August 26, 2005

Things I've resisted talking about.

I was thinking I'd been pretty tough resisting getting sucked into talking about Cindy Sheehan, but then I Googled my blog for her name and got this. Still, in proportion to the press coverage that she's gotten, I'm going to call my bloggage light.

My record is totally clear, however, when it comes to ignoring Pat Robertson.

24 comments:

Paul said...

You should let someone else write about her....

oregano said...

bloggage light... same great taste with half the calories.

What? Somebody had to say it.

Brando said...

i'm waiting for robertson to issue a patwah against sheehan.

michael a litscher said...

Pat Robertson is an idiot; not much more than that needs to be said, really.

And I say that as a far-right-wing gun-toting, bible-thumping Republican.

Him and Jerry Falwell are both embarassments for whom I inevitably take flack for from my far-left relatives in Madison whenever I visit.

I wish both Falwell and Robertson would both sit down, and STFU.

EddieP said...

They are all idiots, please ignore them.

Charles said...

Practically an anti-sheehanite!

Sloanasaurus said...

Sheehan is a story because there are "groups" (most despicable) behind her and ready to support her protest. Further, the liberal media agrees with Sheehan so they are willing to give her press.

In contrast, you don't see conservatives coming out to support Robertson. Why then is it a story...because the liberal media uses it as a straw man. They despise Robertson so they love this story!

I still hope Chavez fall down dead tomorrow before he has the chance to rape and pillage Latin America. Further it looks likely that Chavez will appoint himself lifetime president soon. Maybe if that happens, at that point we should think about taking action. But, even still, assassination by the US Government should be reserved for first rate tyrants such as Saddam.

Thersites said...

Sheehan is a story because there are "groups" (most despicable) behind her and ready to support her protest. Further, the liberal media agrees with Sheehan so they are willing to give her press.

In contrast, you don't see conservatives coming out to support Robertson.


"Despicable"? Enough with the demonization.

The "liberal media" is a ridiculous myth.

Sheehan and Robertson occupy totally different positions. Also, when did Sheehan advocate assassination again? Your comparison is absurd.

ploopusgirl said...

Well, thersites, you just saved me some typing to my favorite friend, Sloan. Exactly what I was going to say.

Oscar Madison said...

Oops, you just went and said it. Now your blog will show up on Google searches for "Pat Robertson." Ooops -- sorry.

Wade_Garrett said...

I know we're not really talking about this, but . . . what bothers me almost as much as the fact that Pat Robertson called for the assassination of another country's leader is the sort of half-assed economic analysis he used to justify it. Sure, nobody really listens to him, but those who do listen to him have as much of a right to vote as I do, or as Professor Althouse or George or Brando do, and that saddens me.

Dean said...

Although I'm a conservative Christian, neither Pat Robertson nor Jerry Falwell, nor (fill in the blank) speaks for me. I will do that myself, thank you.

What interests me in this affair is that the some of the same people who feel Pat Robertson should keep his mouth shut are the same people who felt Ward Churchill can propagate his insane meanderings under "freedom of speech".

I say let them all speak, and ignore those who are blowhards (which, of course, might include me).

Brando said...

Sloan, you strike me as naive. Have you been to latin america? I lived and worked in mexico last year teaching. In mexico, roughly sixty percent of the population lives in poverty, forty percent in dire poverty. In Venezuela, the equation is even worse and they don't even seem to have the benefit of the anemic middle class that mexico does.

No doubt Chavez is a classic Latin American Caudillo (strongman), but if 60% of the population have to choose between fancy macro-economic neo-liberal reforms dictated by the World Bank (i.e. Paul Wolfwitz) that fill the pockets of the already rich 20% of the population, versus feeding their starving children, I'm gonna guess they're gonna choose to feed their children. You and the rest of the apple pie christians need to wake up from your dogmatic supiditude.

Charles said...

Um Brando, if 60% of the population lives in your first world definition of poverty, it is the normal condition for the majority of that population. Perhaps you might want to shed your cultural bias about poverty and focus on the huge gap between the people at the bottom of life in an area, and those at the top. If you have a nice bell-like curve, the society is probably fairly prosperous - first, second or third world. If there is no middle bulge of the majority of the population, odds are the society has some real problems. Maybe the corrupt Mexican government could work on taking care of their own people instead of shipping them north wholesale for us to worry about. Maybe the ultra-rich, like Soros could ship a billion or so south to do some clean water projects, vaccinations, socialized health care, and welfare payments. He-they would gladly help those people on their own, right?

ploopusgirl said...

Re Charles: So much for our melting pot land of the free nation. It fills me with pride when I hear and read things like your comment that just make me love the right so. Good thing the native Americans were more hospitable to OUR ancestors so that we Europeans could claim this land as our own and try our damndest to keep the Mexicans (people who already occupied the continent) out!! ...Despite the fact that our consti.. oh, nevermind. This will mean nothing to you anyways..

Thersites said...


What interests me in this affair is that the some of the same people who feel Pat Robertson should keep his mouth shut are the same people who felt Ward Churchill can propagate his insane meanderings under "freedom of speech".


Uh, they both can say whatever the hell they want. And you're free to tell them they're idiots.

Nobody cares about Ward Churchill, though, or ever did, except wingnuts who like demon-hunting. Lots of people DO care about Pat Robertson, though. Unless you can point me to WC's nationally televised program.

Thanks for the silly false equivalence, though. Here, have a mint.

Thersites said...

Perhaps you might want to shed your cultural bias about poverty

M ore of this hippie cultural relativism...

Sloanasaurus said...

"...In Venezuela, the equation is even worse and they don't even seem to have the benefit of the anemic middle class that mexico does...."

Brando, I was commenting on the potential and likely despotism of Chavez, not on the economic reality of the region. Sorry if you misunderstood my point.

Sloanasaurus said...

"...Good thing the native Americans were more hospitable to OUR ancestors so that we Europeans could claim this land as our own and try our damndest to keep the Mexicans (people who already occupied the continent) out!!..."

Ploopusgirl, this stuff is sucha great example of classic politically correct gobbly rhetoric that I will have to chuckle everytime you try to claim that generalizations of liberals do not apply to you.

Sloanasaurus said...

"....Nobody cares about Ward Churchill, though, or ever did, except wingnuts who like demon-hunting. Lots of people DO care about Pat Robertson, though. Unless you can point me to WC's nationally televised program....."


Thersites, you just furthered Dean's point. If nobody cares about Ward Churcill why did he get as much or more press than Robertson?

michael a litscher said...

Him and Jerry Falwell are both embarassments for whom I inevitably take flack for from my far-left relatives in Madison whenever I visit.

I wish both Falwell and Robertson would both sit down, and STFU.


I wish to revise and extend my remarks to include that other idiot, Fred Phelps.

Thersites said...

If nobody cares about Ward Churcill why did he get as much or more press than Robertson?

Because, as I said, wingnuts threw a tantrum about him.

Charles said...

Wow, accused of being far left and far right in the same set of comments! Must indicate my membership in the New World Order Ruling Patriarchy is secure.

Ploops, it means nothing because you can't finish a thought. Oh well, your ancestors landed and got hospitality from mine, I guess we saw how that turned out with the creation of the greatest civilization in history. All I want is the rich liberal elite to put their money where their mouth is, for once, without government regulation-interference and increased taxes on the rest of us. Why is that too much to ask? If you see something broken, feel free to send your own money, time, sweat, effort to fix it. I might send mine too, but I might pick my own project. At least leave me free to do that. Oh I see, you know what is best for me to do... grow up.

Freeman Hunt said...

I didn't even know that Pat Robertson still had a television show until these news stories.

I second Michael's post.

As for another post:
The "liberal media" is a ridiculous myth.
No. The fact that you can't see the liberal bias is ridiculous.