Posted on 06/08/2006 10:41:31 AM PDT by woodb01
Alan Colmes was appalled by what Ann said.
Exactly.
I think there's another way about it...
COULTER'S BIGGER POINT IS CORRECT
I don't agree with the mean spirited way Coulter put things but I have long disagreed with the current common wisdom that victims are the best makers of public policy. Victims certainly have a perspective to share but, because a victim's perspective is by its nature one-sided and emotional, we should not base public policy solely or even primarily on that perspective.
We should value rationality and principle more than raw emotion when it comes to making laws that affect all of our futures. Recently, both political parties have been guilty of putting forward victims as unimpeachable/unassailable oracles on how laws should be made or how we should conduct our public affairs.
Cindy Sheehan comes to mind. Another example: Megan's law. How could any legislator oppose this law without the risk of being portrayed as against poor Megan? Or how Mothers Against Drunk Driving? Anyone who dares to oppose their increasingly draconian nanny state agenda must hate mothers, right?
Why do we now allow victims and/or their families to testify on how a crime has affected them before sentencing? This is a complete deviation from any sense of principle or evenhanded application of the law.
For example, if the victim is the mother of a sympathetic middle class family, the sentence will more likely be severe than if the victim is a homeless male drug addict with no family to testify on his behalf. So we are in effect encouraging the courts to value the life of one victim over the life of another and to apply the law unevenly based on emotion rather than principle!
In short, let's stop valorizing emotion and honoring victim hood for its own sake. We have created an incentive system that seems to inspire many to seek victim status in order to have their voices heard, to attain a higher status in society or to promote a certain political agenda.
What happened to the days when society honored stoicism, self-sacrifice, stiff upper lip and all the other qualities that got the Greatest Generation through WWII? And what happened to principle, objectivity and rationality in public discourse and law making? Unless we reverse course, we risk returning to the emotional irrationality of the Dark Ages.
Her controversial remarks are what get her invited to speak on liberal broadcasts. Without the controvery Matt Louer and his ilk would just ignore her, this way she tricks them into inviting her so she can present conservative views where they are rarely heard.
The slime one is no match for Ann........
First of all, Ann is class....something the slime one doesn't have, won't have and never has had....
Second, Ann knows just what she is talking about...not only is she one of the best writers around, but she is an Attorney so she knows just where she can unload and where not to....
Third, Ann has no baggage.....the slime one has only baggage not only from her but her 'hubby' and from the 'closet'....
So I think if I were the slime one, I would keep my mouth shut...because Ann will open the 'closet' door and take everything out, piece by piece and I don't think the slime one would want that.....
Until those who criticize her here can show that they can do a better job of getting conservative points put on view they ought to clamp their tongues in place.
Only the dumb kill their own best artillerymen.
'It was clear that we were under attack. Why didn't the Secret Service whisk [Bush] out of that school? ... [H]e is the commander-in-chief of the United States of America, our country was clearly under attack, it was after the second building was hit. I want to know why he sat there for 25 minutes.'" [5] (http://homepage.tinet.ie/~gulufuture/future/breitweiser.htm) :
"It is understandable that so little time is actually devoted to the president's true actions on the morning of 9/11. Because to show the entire 23 minutes from 9:03 to 9:25 a.m., when President Bush, in reality, remained seated and listening to 'second grade story-hour' while people like my husband were burning alive inside the World Trade Center towers, would run counter to Karl Rove's art direction and grand vision." --Kristen Breitweiser's Salon review of Showtime's film "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis" (9/8/2003). [6] (http://www.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2003/09/08/dc911/index_np.html)
The Ancient Media's mantra is, Why bother with the truth when your spin is going to sell so many more commercials and maybe even subscriptions?
Well said.
More to the point:
Can one be a Communist and a Christian?
Or similarly,
Can one be a Democrat and a Christian?
The current mainstream Dem values are so anti-Christian, I don't see how.
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.