Posts Tagged ‘robert stacy mccain’

Following up on his first rate post on Howard Zinn this weekend Stacy puts up a new article at the American Spectator:

Revelation of Zinn’s support for Stalinism is unlikely to affect his standing with liberals, whose main response to the FBI disclosures was to express shock that an official of Boston University tried to get Zinn fired in 1970. Zinn’s liberal admirers obviously share his anti-American perspective, in which the FBI poses a greater danger than any foreign enemy. It was that view Zinn meant to express when, in 1986, he condemned the U.S. bombing of Libya in response to a Libyan-sponsored terrorist attack in West Berlin. “There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people for a purpose which is unattainable,” Zinn wrote.

That such a condemnation could be applied more truthfully to Zinn’s communist heroes, who slaughtered millions of innocents in pursuit of an unattainable socialist paradise, is an irony the professor apparently never contemplated.

This is uncharitable of me but I suspect he did contemplate it and brushed it aside as all fans of totalitarianism do. What are mere lives when compared to the cause? The irony that he did this from the safety of America where he was free to make a living off of his support for our foes is not lost on me.

Those who promote his views have much to answer for.

but as you can see my hat was along with some friends.

Then again who wants to miss a doctor who marathon for politics?

Friedman makes a couple of good points concerning the Octavia Nasr firing in his column today:

Augustus Richard Norton, of Boston University, a Shiite expert, said this about Fadlallah, whom he knew: “He argued that women should have equal opportunities to men and be well educated. He even argued that women have a right to hit their husband back because it was not appropriate for a spouse to be beaten by their husbands. He was not afraid to speak about sexuality, and he even once gave [a mosque sermon] about sexual urges and female masturbation. It was common to find young people who followed his writings all over the region.” Indeed, Nasr later explained that her tweet about Fadlallah was because he took a “contrarian and pioneering stand among Shia clerics on women’s rights.”

Remember this is an islamic cleric in Lebanon, after reading several books on woman’s repression in Islamic we need a lot more of this, second good point:

Ghaddar said she came to understand that “only figures like Fadlallah could change the status quo. People who position themselves as anti-Hezbollah, critics of resistance, or atheists, will rarely be heard within the Shia community, because people will not listen to them. … Fadlallah on the other hand could reach out to the people because he was one of them. … People like him, if strengthened, can bring about real change. He is one of those rare people whom Hezbollah and the Iranian leadership feared … because people liked him and respected him.”

These are both legitimate things to consider about the guy (If he was Stacy McCain he would have also played the My God she is Hot card) as is the point that only someone on the team will be listened to.

However you miss the most important point. He was in favor of dead Jews, LOTS of them. Regardless of the other stuff he was still a terrorist. Defending and supporting him is like defending Albert Speer. You can make any amount of excuses you want, he’s still a Nazi. I’ve mentioned this type of thing before:

It’s like saying Tessio is a scoundrel and Clemenza is not. They’re all friggen Mafia! They are by definition all scoundrels.

Or to put it even better consider this exchange from the Classic movie The Great Escape. Where the C.O. points out the risks of such a plan to the med:

Ramsey: I have to point out one thing to you, Roger. No matter how unsatisfactory this camp may be, the high command have left us in the hands of the Luftwaffe, not the Gestapo and the SS.

Bartlett: Look, sir, you talk about the high command of the Luftwaffe, then the SS and the Gestapo. To me they’re the same. We’re fighting the bloody lot. There’s only one way to put it, sir. They are the common enemies of everyone who believes in freedom.

That’s is the critical point and Friedman misses it. They are the common enemy. There was no nuance here. If she said the same thing about a Bin Ladin deputy would we even have to ask if she should be fired?

Update: memeorandum thread here.

…why you are getting so excited over this:

What’s wrong with me? Why do I keep blogging about this controversy? But that ripped-off goal still rankles:

The reason why one blown call (and lets face it when it comes down to the scheme of things that’s all it is, a blown call) by a ref in a sport you don’t care about is that deep down you get the feeling that thanks to our friends on the left relentless campaign accusing us of torture, murder, environmental crimes, war crimes, the insistence on the constitution meaning what it says, etc… you have the idea in the back of your head, as did I that for the ref, this was the chance to show take those no good Americans down a peg.

It likely isn’t that, refs blow calls in all type of sports. If the ref came out and handled it the same way that things were handled in Detroit this year it would be a different story, and it would drop, but people are so fanatical over this stuff worldwide that they can’t just let it go.

As for your second question:

If anybody can suggest a good, red-blooded, all-American reason to care about this World Cup stuff, please let me know. I might need an excuse, if I ever actually start to care.

It is because of the American style of play, it is distinctly American, to wit lets compare:

Today Italy (the reigning champions, ranked 5th in the world) played New Zealand (ranked 78th, just behind Wales and just ahead of Albania) and only managed to tie them despite an incredible disparity in shots on goal (25-3), Corner Kicks (this is a kick from the corner allowing basically a free centering pass) 15-0. Italy only managed a tie and that tying goal came on a Penalty Kick (that was called). As the game neared it’s end the announcers were going on about how well New Zealand did and how they were waiting for time to expire and stalling to preserve the tie.

During the US game the total attitude was different. Americans down 2-0 at the half weren’t content to just try to get a goal to change the Goals ratio, they weren’t even content to finish with a tie and get the point. They were playing to WIN! They kept attacking, knowing that there was a risk of a successful counterattack.

To them the purpose of the game wasn’t to play it safe, the purpose was to WIN, win on the field, to finish the game ahead and they kept pressing refusing to settle, refusing to play it safe in that distinctly American way.

This is why America IS. Millions of people from around the world refused to play it safe, they left everything they had to go to a new world, to a new culture to try to make it for themselves. The odds didn’t matter, the language didn’t matter. They didn’t expect the culture to change for them, their dream wasn’t to become hyphenated Americans , their dream was to become Americans.

It’s ironic. The very traits of this particular American team are traits that conservatives love, and liberals despise. You are being drawn in Stacy because these guys play like AMERICANS! I’m sure if soccer wasn’t considered “chic”, “international” and “cosmopolitan” the left would dump this team like a hot potato. And if we get to the later rounds, there will be more that a few commentators suggesting that it’s good that the US gets eliminated because it means so much less to us.

That a load of *&#)! I want the US team to win because it is the US team. It’s not my sport but it’s my country and my team and it represent US and it doing it in a way that appeals to me and apparently Stacy to you.