Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (690282)	7/6/2005 12:40:43 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Spot the Idiot Les Payne, a columnist for Newsday of Long Island, N.Y., offers a bit of good news from Iraq: Under Saddam Hussein, . . . cars were as rare on the streets of Iraq as ATM machines. Owning a car was a sure sign of deep loyalty to President Hussein, who tightly restricted the import of these expensive, luxury items. While palace cronies whizzed about Baghdad on Italian radials, the average Iraqi, who earned less than $300 annually, succumbed to public transportation and shoe leather. The Bush War has changed all that. Foreign exchange has put more dinars in the hands of consumption-minded Iraqis. Near the top of the list of luxury items flowing into the country is the automobile. More than 1 million used cars have entered Iraq during the past two years, according to a police survey referenced by the Riyadh-based IFP report, "Rebuilt Iraq." Less than half that number existed in the entire country before the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Mosul, for example, which previously had only 57,000 registered cars, now has 125,000.

To: American Spirit who wrote (690282)	7/6/2005 12:42:17 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 769670

Brainless Gals in Topless Protest Were we right or were we right when we said that the mindset of Karen Finley, the vulgarian "performance artist," had taken over the Angry Left? Check out this report from the San Francisco Chronicle: A dozen anti-war activists from Mendocino County took their tops off at high noon in San Francisco's Union Square shopping district Thursday, using what they said was their best weapon to get the public's attention. . . . Members of the Breasts Not Bombs contingent, which included seven women, three men and two young girls, said the war in Iraq is indecent, not their nakedness. . . . Breasts Not Bombs said they are trying to make people uncomfortable to get their anti-war message across and to also desensitize people to nudity. Of course, as we noted last month, such shock tactics "make people uncomfortable" only insofar as they fail to "desensitize" them. opinionjournal.com

To: American Spirit who wrote (690282)	7/6/2005 12:43:32 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Karen Finley Liberals BY JAMES TARANTO Friday, June 10, 2005 4:19 p.m. EDT Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League is outraged over a comment Rep. Charles Rangel made the other day, the New York Daily News's Lloyd Grove reports: The Iraq war "is the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country. . . . This is just as bad as the 6 million Jews being killed," the 74-year-old Harlem Democrat insisted during a Monday radio appearance on the WWRL-AM morning show with Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter. "The whole world knew and they were quiet about it because it wasn't their ox being gored." When interviewer Malzberg challenged Rangel's analogy, the congressman replied: "I am saying that people's silence when they know things terrible are happening is the same thing as the Holocaust." . . . Foxman retorted: "It is so outrageous that I think he owes an apology not only to the families of the victims of the Shoah, but he also owes an apology to the soldiers who are fighting for freedom. . . ." It's good that there are people like Foxman around who are paid to remind us that such comparisons are outrageous. For our part, we can barely muster the energy to roll our eyes. We have simply become desensitized to exorbitant liberal-left rhetoric. Bush = Hitler! Little Eichmanns! Guantanamo is a Gulag! By now what can one offer in response but a weary "whatever"? This is a problem not only for those who resist the trivialization of evil but also for the liberal left itself. Shock can be a useful rhetorical device, but only if used sparingly--for the listener's capacity for shock quickly diminishes. That's why Republicans see Howard Dean as a laughingstock rather than a threat. Hearing about the Rangel comment, and looking back on the past few years of left-liberal rhetoric, got us to thinking about one of the first stories we covered in our journalist career: the controversy, during the administration of President Bush's father, over the National Endowment for the Arts. Back then the NEA gave lots of grants to "avant-garde artists" whose idiom was shock and whose politics were left-wing. Perhaps the best known was "performance artist" Karen Finley. In July 1990 we attended a performance of Finley's one-woman show "We Keep Our Victims Ready," the title of which was an allusion to the Holocaust and meant to draw a parallel between America and Nazi Germany. Mimicking the cadences of a hellfire-and-brimstone preacher, Finely delivered a series of tirades consisting of standard-issue left-liberal politics laced with obscene language and gross imagery. The crowd loved it, giving her a standing ovation. We found it tedious. The whole NEA kerfuffle, though an amusing story for a young journalist to cover, felt like something of a sideshow. But in recent years--especially since George W. Bush became president--Karen Finley-style shock rhetoric has become a dominant mode of expression on the political left, among politicians like Rangel and Dean as well as cultural figures like Michael Moore and Ward Churchill and even once-serious groups like Amnesty International. Indeed, on "Fox News Sunday" AI's William Schulz expressly said his group employed the "gulag" calumny in order to grab attention: Chris Wallace: Is it possible, sir, that by excessive rhetoric or by your political links, that you have hurt, not helped, your cause? Schulz: Chris, I don't think I'd be on this station, on this program today with you if Amnesty hadn't said what it said and President Bush and his colleagues haven't responded as they did. If I had come to you two weeks ago and said, "Chris, I'd like to go on Fox with you just to talk about U.S. detention policies at Guantanamo and elsewhere," I suspect you wouldn't have given me an invitation. Karen Finley, by the way, is still around, blogging at HuffingtonPost.com. And she sounds exactly like a left-wing Democrat of the early 21st century: Why did our President persist, to find the man and the weapons of mass destruction? Becasue [sic], George W is the man with the weapons of mass destruction. George W is identifying himself so to speak, he is not speaking about Sadaam Hussein, he is projecting. We can use his system of projection with his compulsive usage of evil doer to apply to his own war crimes. This is George speak. He is speaking about himself. One peculiar aspect of all this is that the defenders of left-wing shock artists are themselves so easily shocked. When Karen Finley performed unnatural acts with root vegetables onstage, we were told this was an exercise of her constitutional rights. But the same people professed horror when Anita Hill alleged that Clarence Thomas had made ribald remarks in the 1980s. When Ward Churchill called 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns," he was exercising his academic freedom, but when John Bolton called Kim Jong Il a tyrant it was outrageously undiplomatic. Urinating on a crucifix is art (Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ"), but "mishandling" a Koran is a crime against humanity. And so on. A good counterargument is that Finley, Churchill and Serrano, although they are or were government supplicants, have never held positions of actual responsibility, and those who do hold such positions are rightly held to a higher standard. After all, the things they say actually matter. That's fair enough--but the embrace of shock rhetoric by prominent Democratic politicians suggests that many in America's minority party no longer see themselves as responsible political actors.