Posted on 06/16/2006 5:05:55 PM PDT by ChessExpert
A misinterpretation would be another matter, but Ramsey emailed Coulter asking her to correct her book and received no response. The paperback, "which came out well after my email to her" was not corrected.
The closest Ramsey himself comes to saying she was a spy in his own voice is when he says "It was true that the Coplon case — and those against Hiss and the Rosenbergs — stigmatized left-wing views. But the case was not about that. It was about spying, and the spying, the authors conclude, was real."
If you don't like that, you can always go a few paragraphs above, where he says, "Popular culture has named this period 'the McCarthy era' after the least cautious and most buffoonish of the anti-Communists. It has used the term 'witch hunts,' which neatly suggests a hunt for something that did not exist.
"But spies do exist. Through the story of the two trials, of the doddering judge who lets the defense attorney run wild, of the government's fumbles and lies, Coplon's innocence is never clear. It was always a leap of faith to believe she was carrying those documents as notes for a book."
Maybe that's not quite as clear, but it certainly doesn't qualify as "refusal to accept any evidence".
I also find it odd that he refers to McCarthyism as stigmatizing what he apparently calls "liberals" and I usually call "leftists". Is he rejecting the common left-liberal premise that McCarthyism set back the cause of anti-Communism?
He said that "the Coplon case — and those against Hiss and the Rosenbergs — stigmatized left-wing views." He was not referring to the McCarthy hearings. I don't know whether he is rejecting conventional wisdom on this or not.
what he apparently calls "liberals" and I usually call "leftists"
Me too.
Coulter isn't the first conservative Ramsey's attacked. For instance, here's his negative review of Michelle Malkin:
Sure they were negative reviews, but I wouldn't call those "attacks".
Also, Ramsey is NOT a conservative--- he is a libertarian, and he should not represent himself as a conservative.
Actually, one of his articles for Liberty magazine was titled "Why I am not a libertarian".
That's my point--- Ramsey IS a libertarian who for whatever reason calls himself a conservative. Was this the article by him you referenced? http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2003_07/ramsey-absolutist.html Interesting article.
I strongly disagree with Ramsey's criticisms of Michelle Malkin, but perhaps I was engaging in hyperbole myself when I called his review an outright attack. Still, I don't think his criticisms were justified and I don't think Coulter's honest interpretation deserves to be called a lie. Now, I will admit she should probably add Ramsey's e-mail to her book-- Michelle Malkin has been the bigger person in a similar situation, despite the fact that the person complaining was much more obnoxious than Ramsey.
Still, I think the most that comes out of your point is that Coulter was too busy too be bothered. A good point on your part that points up a possible flaw of hers, but not enough to detract from my admiration of her, nor from the fact that "Treason" is a very good and very useful book whose time had come.
Thanks for the review-- I am SO LOOKING FORWARD to this book!
It seems to me Ann's point is much the same as that of Whittaker Chambers in "Witness"--- that communism is the world's second oldest religion.
On business trips I play my boss while driving. I drive, he has the magnetic travel board. We both announce our moves. I can't look at the board. I've won 5/6. We got into a heavy rainstorm and he beat me. I just couldn't hold the position in my head that time.
It blows him away when I catch him in an illegal move.
I suspect JTN is a liberal druggie.
Yep, that's me. A pro-life, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, pro-God, liberal druggie. That's me down to a T.
I can't say I agree with your position equating Coulter with Moore, but I thought that was a bit uncalled for.
Or start talking about hockey. :-)
Coulter and Moore are nowhere near being counterparts.
Read through the lyrics to "One Night In Bangkok"? Strangely enough, it's about a chess match.
Bangkok, Oriental setting
And the city don't know what the city is getting
The creme de la creme of the chess world in a
Show with everything but Yul Brynner...
I don't see you guys rating
The kind of mate I'm contemplating
I'd let you watch, I would invite you
But the queens we use would not excite you
Indeed. There is a bit of a difference between having a "right to the documents" and carrying same around in your purse.
I was very happy to see ann's book PROMINENTLY displayed at various airports in my travels this weekend.
Seems book sellers all want money.
Since you are apparently stupid enough to believe that Bruce Ramsey has written 148,000 articles supporting drug legalization, I doubt any attempt to correct your ignorance will help, but the number of Google hits for "bruce ramsey" and drugs is 832. Some of those are commentaries on articles Ramsey has written, some are tables of contents in which links to articles by Ramsey on other subjects appear on the same page as links to articles on drugs by other authors, some are references to other people named Bruce Ramsey, some do not appear to be related at all, two point back to this thread, and five others are links to FR that are not drug prohibition related. You also may be interested in the link posted in #283, an article by Ramsey in which he says "All libertarians were for Peter McWilliams' right to smoke marijuana to keep from vomiting up his anti-AIDS drugs, and were outraged when he died following the government's stupid rules. But when they oppose all drug laws with the term 'prohibition,' thereby making an analogy to liquor prohibition, they imply the existence of a safe use. And for some prohibited drugs there is no safe use. But libertarians argue as if chemistry and biology were irrelevant, which would imply that it would be okay to sell any drug that did anything. Is that a defensible position?"
As for my defense of Ramsey, it was based entirely on the article I posted in #13. I've only read a little by the man, and was actually unaware of his opposition to the way drug use is currently being fought. Not that it supports your argumentum ad hominem, as his position does not appear to be the same as mine.
Still, I doubt this is going to have any effect on you, since you are apparently capable of believing that Bruce Ramsey has written 148,000 articles on this subject.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.