More idiocy from the craven Right
As Catnip highlighted yesterday, the Right in the US did not jump for joy this week as Jill Carrol was released from months of imprisonment in Bagdhad. I guess the fact that she didn't come out with stories of the horror of her treatment meant that she was actually in on it in their peevish little minds. Well, on Imus in the Morning yesterday they were even more craven - joking about her having sex with her captors and making racist comments like "carrying Habib's baby".
And what would be a summary of Right-wing idiocy without a mention of Adam Daifallah. (Hi Adam, I know you're googling your name right now!) This week he took a dig at a CBC op/ed piece on the sometimes hostile coverage of the rescue of the Christian Peacemakers in the Canadian media. He singles out this as a target for his petulance:
What his problem with this attitude is, I'm not sure because he doesn't say. There must be some sort of righty code here that I'm not picking up on. The quote is a bit fluffy and beauty-pageantish, but what is inherently wrong with doing our bit? The nearest I can tell is that his problem is that the CPT guys weren't part of an army and they didn't believe that the West has the right to impose its version of order on the rest of the world. Ah, problematic, yes.
He explains that this quote identifies the CBC bias, which I would agree that it probably does, but then goes on to say it shows "why the CBC will never admit that it has one". How he gleans this, I'm not sure, it must be in the righty code again, but I ask this question in response: what news agency actually admits to its own bias? I mean, seriously, even Fox News claims to be "Fair and Balanced"! So what if the CBC doesn't admit to its bias? If it leans to the left, it just balances CTV and Global, which lean a bit to the right - no big deal; it's not like the world of the media is one organization.
Adam also wants to tell us what he thinks about the CPT issues, but he doesn't want to write anything that will come back to haunt him in his future political career, so instead of calling the CPT weak cowards and fools himself, he points with approval to a nasty piece of work by Peter Worthington, who "said it all perfectly" in a piece called "Peacemakers are misguided ingrates".
The bias in that piece goes without comment in the Daifallah post.
Here is my suggestion for the right-wing loudmouths who have been running off the rails the past two weeks about first the CPT and now Jill Carrol. Most of you seem to claim to be Christian, so at least you have a passing knowledge of the same book that the CPT, and I presume Jill Carrol (of the Christian Science Monitor) reads. If you look inside that book, you'll probably be able to figure out why they went over there and have a better understanding of what they were doing. And then, maybe, just maybe, you'll be quiet for a little while.
If, after doing that little bit of research you find that you still disagree with them, fine. You can then step up and join the military and offer up your solution to the problem with maybe the same amount of courage that they showed. Until then, you have no right to comment negatively on their actions.
As for you, Adam, you don't even have the little bit of courage to call them "misguided, arrogant and foolish" yourself - you have to do it second-hand through a link. You are indeed the most craven of all.
And what would be a summary of Right-wing idiocy without a mention of Adam Daifallah. (Hi Adam, I know you're googling your name right now!) This week he took a dig at a CBC op/ed piece on the sometimes hostile coverage of the rescue of the Christian Peacemakers in the Canadian media. He singles out this as a target for his petulance:
"Thank you, Mr. Loney," I would have said. "Thank you for being part of the Canadian idea that this world will become a better place only if each of us does our bit in the best way we can. And you certainly did that. Welcome home."
What his problem with this attitude is, I'm not sure because he doesn't say. There must be some sort of righty code here that I'm not picking up on. The quote is a bit fluffy and beauty-pageantish, but what is inherently wrong with doing our bit? The nearest I can tell is that his problem is that the CPT guys weren't part of an army and they didn't believe that the West has the right to impose its version of order on the rest of the world. Ah, problematic, yes.
He explains that this quote identifies the CBC bias, which I would agree that it probably does, but then goes on to say it shows "why the CBC will never admit that it has one". How he gleans this, I'm not sure, it must be in the righty code again, but I ask this question in response: what news agency actually admits to its own bias? I mean, seriously, even Fox News claims to be "Fair and Balanced"! So what if the CBC doesn't admit to its bias? If it leans to the left, it just balances CTV and Global, which lean a bit to the right - no big deal; it's not like the world of the media is one organization.
Adam also wants to tell us what he thinks about the CPT issues, but he doesn't want to write anything that will come back to haunt him in his future political career, so instead of calling the CPT weak cowards and fools himself, he points with approval to a nasty piece of work by Peter Worthington, who "said it all perfectly" in a piece called "Peacemakers are misguided ingrates".
The bias in that piece goes without comment in the Daifallah post.
Here is my suggestion for the right-wing loudmouths who have been running off the rails the past two weeks about first the CPT and now Jill Carrol. Most of you seem to claim to be Christian, so at least you have a passing knowledge of the same book that the CPT, and I presume Jill Carrol (of the Christian Science Monitor) reads. If you look inside that book, you'll probably be able to figure out why they went over there and have a better understanding of what they were doing. And then, maybe, just maybe, you'll be quiet for a little while.
If, after doing that little bit of research you find that you still disagree with them, fine. You can then step up and join the military and offer up your solution to the problem with maybe the same amount of courage that they showed. Until then, you have no right to comment negatively on their actions.
As for you, Adam, you don't even have the little bit of courage to call them "misguided, arrogant and foolish" yourself - you have to do it second-hand through a link. You are indeed the most craven of all.
Whenever I read "The Dark Age Ahead" by Jane Jacobs, and she discusses cultural amnesia, I always picture Daifallah. He's a young neophyte con who has no recollection of the world before 1990. He eats the spoon fed ideological gruel fed to him and thinks he's so radical and intellectual.
And you are right kevvyd, he is a coward. I saw him interviewed on CBC by Evan Soloman and he was nevous and defensive - I thought he was going to pee his pants on camera.
Then to see him with Lord Black, you would think he would love to tonngue kiss him, if the other Cons would think it was ok.
Posted by
Anonymous |
Fri Mar 31, 11:09:00 AM