People Who Are Screwing Up America: Scott Harshbarger/Myron Magnet/Peter Singer/Marvin Olasky

[image=http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0312361432.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg]

Here you go

 

diz,
1. That link does not mention EITHER Tim Lahaye or Jerry Jenkins
2. The book seems to be discussing an ideology, not acts in line with the acts of Al-Queda
3. You basically gave me a link to say "go spend money on this to see how I'm right"


I'll make it clearer to get a link that actually addresses the matter.
The claim was that Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins are basically Al-Queda-like. Al-Queda uses fundamentalist religion to recruit people into a terrorist network that routinely kills innocent civilians intentionally.
Now, for the comparison to hold, give me a link that will itself address how Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins are heading a Christian organisation that has, as one of its basic acts, the routine murders of innocent civilians as an intentional act.

Links about Christian groups they're not affiliated with will miss that point that they have to be involved. Links only about how they spread hate will miss the point that they have to be involved in murdering innocent civlians. Generally links about the military will miss the point that it has to be the intentional killing of innocent civilians and accidental killing is not the same thing as intentional, and while there issues about it worth discussing, civilian militants are also nto the same as innocent civilians not engaged in combat.

 

I agree with this wholeheartedly. While the prose is utterly pedestrian, I actually think, read as straight fiction, its an entertaining read because of the sheer scope of the apocalyptic vision. But once this thing became a gravy train, LaHaye and Jenkins decided to milk it for all its worth. I remember about seven years ago, when I used to read this series religiously(literally and figuratively), I used to participate on the official forums for the series. Then, whaddya know, all of a sudden they switch the forums to a paid membership model instead(to "ensure its quality" of course).

As for whether the pair can be equated to Al-Queda, that's a bit extreme. While the books have certainly converted quite a few people to Christianity, they aren't written with the express purpose of doing so. And of those converted, intolerance is probably the worst thing that's been engendered in their behavior(and even thats a generalization), not killing innocent people.

 

Goldberg's 64:

James Wolcott

Cultural writer for Vanity Fair and The New Yorker; Goldberg attacks him for an article wherein he stated that if Kerry won the 2004 election, that he would write an article titled: A time for healing. If, on the other hand, Bush was re-elected, Wolcott said his article would instead be called, "Good, Go Ahead, America, Choke On Your Own Vomit, You Deserve to Die." Goldberg says he is polarizing and mean spirited.

Huberman's 64:

Brown

Janice Rogers Brown, powerful appellate court judge. She calls the New Deal the beginning of American socialism, supports limits on corporate liability, believes racially discriminatory speech is protected by the First Amendment.

Goldberg's 63:

Amy Richards

Woman who wrote a piece in New York Times Magazine wherein she said that she aborted a child because if she had the child, she would need to move out of her fine apartment and start shopping at Costco. Goldberg calls her the perfect example of utilitarian abortion philosophy, wherein abortion has nothing to do with life threatening situations, but is purely an issue of convenience.

Huberman's 63:

Owen

Priscilla Owen, another appeals court judge. Huberman finds it amusing that Alberto Gonzales criticized Owen for ignoring and twisting the law and for 'unconcionable judicial activism.'

My opinion:

Wolcott, I think, was probably trying to be funny; if he was serious, perhaps that would be offensive, but I seriously doubt that he was.

Richards on the other hand, I find absolutely morally repugnant. This is one of my major problems with abortion; I have no problem with abortion in the case of life threatening situations or other extreme circumstances, but this kind of utterly banal reasoning for having an abortion absolutely ludicrous and offensive.

The two judges I know nothing about. Judicial activism is not particularly wise, in my opinion, but this seems to be a purely partisan choice on Huberman's part.

 

James Wolcott
I think that sort of bitter vitrol is EXACTLY the trouble that has led to the inability to really discuss or debate politics in the U.S. The whole problem is that people can't respectfully discuss all this, and I think Wolcott is a very good example of that.

Janice Rogers Brown
With that reasoning on her... I'm honestly confused. First Amendment would cover racially discriminatory speech, I think, so I don't see how that means shes messing up America. Second, the New Deal = socialism thing also doesn't seem to be innately wrong or anything, as that would describe some of the changes under the New Deal

Amy Richards
To me, it sounds like the sort of abortion which is irresponsible and due to her not making better choices before. With that summary, I'd consider it a morally wrong choice, but I do accept its a choice people will make. Still not a mentality I like though.

Priscilla Owen
I can't figure out what she's done. At all.

 

Goldberg's 62:

Howard Stern

Radio shock jock known for his sexual perversity; fired from clear channell for obscenity; currently continues to peddle his profane and sexual and occasionally political rants on satellite radio.

Huberman's 62:

William Pryor

A judicial nominee under the Bush administration; judge on the Eleventh Circuit Court of appeals who called Roe v. Wade, the "worst abomination of constitutional law in or history," he also famously blocked a challenge to the Florida law that prohibits homosexuals from adopting children. He also called for the removal of Judge Roy Moore from his position during the Ten Commandments flap in Alabama.

Goldberg's 61:

Michael Savage

Radio shock jock for the conservative spectrum; he was famously fired from his job at MSNBC for urging a homosexual caller to 'get AIDS and die.'

Huberman's 61:

William Myers

Failed judicial nominee by Bush to the Ninth Circuit. His nomination was famously filibustered by Democrats who took strong exception to his anti-environmental views. A lawyer/lobbyist for ranching and mining industries, Myers argued that the Clean Water Act is unconstitutional and stated that he does not believe in the idea of National Parks.

My thoughts:

Some real fine, upstanding, classy citizens in this bunch, eh?

Stern I find occasionally repugnant, but his social criticism is generally dead on. Huberman even admitted in his book that the only reason that he left Stern off his list was because Goldberg had already put him on his, thus robbing us of our one potential agreement between these two very splintered lists.

I read Stern's Private Parts and found the sexual content quite juvenile and pedantic, truth be told. But his political writings were absolutely dead on target and the man is quite funny when he wants to be. I beg off here. I don't like everything the guy does, but I like some of it.

As for Savage, the man's has lived up to his nom de plume (his real name is Weiner, a fact Huberman would have loads of fun with I'm sure). His comments on race relations, sexuality, religion and just about every other subject under the sun are divisive, offensive and, to my mind, dangerous. He is one of the main propagators of the lowered debate, taking important issues and plunging them into the gutter with his namecalling and vitriolic utterances. Check the link above for a lot of 'great' quotes from this guy. Finally, one I can whole heartedly agree with.

As for Huberman's two nominees, he continues the theme, started last time, of picking on Bush's judicial nominees. I must say I don't know enough about Pryor to really say, but Myers I have long disliked for his stance on the environment. Whether either of them truly have enough influence to be said to be screwing up America (especially Myers, who even Bush couldn't manage to get appointed, after all), is debatable.

 

Savage seems uniquely American, in that whilst conservative, everyman commentators exist on radio everywhere, none seem to really abuse the concept of free speech for their own philistine ends.

That is to say, Savage is an unpleasant biproduct of American society. Some biproducts can be used (Vegemite ); others are just repellant waste. Savage is the latter.

E_S

 

ok, first of all, Vegemite is not a use, its a punishment.

on to the list:
Stern... I don't like, but I don't think he's messing anything up terribly much. Especially now that he's on satellite radio.

Savage, I've never listened to or otherwise familiar with, so can't say much there.

Mayers and Pryor, I see clear disagreements with, but I'd nto say they live up to the screwing up America thing. Lack power.

 

Goldberg's 60:

Ludacris

Hip hop artist; Goldberg calls him misogynistic, profane and claims that he incites violence. If Huberman's bias is against country music, Goldberg's is agaisnt hip hop. "Is Ludacris the worst? No. They're all the worst."

Huberman's 60:

James Baker & the Carlyle Group

White House Chief of Staff under Reagan; served in same post under Bush the elder as well as Secretary of State. Huberman tracks back the Florida recount to James Baker, who he claims played an instrumental role in cooking the results. Baker is connected to the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm in Washington, with connections to lots of high ranking political figures, such as G.H.W.Bush; It also owns controlling shares in many military contractors and has also had business dealings with the Saudi Arabian relatives of Osama Bin Ladin. Huberman blasts it for having too much influence on defense contracting and for also having financial dirty dealings.

Goldberg's 59:

Shirley Franklin

First African American female mayor of Atlanta; Goldberg blasts her for giving honors from the city to Ludacris (still on that?) when he claims that, as a black woman, she should be one of the people most vehemently decrying his misogynistic and stereotypical music. Goldberg calls her representative of respected people who legitimize morally bankrupt art, like hip hop, by honoring it.

Huberman's 59:

John Bolton

Now the ex-ambassador to the UN; Huberman calls him a dogmatic and arrogant Republican stooge. Huberman states that his temper, his ignorance and his disregard for reasoned debate make him the last person who should be labelled a diplomat.

My thoughts:

Ludacris, I beg off on; he calls himself an artist and I'm not familiar with his music at all. And misogyny and violence in and of themselves don't make something negative, believe it or not.

Likewise, I can't comment on Franklin.

As for Baker, I don't know much about him.

Bolton, I think we were all glad to see gone. The man was many things, but he seemed to have a chip on his shoulder and was not, in my opinion, the best voice for America at the UN.

 

Bolton's a twit, and his "proud, strong" stance was a way of dressing up the whore of stubbornness and an inability to learn as a proper lady. The man damaged America at the UN, not helped it. I dislike extreme minded individuals; make them dogmatic, and we have issues.

E_S

 

Goldberg's 58:

Eminem

Goldberg continues to flog the hip hop horse to death; he claims Eminem is misogynistic, profane and encouraging of violence.

Huberman's 58:

Senator Tom Coburn

Senator from the state of Oklahoma; Huberman blasts him for being not much more or less than an idiot. He argued against the unedited airing of Schindler's List on broadcast television, has made statements indicating that he supports the death penalty for abortion doctors, is extremely anti-homosexual and, just today, made news by blocking an honor to the late Rachel Carson because, in his opinion, she unfairly demonized DDT.

Goldberg's 57:

Ted Field

Movie producer and record company producer. Goldberg blasts him for his work in popularizing, what else, hip hop music.

Huberman's 57:

The Average American

Huberman attacks the average American for, among other things, 'believing in angels,' 'voting for Bush,' 'being uninformed,' and basically just being an idiot. Huberman's obviously been reading How to Win Friends and Influence People.

My thoughts:

Goldberg basically riding the hip hop horse to death; Eminem I happen to think is quite the consummate artist (don't laugh, I'm serious), so I disagree with placing him here. Field I disagree with also.

On to Tom Coburn (and I can't tell you how honored I am to have not one, but two Senators from my home state of Oklahoma make Huberman's list). Coburn I've considered pretty well a dimwit for quite some time now. I agree with his stances on some things; I am anti-abortion, but even I think the death penalty for abortion doctors is perhaps a bit of a logical leap to make at this point in time. His remarks about homosexuality have been nothing but damaging and it's gotten to the point where I literally cringe when I see his name in the local newspaper . . . what's he said now? He has an incredible tendency to say unbearably stupid things; at the confirmation hearings for John Roberts, Coburn asked him if he agreed that the "opposite of being dead was being alive." Roberts, shockingly, agreed. I also found his pot stirring about Schindler's List to be offensive and stupid in the extreme.

In short, Tom Coburn is an embarrasment to the state of Oklahoma; not particularly for his views, but for his utterly ignorant ways of expressing them . . . he is the consummate 'stupid conservative,' the example the liberals always hold up as exemplary of the average conservative, which he isn't, but still, I don't like him.

And then Huberman crosses another line; the 'average American' is screwing up America? One wonders if Huberman quite grasps the idea of 'democracy.' While I certainly wish that all Americans were better informed and even *gasp* more intellectual, I think this article in Huberman's book smacks of utterly, ugly condescension and no other article in his book made me want to smack him in the face quite as much.

A bad showing; I disagree with three out of the four . . .

 

I read his book "Breach of Trust" and he really does not like Newt Gingrich. He seems to believe that the Contract With America was a sham by Newt to give the Republicans the majority, and that once it happened, Newt gave up on the Contract and went back to politics as usual. I tend to agree with Coburn and I think that Gingrich must be really good at predicting the political landscape and then tailoring himself to take advantage ahead of time. Sort of liek he is doing now.

With that being said, I would not vote for Coburn. I don't agree with his views on many fo the issues. It was nice to see someone self limiting the term, as he did with promising only 6 years in the House. But then he had to go and run for Senator, promising to limit himself to 'only' two terms. That's 12 more years and 18 total. Please.

I am all for cuting out the pork spending, but I wonder how much funding Coburn has denied Oklahoma because he refuses to give in to other spending projects?

 

This thread seems to be losing steam . . .

Goldberg's 56:

Diane Sawyer

Goldberg blasts Sawyer for contributing to the dumbing down of television news. He calls her journalism thinly masked entertainment pandering.

Huberman's 56:

Ralph Reed

Republican political activist; Executive Director of the Christian Coalition in the early nineties. He resigned after allegations of corruption. Currently under investigation for his role in the Abramoff scandal.

Goldberg's 55:

David Westin

Producer of television news shows like World News Tonight, Nightline, 20/20, Good Morning America, etc. Goldberg attacks him for turning the once hard hitting world of television journalism into a wasteland of entertainment and style over substance.

Huberman's 55:

Pat Robertson

Christian media personality; host of the 700 Club and connected with the Christian Coalition and other like minded organizations. Has made potentially inflammatory remarks about homosexuals and Christian groups outside his denomination.

My thoughts:

I don't know about Sawyer and Westin; television news has somewhat lost steam in the last few years. Not entirely sure if Sawyer and Westin are part of the cause or just symptoms. Not entirely sure they're either, frankly.

Robertson seems to not have a tactful bone in his body. Don't know too much about him though.

Reed I know even less about.

I am, in short, singularly uninformed about this group.

 

I agree that television news has "lost steam" as you put it; but can you blame one person or two people?

E_S

 

The only problem I had with Falwell dying was thet it wasn't Pat Robertson.

Hopefully once all these charletons die, the Republican Party will become a true conservative party again.





You are virran! VIRRAN!

 

The people that are screwing up America are those that control and are controlled by AIPAC. AIPAC calls the shots in Washington D.C. when it comes to foreign policy. The U.S. is being led down a road of destruction because of this organization.

 

Goldberg's 54:

Neal Shapiro

Goldberg tends to get an idea and ride it to death; the former president of NBC News. Goldberg blasts him for destroying the place of 'serious' journalism on television.

Huberman's 54:

Sun Myung Moon

Huberman attacks him for being, of course, a complete lunatic (pun intended, thanks). He supports the religious right, is anti-homosexual and has spent time in prison for tax fraud.

Goldberg's 53:

Anna Nicole Smith

Things have significantly changed for Smith since Goldberg wrote this book; he'd probably argue that she's still screwing up America. He says she contributes to the glamorizing of stupidity.

Huberman's 53:

The Coors Family

Huberman accuses the Coors 'dynasty' of being corrupt, crooked and, of course, supporting conservative agendas.

My thoughts:

Moon's pretty goofy; I find it hard to believe there are enough people who take him seriously to make him an actual threat. Then again, those mass weddings are certainly huge, so perhaps there are.

Shapiro is, of the three people Goldberg mentioned in regards to the dumbing down of the media, probably the only one with significant power to make him worthy of placement on this list. President of NBC News certainly has some cachet and so, if we have to pick someone to blame, I guess he's as good a choice as any.

Anna Nicole Smith I have always found irritating in the extreme; felt sympathy for her during the aftermath of her son's death when the cameras wouldn't leave her alone. Doubt she ever had sufficient influence to actively hurt America.

As for the Coors family, frankly, I quite dislike them, but for a completely different reason; they're actively involved in manufacturing one of the most dangerous drugs in the world today. My thoughts on alcohol aren't popular; all Prohibition proved, in my opinion, was how necessary Prohibition really was. I could care less about what political causes they support; I just wish they'd get out of the death merchant business, you know?

 

I think he sees Anna Nicole as a symptom of a larger issue. And since she really was the first of her kind she's partially responsible for it. Think about Paris Hilton and the like.

 

Goldberg's 52:

Markos Moulitsas

Founder and main author of Daily Kos, a progressively liberal weblog. Somewhat infamous for saying he did not mourn the death of 'mercenaries' in Iraq, speaking of the men killed at Fallujah.

Huberman's 52:

Jack Oliver

Republican who worked with several campaigns as a fundraiser. Lead the G.W. Bush campaign to break all previous records by raising $37 million in 120 days.

Goldberg's 51:

Ann Pelo

Author of "That's Not Fair: A Teacher's Guide to Activism with Young Children." She gained a small amount of bad press after she blasted the Blue Angels to her class of young children because they represented the military establishment and flew planes that could be used as weapons. She argues for teaching children (Goldberg argues that she means 'indoctrinating' them) at a young age about the evils of things like the military and the government.

Huberman's 51:

Mark Hyman

Vice President of Corporate Relations for Sinclair Broadcasting Group, the largest chain of local television stations in the US. Most famous for coining the phrase 'Cheese eating surrender monkeys' in reference to the French; he also accused the New York Times, NPR and CNN of 'treason' because they reported on civilians killed during US actions in Afghanistan.

My thoughts:

Got to give mad props to Hyman for being utterly annoying and idiotic. Not that familiar with his counterpart on Goldberg's list, Moulitsas.

Oliver is a great fundraiser, probably unethical as most fundraisers are; whether you think he's screwing up America depends entirely on your politics, I would guess.

Ann Pelo is an idiot but I doubt she has sufficient influence to screw up the country.

 

Kos.... that site is just utterly vile. And from my perspective, what that website has done to political dialog is disasterous.

Oliver... um, is the only reason he's on here that he raised money for Bush?

Pelo.... I don't like teachers using their position to teach political views such as that on any level... though younger makes it worse. Its something I definitly disagree with though.

Hyman.... not terribly familiar with him. While I don't think its terribly mature, I'll admit I do find "cheese eating surrender monkeys" to be funny... granted much of that is just funny that someone actually would use something that ridiculous. The rest of his stuff... some intriguing stances, but he generally seems just another annoying exec.

 

Kos is great. His site is the epitome of incorporating the internet into political participation.

 

The site, primarily the comments, is way too much vitrol. I think the part of "internet" it incorporated wasn't really a part worth incorporating. As though politics didn't have enough vitrol and baseless attacks already.

 

I don't bother reading the comments and bloggers shouldn't really be responsible for them, just like editorial writers shouldn't be responsible for the content of the Letters to the Editor Page.

 

I've also heard numerous allegations that commenters posting too far from the preferred views get banned from the commenting there. If its the credit for creating what DailyKos is, I don't think thats any particular achievement, per se. Now, if he was saying things as a blogger that were what his claim was that I felt were his main contribution rather than the KosKommunity, then that would be a different matter. But the stuff I've read from Kos himself, while limited, has not impressed me.

Though Kos' responce to the four killed at Fallujah is more than "he did not mourn", as to quote Kos on the matter, "They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.