« johnny, john and....john paul? | Main | balance »

point, counterpoint

Jeff Jarvis has an OpEd in today's New York Post, on 9/11 PBS and globalization. The whole piece is a great antidote to Mark Morford's black-soul searching essay on the anniversary of 9/11, which, for all its wordy euphemisms and long-winded sentences reads just this: Blame America.

And really, that's all Morford's columns should say at this point. He and Ted Rall should just put out a weekly standard sentence or two instead of these lingering, messy piles of words and just write on the blackboard 100 times, I Hate George Bush. It will expend less of their energy and and will make much more sense to the flower children that read their drivel as if it were the constitution of the left.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference point, counterpoint:

» Save energy! from Inoperable Terran
Michele knows how the likes of Mark Morford and Ted Rall could have more free time.... [Read More]

Comments

Unreal. What is it with these boobs?! All I had to read from Morford was in the first paragraph:

...the term "hero" has been molested and slapped around...

I suppose (since he's a San Fran dork) that it's ok to call Joe Montana and Jerry Rice heroes, but not the fire fighters and other rescue workers at the WTC and not the people on flight 93. That's just uncalled for.

... for all its wordy euphemisms and long-winded sentences reads just this: Blame America.

What do you mean? "Blame America for 9/11"? I'm sorry, but I didn't see that. The column wasn't about 9/11 itself, but what has happened since then.

Once again, you flip out when somebody dares to say something negative about Bee's Knees. for someone who claims she's not a Bush cheerleader, you're doing a darn good impression of one.

Thlayi, he blames Bush for everytyhing; from sexual dysfunctions to earthquakes to his own inadequacies. And yes, he blames Bush for 9/11 as well, even if he doesn't outright say it this particular column, he says it often enough.

Because we all know that if there was a Democrat president right now, we would all be holding hands and having better orgasms and the ozone layer would have healed itself by now and Arafat would discover Buddhism.

Mark Morford and Ted Rall weren't even on my radar screens before, and frankly, they still aren't after reading that drivel.

What a couple of whiners.

Is it in Morford's contract that he hs to work the word "orgasm" into every single column?

I didn't make it through very much of that Morford drivel. Got sick of it very quickly and closed the window and discovered the man is doubly evil! He has pop-unders! Grrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!

I haven't read Ted Rall since he implied that the Wellstone plane crash was not an accident, but I did read this column, and found this enlightening:

The Administration pinned the blame on Osama on the afternoon of 9/11, Woodward writes: "Al Qaeda was the only terrorist organization capable of such spectacular, well-coordinated attacks, [George] Tenet said." They didn't have hard evidence, and no one had claimed responsibility, yet Bush had already decided to attack Afghanistan.

Apparently, the fact that Tenet and Bush were completely right is irrelevant. Damn it, there was no hard evidence!

Michele,
I'll go one step further, YES we'd be in better shape if a Democrat were in office AND we'd be in better shape if a non-idiot Republican were in office, say John McCain or Bob Dole or anyone but the Idiot Boy King (and his neo-con cronies). Your chearleading for Bush blinds you to the fact that he is a nazi ass who doesn't do REAL Republicans proud.

Yep, Isitstinky, you really convinced ME that Bush is a Nazi and an Idiot Boy King. Nice discourse.

As TBogg said, it hit too close to home for you... too fucking bad.

And please, stay away from San Francisco - we don't want you here anymore than you want to come here, believe me.

Reno's nice, tho...

...the fact that Tenet and Bush were completely right is irrelevant. Damn it, there was no hard evidence!

There wasn't, except for the briefing papers from the meetings with all of Clinton's security advisors they found in Condi's "send to shredder" box...

Yes, that is rather funny, isn't it? The Bushistas quickly put forth the image of fast action and incisive thought by identifying the responsible parties almost instantly. Then a year later we discover that they knew who the responsible parties were because they had been warned that something big was in the offing. Not outright dishonesty. But proof that there is no situation so horrendous that they will not look for political capital in it.

Good essay by Morford about how many of us, including our erstwhile leaders, squandered the opportunites afforded to us by the world-wide goodwill after 9/11. It's not blame America - it's blame those who ignored an opportunity to do good and chose the path of the sword.

Who booked the asshat convention here?

McGehee,
I'm not sure who booked the convention, but you sure have a V.I.P. pass!

Get your hate America program here...

Can't tell the asshats without a program....

Thlayli, Isitstinky (yes, to answer your question by the way -- if you were asking about your own contributions so far), and the rest of the "Bush is a drooling idiot who still somehow managed to mastermind a conspiracy to turn America into a totalitarian state" crew have made it impossible to talk sanely about politics and political figures. Talk about simplistic either/or, them-or-us divisions, your obsessions about saintly Democrats who would lead us to the Promised Land if it were not for those mustache-twirling, fainting-maiden-tying-to-the-railroad-tracks Republicans make the administrations position on terrorists look, oh, I don't know, nuanced.

Gee, McGehee, it is an asshat convention with a bunch of bowlfloaters trying to pick them up. For a minute, I thought I was at DU. Gee, people, get a job, a life or laid. All this stressing over President Bush will make you vote for Nader or someone equally stupid.

Andrea wrote:
Talk about simplistic either/or, them-or-us divisions, your obsessions about saintly Democrats who would lead us to the Promised Land if it were not for those mustache-twirling, fainting-maiden-tying-to-the-railroad-tracks Republicans make the administrations position on terrorists look, oh, I don't know, nuanced.

Don't forget the legions of faceless minions who blindly do the bidding of Dr EvilShrub. (Otherwise known as the ones who disagree with the DU types.)

Yes it is true, I am a democrat. And because of that I am also dumb, a minion if you will. When I am not busy raping my mom, I am busy giving my money to turds who live on the street. And I don't mean the homeless, I mean actual corny, crusty, poopy turds. And I hope you all do the same...Please vote for me in 84, I'll give your money to turds, real corny, crusty, poopy turds, not the special interests. Andrea should die.

Thlayli, ... and the rest of the "Bush is a drooling idiot who still somehow managed to mastermind a conspiracy to turn America into a totalitarian state" crew...

Hey, I never said he was the "mastermind".

...have made it impossible to talk sanely about politics and political figures.

Oh, boo-fucking-hoo. Go tell it to Ann Coulter.

Speaking of assinine editorials and Ann Coulter, this is from Ann's latest:

On the basis of their recent pronouncements, the position of the Democratic Party seems to be that Saddam Hussein did not hit us on 9-11, but Halliburton did.

I guess she counts herself amongst the 70% of Americans who think Saddam is responsible for 9/11. THIS is what Republican discourse has sunk to.

But to the Republicans, 70% polling is good enough, even if it is a goddam lie.

You're wrong on one thing, Sherard -- because he's a San Francisco Intellectual, I will guarantee you that Mark Morford hates football, baseball, and all professional competition. He's the kind of guy who will insist that no one keeps score during your company picnic's volleyball game, so that no one "feels bad." For that matter, he's the guy who will email everyone at work the petition against the taxpayer funded stadium.

Compared to many Americans, I'm extremely liberal on many issues, like gay adoption, pornography, the environment, etc.

But precisely because of Lefties like Mark Morford, Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, and Medea Benjamin, I no longer identify as a "progressive" nor do I give them money, nor do I volunteer for their causes, nor do I spend nights thinking about how the Left can get Back In The Saddle. Their continuing spew about how awful America is, while being very pleased to call themselves American citizens, repulses me to the core.

for all its wordy euphemisms and long-winded sentences reads just this: Blame America.

Way to boil an entire column to a slogan that doesn't have anything to do with reality. Critics of the Bush Administration and the Admin.'s tactics are not "Blaming America." I think that's what's called a distortion.

....and the rest of the "Bush is a drooling idiot who still somehow managed to mastermind a conspiracy to turn America into a totalitarian state" crew have made it impossible to talk sanely about politics and political figures. Talk about simplistic either/or, them-or-us divisions, your obsessions about saintly Democrats who would lead us to the Promised Land....

Ahem. Bush is a drooling idiot. (Watch one of his speeches. Or, read the Al Franken book.) Bush is not in charge of anything. We can speculate on who exactly is in charge, but it sure as hell isn't Bush. (Cf. Molly Ivins et al observations on the role of the "land man" in the TX oil business. Bush is the land man.) America is not a totalitarian state, but it has taken steps in that direction (Guantanamo Bay, PATRIOT Act, suppresion of dissent, "free-speech zones," secrecy and stonewalling at every step by the Administration, subversion of elections, anti-anti-war demonstrations, etc).

President Bush, his operatives and apologists are the ones who polarized this country. On 9/12/01, the French paper Le Monde ran the headline WE ARE ALL AMERICANS NOW. Now, they are "old Europe" or "chocolate makers" or "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" [sic]. There was a worldwide outpouring of sympathy for the US in 9/01, and from places we didn't ordinarily see sympathy from. Whatever you might think of them, it certainly wasn't "Lefties like Mark Morford, Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader" who caused that unprecedented worldwide sympathy to evaporate in the space of several months.

Fortunately, Bush does not represent America and never did have a popular mandate until 9/11, when he garnered the highest approval ratings of any president ever. In the 24 months since then, his approval rating has spiked only once: during the invasion of Iraq. Since then, he has been on an unreal downward slide in all polls, including Fox's. He is now right above the all-important 50% mark, and has actually sunk below that in some polls. The only other President whose numbers have dropped 40 percentage points is Nixon, during the Watergate scandal. Bush will be toast. I'm hoping the Dems can do to Bush what Nixon did to McGovern.

Their continuing spew about how awful America is, while being very pleased to call themselves American citizens, repulses me to the core.

Dan here is illustrating very nicely the difference between nationalism and patriotism. Patriotism is not "the country is doing this, get in line or else." That's nationalism. Just ask any German.

"Of course the people don't want war. After all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."--Hermann Goering, 1947 (at Nuremberg)

Patriotism sounds more like this:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Teddy Roosevelt

Yes, Michelle is proven correct by the morons such as Nota Bene who take an out of context quote by a Nazi (which was actually offered up as a feeble rationalization for his own evil and noted as such by the Nuremburg prison psychologist and Jewish refugee from Nazism, Dr. Gustav M. Gilbert, whose book NUREMBERG DIARY is the source of the quote!) as an excuse to avoid dealing with modern Nazi-inspired totalitarians such as Arafat and Hussein. It really is "Blame America" for these filthy totalitarianism-loving pigs and idiots.

Did any of you actually bother to read the article? Or did you just pick a part and decide that it meant something you didn't like.

Why are conservatives so goddamn STUPID these days?

Dosser,

The notion of "reading for content" completely slipped past you. Morford's article is a pathetic re-iteration of Glassner's CULTURE OF FEAR, which, given 9/11 and the fact that we're at war-with Islamic fascism, is now laughably out of date. I'd also take Morford more seriously, if he, like James Bovard, chronicled -both major parties' love for shaving away classical liberal rights in favor of state intervention.

"Why are the 'liberal/left' such REACTIONARY IDIOTS these days?"