common cause. I think her logic holds up, it's just the application that takes it from discussion to punditry.
The application of Jesus in this article is pretty much an afterthought though, as a true fundamental "here's the deadly blow to any other argument. You wouldn't argue with Jesus, would you?"
thanks for making me think though, Mike. The partisan pundit thing just goes too far for me.
Post a Comment