Let's begin with Phil Kant (?) who writes a book about how "liberal elites" are undermining this country. He makes much of the idea that the Ford Foundation has "charitably donated" to radical Islamic organizations. He also cites George Will as a source for much of his thinking. On the other hand, no new radical foundation (self proclaimed "conservative") seems to have a problem where Kant (?) is concerned. OK, The CEO of Mattel toy making company apologizing to China about "design flaws" in the toys manufactured by cheap Chinese labor... How about the CEO apologizing to the ultimate buyers of flawed toys? Americans! Or the fact that GW is all about open borders and expanding on guest worker programs solely for the business interests that put him in office. Or doing business with terrorist sponsoring nations such as Dhubai when it comes to turning our ports over to such a country regardless of questions of national security.
Or the fact that Haliburton decided to headquarter in the above named country. Or the fact that our energy policies insure the importation of oil from countries with questionable governments who's countries often are the homes of terrorists. The facts are businesses whether energy and etc. that pursue profit over principle fund the "conservative" think tanks that Kant (?) has no problem with. So, wouldn't it stand to reason that any monied special interest doesn't have this country's best interests at heart? Kant appeared on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight."
Kant (?) like Cal Thomas has what can be called the set of ideological blinders. That is only seeing the facts as you pick and choose them. Ahmidinejad (sic) gets invited to Columbia University and then suffers through the sort of treatment that American politicians receive routinely, and his country will not allow. But Thomas whines about the Iranian president receiving "fairer" treatment than supposedly folks of his own thinking get. How about the GOP using moveon.org's political attack ad about Petraeus as an opportunity to generally attack the Dems and the organizations that support them? On the other hand, the GOP found it possible to attack folks as military veterans. Question their war records and patriotism when it was politically convenient. It's another matter when the general in question is a mouth piece for the president. How about Thomas generally berating people not of his ideological thinking? Or of putting "hate mail" (less than 1% posted on his ustabe web site was actually real hate mail) in a special honor roll on his one time web site. Finding plenty of space to target Dems for their socialism and etc. But Thomas can whine in his recently republished (to the Spokesman-Review) editorial the lack of "tolerance." Unfortunately, he doesn't have much room to talk.
Kathleen Parker did somewhat better on the whole idea of free expression, comparing Ahmedinejad's (sic) visit to Columbia university to that of the Florida student who got tasered for his "disruptive" questions. She showed for a change a more grown up response.
On the Jena, LA issue, Leonard Pitts, jr. was quite sympathetic to the Jena 6. Taking note of the fact that the white prosecutor was more than happy to be highly dismissive to white kids behaving badly and really out to get 6 African American students behaving the same way. On the other hand, Thomas Sowell rants about his own race prepared to engage in the freedom to assembly on the behalf of 6 black students who experienced first hand very real racism. Sowell hates being black?
HBO (Huckleberries on line) asks if Ahmedinejad should have been invited to Columbia university. I think he should have, so that he could experience what people enjoying freedom of expression choose to do with it. They don't have to in fact treat any country's leader with reverence or respect where that same individual shows none to them, their culture, etc.
Adding Limbaugh:
finding this link originally posted in the comments section, wild card for Thursday on HBO. If you don't think like Limbaugh, you can't possibly be a Republican. Sounds a lot like Communism. Wonder if Limbaugh ever reviews his past words for truly radical ways of thinking? America is a democracy because of the freedom to disagree. Communism or totalitarianism of any sort denies that right.
Or the fact that Haliburton decided to headquarter in the above named country. Or the fact that our energy policies insure the importation of oil from countries with questionable governments who's countries often are the homes of terrorists. The facts are businesses whether energy and etc. that pursue profit over principle fund the "conservative" think tanks that Kant (?) has no problem with. So, wouldn't it stand to reason that any monied special interest doesn't have this country's best interests at heart? Kant appeared on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight."Kant (?) like Cal Thomas has what can be called the set of ideological blinders. That is only seeing the facts as you pick and choose them. Ahmidinejad (sic) gets invited to Columbia University and then suffers through the sort of treatment that American politicians receive routinely, and his country will not allow. But Thomas whines about the Iranian president receiving "fairer" treatment than supposedly folks of his own thinking get. How about the GOP using moveon.org's political attack ad about Petraeus as an opportunity to generally attack the Dems and the organizations that support them? On the other hand, the GOP found it possible to attack folks as military veterans. Question their war records and patriotism when it was politically convenient. It's another matter when the general in question is a mouth piece for the president. How about Thomas generally berating people not of his ideological thinking? Or of putting "hate mail" (less than 1% posted on his ustabe web site was actually real hate mail) in a special honor roll on his one time web site. Finding plenty of space to target Dems for their socialism and etc. But Thomas can whine in his recently republished (to the Spokesman-Review) editorial the lack of "tolerance." Unfortunately, he doesn't have much room to talk.
Kathleen Parker did somewhat better on the whole idea of free expression, comparing Ahmedinejad's (sic) visit to Columbia university to that of the Florida student who got tasered for his "disruptive" questions. She showed for a change a more grown up response.
On the Jena, LA issue, Leonard Pitts, jr. was quite sympathetic to the Jena 6. Taking note of the fact that the white prosecutor was more than happy to be highly dismissive to white kids behaving badly and really out to get 6 African American students behaving the same way. On the other hand, Thomas Sowell rants about his own race prepared to engage in the freedom to assembly on the behalf of 6 black students who experienced first hand very real racism. Sowell hates being black?
HBO (Huckleberries on line) asks if Ahmedinejad should have been invited to Columbia university. I think he should have, so that he could experience what people enjoying freedom of expression choose to do with it. They don't have to in fact treat any country's leader with reverence or respect where that same individual shows none to them, their culture, etc.
Adding Limbaugh:
finding this link originally posted in the comments section, wild card for Thursday on HBO. If you don't think like Limbaugh, you can't possibly be a Republican. Sounds a lot like Communism. Wonder if Limbaugh ever reviews his past words for truly radical ways of thinking? America is a democracy because of the freedom to disagree. Communism or totalitarianism of any sort denies that right.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment