As I said before, nothing brings out the Right Wing Police State Neo-Fascist Sycophant

…faster than a little fear:

If anybody poses a danger to the American Way, it is the cowards and demagogues in the FOXNews commentariat. If they got their way, the damage they would do to the United States and its Constitution would dwarf anything done by the Boston Bombers. We’ve survived terrorists, assassins and bomb throwers throughout our history and not shredded the Constitution in panic-driven reaction to them. It is these bed-wetting chickenhawk cowards who threaten to completely undo our Constitution if they can demagogue enough members of the Stupid-American community to shout for their idiotic ideas. Looking for traitors, FOX? Check the mirror. That these jokes actually somehow maintain the title to anything “conservative” is absurd. What are they conserving besides their own precious skins?

  • http://www.otakucatholic.blogspot.com Becca

    Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice! Let’s clap our hands so the fairy of torture will come back to life.
    I wish I could see the whole interview of Coulter saying people should be put in prison for wearing a veil. Did she just suddenly say that or somehow lead up to imprisoning people for their religion with some kind of reasoning?

  • Nick R

    @Becca Your wish is my command: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/ann-coulter-hijab_n_3139513.html
    Honestly it just kinda comes out of nowhere.

    Also supported by Anne Coulter:
    -”Just shoot the boat” “Give him the death penalty right there”
    because due process is a silly silly thing.

    • http://www.otakucatholic.blogspot.com Becca

      Hmm…I’ve watched Coulter a lot and I’ve read a few of her books. She does say some harsh stuff but I really believe she’s just using hyperbole in most cases including this one. I’m not saying it’s responsible and I don’t know how useful it is in this case even to make a point but I think she is making a valid point in an off kind of way.
      I just read an article about this strategy where jihadi men are encouraged to marry non Muslim women so they can convert them and have the children raised as Muslim. I agree with Coulter that it’s a problem, especially since it might be exactly that this man bullied this American Christian woman and abused her etc until she became a Muslim.
      I think with that particular comment she was lamenting the fact that a woman would opt for being abused in that type of culture and she doesn’t want it to happen here. In that, I agree with her.

      • Dan C

        “I just read an article about this strategy where jihadi men are encouraged to marry non Muslim women so they can convert them and have the children raised as Muslim. I agree with Coulter that it’s a problem, especially since it might be exactly that this man bullied this American Christian woman and abused her etc until she became a Muslim.”

        Don’t put words in her mouth- she wasn’t saying that at all.

        She promotes discrimination and hate for Muslims. It is not only “irresponsible,” it is unChristian.

        Conservatives fed the country a line of bs with the Bush administration’s ascendance, claiming that this was a time in which responsibility and accountability were the new “normal.” really, that was only for the poor and black and brown. For irresponsible conservative icons, excuses for unChristian behavior are made and the reflex to genuflect in front of this over-rated blond is unmistakeable.

        Stop supporting such unChristian icons. Or at least admit that “shoot the boat” and Islamo-hate is the antithesis of Christianity. Buying her books and then making excuses for her supports fake Christians and embarasses Christianity. It iss the opposite of a culture of accountability.

  • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

    It’s not hard to see the problems with FOX. Yet the problem isn’t that it’s just FOX and the Conservatives, but it’s others as well. So Jon Stewart has been quite the supporter of the HHS mandate, much to the delight of his Comedy Central crowd. If I’m to understand the American Bishops, that’s a bad thing. And yet Stewart, as I’ve caught him a couple times, seems to have no problem turning that rapier like wit against those who are concerned about the HHS mandate. So it seems the problem isn’t this group or that group is a threat, the problem is that growing numbers of people seem content with stepping on other people’s Constitution, as long as they don’t step on mine. Sort of a do unto others as long as you don’t do unto me approach to Constitutional rights.

    • vox borealis

      Exactly. One group is perfectly happy to ignore the first amendment, another is willing to trample the second amendment, others the fifth and fourteenth. Still another group makes up “rights” that don’t exist in the Constitution. Often these groups overlap. In reality, the Constitution is dead. It’s invoked now and again with proper reverence to fit the rhetorical moment, but effectively it has been stripped of all meaning and force. Limited and enumerated powers? No prohibiting the free exercise of religion? Due process? How quaint.

      • Rosemarie

        +J.M.J+

        >>>One group is perfectly happy to ignore the first amendment, another is willing to trample the second amendment, others the fifth and fourteenth.

        There’s also, quite a few people in SoCal willing to see the sixth and seventh amendments repealed, as Mark Dice found out when he tried to gather signatures for a phony petition to do just that:

        Obama Supporters Petition to Repeal 6th and 7th Amendments
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApskzEmCX9I

        Incidentally, I first learned about this from watching the evil Fox News Channel. They interviewed Dice about it, and he said that every single person the asked to sign the petition signed it. The only people who didn’t were people who just passed him by and didn’t want to be bothered. All he had to do when someone stopped to hear him was say, “We want to help Obama fight terrorism by repealing the sixth and seventh amendments…” and they all were all willing to sign away their constitutional rights.

        Truly scary.

  • Bryan

    I don’t have cable so I don’t know what happens on the TV channel, but Fox News has the best “mainstream” Corporate Media website of any of the networks or cable news channels, by far. Indeed, they are the only one of the East Coast Corporate Media Cartel (ABC, CBS, MSNBC, Fox) that is worth checking out for actual news once in a while. As a pathological news junkie who surfs all the “mainstream” sites and several liberal and conservative “new media” sites, there is no longer any question of that in my mind. The Fox News website is the only “mainstream” site that still occasionally has anything resembling real journalism. And I’m fairly politically independent although I definitely lean libertarian/conservative.

    Constitutional liberty and free, honest journalism? Try this on for size: Jay Carney, Obama’s Press secretary, is married to ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman. Susan Rice, of Benghazi and Almost-Secretary-of-State infamy, is married to ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron. And Katie Hogan, the White House deputy press secretary, is married to Matthew Jaffe, a reporter for ABC News and Univision. Forgive me if I don’t see the occasional (okay, frequent) crackpot soundbite from Coulter or Hannity as the main threat to our Constitutional Republic right at the moment.

    • Bryan

      …bearing in mind that these are the same folks who have declared it Constitutional for the American Commander in Chief to maintain a “kill list” of American citizens to be assassinated with no trial or due process that is known to the public. Also, they claim it is to Constitutional to require American citizens to buy a commercial product from a private corporation under the threat of Federal prosecution and violence. And yes, the mandate is a perverse new form of fascistic “tax” (one that is paid to private companies), and if you don’t pay your taxes you go to prison. So that is a threat of violence.

      And let’s not forget the real Slavery issue of our day: the so-called Progressive Constitutional “right” to murder human babies in utero.

      This is not freedom. This is not America.

  • Brian

    Becca, Ann Coulter was wrong for saying that. I don’t care how prone she is to hyperbole, she was wrong for saying that.

    Bullying? Maybe she chose to become a Muslim. Maybe she chose to respect her body as a thing of beauty by wearing a hijab instead of exposing her body so that men could ogle her. Who is the one who is really putting themselves out to be abused by men?

    • Beccolina

      Agreed. I can’t stand Coulter’s tone, even when I agree with her on something, and this I don’t agree with her on. We were waiting in store yesterday alongside a beautiful black woman and her daughter. Both were wearing a scarf that covered the hair and torso, but stopped at the wrists and was full enough to allow freedom of movement. The face was uncovered. I don’t know how that compares with hijabs (I’m not sure it even was technically one), but it was very lovely and graceful and was a stark counterpoint to the very tight tees and short shorts in other parts of the store. It also occurred to me that she would have no problem nursing a baby modestly under there either.

      • Kirt Higdon

        What you describe, Beccolina, sounds like the typical hijab. I see that occasionally around here, even at the gym. Women (though not all women) throughout most of the Moslem world dress like this. The face veiling customary in Saudi Arabia is exceptional; even more so is the Taliban enforced body-bag appearing burkha. The burkha from what I understand has long been customary with the Pushtun people, but was imposed by he Taliban on other ethnic groups as well.

  • Stu

    Seems like as Americans we have trouble transitioning from the actual crisis itself, where direct action and swift action is needed, to events that transpire afterwards that can and should be done in a methodical and consistent manner. (We also have people who don’t understand managing a crisis for that matter). But in situations like Boston, some haven’t transitioned to the fact that the suspects have been caught/killed and that the crisis in know under control. No need to disregard the rule of law. Same can be said for Sandy Hook where all manner f idiocy still ensues with proposed measures that aren’t even aimed at the problem.

    Never let a crisis go to waste cuts both ways.

    • vox borealis

      One reason is that Americans—and Westerners in general—are increasingly obsessed with security, in the broadest sense of the word. As such they willingly trade freedoms, which necessarily come at a price, for safety, security, equality of outcome, “free” stuff, etc. And the ruling class, which as you say won’t let a crisis go to waste, plays on this willingness to sacrifice freedom for stuff.

    • Jamie R

      I used to think you were right on this point, but you’ve persuaded me otherwise.

      We don’t know how many conspirators the Tsarnaevs may have had. We don’t know the crisis has been contained. I’ve never been in a situation where respecting someone else’s rights might put my safety at risk, so who am I to talk about “rights” or “freedom”? If it comes down to the cops’ safety or some citizens so-called “due process” and “the rule of law,” I think we all know which is more important. If you listen to our betters in the government, we’re never not in a crisis. Who am I not to defer to their judgment about what needs to be done?

      • vox borealis

        Respecting someone else’s rights *always* puts our own safety at risk. For example, we allow freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, both of which can be used to foment conspiracies. I’m willing to take that risk to live in a free society, far more than I am willing to cede such freedoms so that the State can, say, monitor and control all interactions of its citizens, even if such meant absolute security from crime and other threats.

        As for your formulation “due proces” v. “some cop’s safety,” I’ll have to disagree. I don’t want to live in a society where due process can be suspended in the name of safety. I say this because due process protects *my* safety and the safety of all citizens. Otherwise, what stops the State from blowing me up with a drone strike or throwing me in permanent detention, all in the name of safety.

        • Stu

          Vox,

          She is trying to be “cute” based upon an exchange we had in an earlier thread. Her previously stated position is the other extreme where in the moment of a crisis, any action by law enforcement out of the norm is met with cries of fascism. When the situation is still “hot” we should expect to give some leeway. But after it cools down, we need to go back to the rules. Door-to-door searches for terrorists on the run don’t bother me. But once they are in custody, American citizens need to be handled with due process.

          As to the Patriot Act, enhanced airport security or continuing encroachments on rights to self defense, I agree that things have gotten out of hand.

          • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

            She? I thought Jamie was a he? Sorry about that Jamie.

            • Stu

              Maybe I am wrong. I just assumed as much.

          • Jamie R

            I’m a he.

            And if you give cops (or any part of any government) more power during a crisis, they’re not going to give it up without a fight when the crisis is over. They won’t even recognize that the crisis is over, and they’ll probably try to generate further crises, since they were so well rewarded for the last one. It’s precisely during crises that the government does not deserve leeway, because that’s when they’ll most aggressively try to take it.

            • Stu

              I don’t see police still going door-to-door in Boston searching for anyone right now. Maybe the media just isn’t reporting it.

            • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

              Whew. I feel better. Thanks for clearing that up.

  • meunke

    We still have a Constitution?

    • Chris M

      Recognized (at least occasionally) in the breach more than the observance.

  • Elaine S.

    I’m still wondering where the authorities in Boston got off locking down the ENTIRE CITY and ordering over a million people to stay holed up in their homes for an entire day just so they could find one 19-year-old punk on foot. Yes, I understand their concern that he might have been carrying more bombs, that he might have had accomplices, or that he might have been planning to blow himself up in a public place. But — this is just my personal opinion — I don’t believe it was necessary to place an entire city under “house arrest” to get ahold of a guy with a few homemade bombs. Unless they had solid, probable cause to believe he had a nuke or a “dirty bomb” or a chemical/biological weapon stashed away somewhere in the area ready to go off, I think ordinary citizens should have been permitted to carry on with their business during the manhunt. I could see shutting down the public transit system temporarily, or evacuating/closing certain particularly vulnerable facilities while they were looking for the guy; but beyond that, the citizens of Boston should have IMO been allowed to carry on with their normal routines if they wanted to.

    • Elaine S.

      Also, if I remember correctly, it was AFTER the “lockdown” had been lifted and people in Watertown were allowed outside their homes, that the homeowner in whose boat the suspect was hiding finally spotted him. If ordinary citizens had been allowed to be out and about while the manhunt was going on, there would have been more “eyes” out there looking for him, and he might have been caught sooner.
      First responders and police have incredibly tough jobs and deserve all the praise they get. That said, they can’t do everything by themselves; ordinary citizens have to do their part by being alert and knowing what to do in a crisis.

      • Stu

        There would have been more cover of “people” for them to blend into as well and possibly slip away.

        • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

          Ignoring counterfactuals, the lockdown did not work. You can spin theories all you like but it is important to at least consider that the lockdown did not work and thus it might be a good idea to consider alternatives.

      • Ted Seeber

        Reminds me of the line from Farenheit 451:
        [Woman over P.A. system] Watch for a man running through the streets. Repeating. Calling all citizens. Wanted for murder: Montag. Occupation: Fireman. The criminal is alone and on foot. Let each one stand at his front door. Look and listen. Watch for a man running through the streets.

  • The Deuce

    I don’t see the problem with restricting immigration from Muslim countries. There’s no Constitutional right of non-citizens to relocate the US. In fact, that appears to me to be the one way to deal with this issue that doesn’t stomp on Constitutional rights. Immigration of Saudi students has increased by 500% since 9/11. If we can speed it up like that, why can’t we slow it down?

    Here’s the thing. Muslims from the 3rd world are far more likely, on average, to commit acts of mass terror. Hence, the more of them that come, the more mass terror there will be, and the places that they settle (which will generally be liberal metropolitan places like Boston and New York) will be hit the most often. We can pretend not to see any differences, but we can’t make them go away.

    Hence, something will have to give one way or another. Neoconservatives refuse to consider slowing immigration, and insist that it’s all a few radicals who have nothing to do with Islam itself, and so insist on launching endless wars to eradicate “terror” from everywhere on the globe. Liberals likewise pretend not to see any differences between Islam and any other religion, and are so horrified by the thought of immigration-restriction that they aren’t even capable of considering it, and so they deal with the inevitable fallout by cracking down on *everyone’s* rights – setting up a Big Brother surveillance police state, groping and strip-scanning people at airports, and “changing our interpretation” of the Constitution.

    If we don’t want fuel for endless wars, and we don’t want a totalitarian police state to “keep us safe,” and we don’t want to just sit back and accept getting blown up increasingly often, then simply slowing down the immigration spigot is the humane way to do that.

    Stewart, of course, is solidly in the left-wing multi-culti camp, which is why his ire is all aimed at the Fox neocons and at those who are willing to consider preventing dangerous individuals from coming here in the first place, while hypocritically giving the rights-squashers in his own camp a pass, and why he himself would rather (as insinuated at the end of the clip) strip *all* Americans of their 2nd Amendment rights rather than pull his head out of the sand regarding Islam and terrorism.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    Coulter is a clown. I really don’t think she means 80% of the stuff that comes out of her mouth. The problem is that people in her audience do.

    Question: Was that Lee Greenwood on Hannity??? Is that the level of political discourse we have in this country now? The Right trots out old country singers and the Left trots out Ashely Judd?

    I know we’re living in a new age of bread and circuses. But man, our clowns are just pathetic.

    • Mark Shea

      We are talking about the network the turns to Ted Nugent for constitutional law commentary.

      • vox borealis

        Sadly, Ted Nugent probably knows more about the constitution than most other commentators, and maybe more than certain alleged Constitutional law experts.

        • Mark Shea

          See, that, right there, demonstrates Fox’s toxicity. While we’re at it, let’s get Ashley Judd’s views on the economy and Ozzie Osbourne to discuss string theory.

          • B.E. Ward

            We had CNN on at work yesterday. At one point, the title literally said “BREAKING NEWS” then “Matt Damon Responds to Boston Bombing”.

          • The Deuce

            Course, the punchline here is that Ashley Judd actually did attempt to run on behalf of the Dems, and was taken seriously by the media, without any help from Fox. Ted Nugent is a goof, but at least he doesn’t take himself seriously enough to run, and I daresay he’s fair amount more informed that Ms. Judd on Constitutional matters.

          • vox borealis

            Huh? I was agreeing with you in a sarcastic manner. Chill out and have a gin and tonic.

            • Mark Shea

              Okay. It’s hard to judge tone of voice in cyberspace.

    • The Deuce

      Yeah, Coulter is a rodeo clown (as is John Stewart), but I’m kind of surprised that the constantly ironic left-wing rodeo clown isn’t able to recognize when the right-wing rodeo clown is being ironic.

    • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

      Truth be told, the media has turned to celebrities since I can remember. Cable with its 24/7 saturation probably just makes it seem like it’s more common. For instance, I remember when I was in high school, in the early years of Reagan’s first term. One of the Network stations interviewed Christopher Reeve about Reeve’s assessment of Reagan’s military spending. I thought then there had to be more of an expert they could have turned to. It wouldn’t be the last time I saw him or others interviewed about such things. Back then, the only difference was the format, and the fact that we didn’t immediately assume partisan motives (though in hindsight, we probably should have).

  • http://pavelspoetry.com Pavel Chichikov

    I haven’t watched television for years, so I’m out of that part of the discussion.

    As for the security process regarding Boston – what makes anyone think the crisis is over? You have information to that effect?

    What makes you think that only the two persons we know of were involved? Can you affirm that factually?

  • http://pavelspoetry.com Pavel Chichikov

    As I understood news reports, for what they’re worth, part of the Russian warning about Tamerlan concerned his activities here in the States. Interesting, no? If so, then they are at the very least debriefing travelers. Do they also have a network here?

  • Ted Seeber

    We still have a Constitution? I thought they did away with that in 2001.

  • merkn

    Fox really is no different from this site. They use hyperbole to drive ratings. This site does it to get hits. FOX wants to curtail freedom with cameras and criminal justice excesses. This site favors government control over healthcare to prtect the poor and confiscatory taxation against the “greedy” all for the greater social good. The writer here has called for dragging elected officials from there homes for bizarre summary punishment because these elected officials don’t vote his way on national defense issues. Anne Coulter call your office. It is an outrage that the government can lock down a city for “public safety”reasons but OK to curtail Second amendment rights to protect the “children”. Oh , and the Daily Show is supposed to be some kind of hypocrisy exposing truth teller. OK. But I agree Jon Stewart is funny. When Mark Shea writes about the catechism or a Catholic apologetics topic he actually knows something about can be quite thought provoking and informative. When he ventures into FOX News territory, He sounds like FOX News.

    • Mark Shea

      Um, you do realize that saying that an alleged “news” organ is no better than a personal blog by a self-professed opinionated loudmouth is very damning for the “news” organ and not at all damning to the blog, right?

      • merkn

        Agree 100% as to very damning for FOX. Not so sure why their fault excuses yours.

        • Stu

          That’s going to leave a mark.

  • http://www.otakucatholic.blogspot.com becca

    Yeah, the reaction of people to the use of hyperbole usually depends on whether they like the person using it or not.

  • Dan C

    I think Merkn is pulling the ol’ “Mark Shea, as a religious man, you have no charism in matters of politics.”

    Thank you George Weigel and John Neuhaus for sanctifying that line of argumentation, attempting to leave “real” matters for manly masculine men who can handle such things. Like Freedom Math! Or conservative “math that makes us feel better” espoused by Karl Rove, et al. Real matters are best handled by those who can handle such things in a manly way, with real facts and real plans.

    Love the math-challenged right again: freedom math!
    “Can I see a footnote or citation for those figures?”
    Excellent.

    Considering how well Fox News served the right wing since first proposing Michelle Bachman as a serious candidate in summer 2011, to its dismissal of Obama as a serious contender, to its dismissal (not intellectually challenged, but just dismissed since it was from the hands of an impure man) of Nate Silver’s statistics, the right has defended Fox News as the Holy Congregatikn of Communications and Research for the Conservative Movement (May we always heed their word) like an abused spouse.

    No one can do better farce than the Fox News Anchorwoman who went into the cubicle farm of statisticians to counter the frothing, sputtering Karl Rove and his faith-based projections.

    Yes. The left is making fun of you based on these absurdities. Over and over.

    • Mark Shea

      And nothing says “manliness” like Karl Rove.

    • merkn

      Not at all, Mark knows about as much as anyone on FOX about these matters and about as much as you, for that matter. He has every right to express his opinion. We can learn a lot from the honest well reasoned opinions of the non expert. My only point is hyperbolic opinions are not much use to anyone no matter by whom expressed. Opinions like that quickly descend into all sorts of rhetorical fallacies, like ad hominems, like “math challenged right”. What does George Weigel have to do with anything.

    • merkn

      By the way, Mr. Shea is the one who makes this argument against Ted Nugent. Because he is a musician he natyrally can know nothing about the Constitution.

    • Gary Keith Chesterton

      Ah yes, the old “Return to your charism, Mark” ploy. It never fails to get a laugh.

  • Billy Bean

    Consequentialism with a capital C. I am not a big Jon Stewart fan (brilliant as he supposedly is), but heresy makes bad national policy.

  • R. Suther

    If you look at all the mainstream News Outlets, Fox is by far the closest to Roman Catholic thinking. Most of the commentators are “Devout” Catholics (O’Reilly, Hannity, Megan Kelly, Eric Bolling, and etc. etc). The Fox News Channel is “Pro-Life” in it’s commentary and reporting. Sure, Fox has it’s problems, but compared to the other Main Stream News Outlets (ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS), Fox is a God send. If you ever want to see how those on the Left think or live, try the Foxnation website and check out the forums. Wow!!! You will be blown away at all the Leftists and their anti-Christian behavior. Many make fun of Jesus….run down the Virgin Mary….. laugh at Christianity as a whole…and etc. (I was being polite in my comment, most of their comments about the Holy Family and the Trinity can not be posted here…. some of the most shocking stuff I’ve ever seen coming from the Left. Foxnation attacks Media Matters and Huffpo readers to the site to “defend” the Democrat agenda. Give it a look…you’ll be in shock.).

    All-in-all, Fox isn’t that bad. The least you could do is look at it as the “Lesser of Two Evils”…. Fox is much more “Family Friendly” than the Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay, Anti-Catholic mainstream media.

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      There may be something to the argument that Fox is “closest” to Catholic thinking among MSM outlets. Of course, A) that only goes to show how horrible the rest of the MSM is and B) I’m afraid it’s a case of “close, but no cigar.” O’Reilly has in the past expressed a disturbing utilitarian view of torture, basically that it’s okay because it works. And just in the past week he defended Dresden and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, saying something like “We did what we had to to win.” None of those positions line up with Catholic moral teaching.

      Hannity is unabashedly pro-contraception. He bawled out a priest about it a few years back, and later even threatened to join Jerry Falwell’s church if the Church gave him more grief over the matter. I’m also pretty sure Hannity has said he’s okay with abortion for rape, incest and the life of the mother. Again this flies in the face of Catholic moral teaching. So like I said, “close but no cigar.”

      Still I watch Fox News and don’t like ignorant criticisms of the channel. But it would be a mistake to trust it implicitly. I know my Faith so I have to judge everything said on the channel against that.

      Oh, and I don’t care much for Coulter.

    • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

      I agree with Rosemarie. If Fox is closer that only shows how bad the other outlets are. Despite what Mark seems to think, I’ve been coming to his blog for years saying things like ‘everything I ever wanted to know about porn stars, I learned on Fox News.’ I remember getting smacked around on this very site many years ago for that statement. My point was that Fox was not some outlet of orthodoxy. In some ways it is less hostile than, say, an outlet like MSNBC. But that can make it more dangerous, as folks can be lulled into following it off a cliff under the assumption that it is less hostile than other outlets and therefore the right way to go. This isn’t to say that all of Fox is bad mind you. There are some very good, quality individuals on FOX, every bit as much as CNN or any other network (MSNBC maybe not so much). I may not agree with them, but they aren’t all Hannity or O’Reilly. But then, most of the outlets today aren’t really news at all, but propaganda, and none of them really advance the cause of traditional Catholicism as I understand it anyway. That includes Comedy Central by the way.

      • Rosemarie

        +J.M.J+

        >>>I may not agree with them, but they aren’t all Hannity or O’Reilly.

        Exactly. Anyone who’s ever watched Fox News for a considerable amount of time knows that a lot of different people appear on that station’s various programs and express many various opinions. There’ s discussion, debate, opinion pieces and, yes, hard news reporting. Anyone who thinks that Hannity and/or O’Reilly express the actual opinions of the Fox News Channel probably haven’t watched either commentator at any length, or anyone else on that network. For cryin’ out loud, O’Reilly and Hannity don’t even agree with each other on everything.

        And no, a rapid fire series of out-of-context, five-second long sound bytes strung together by the biased jokers at Comedy Central doesn’t count as watching Fox News “at length.” After watching one of those montages, have you ever asked yourself, “What exactly did they edit out? What’s the full context of that “damning” sentence fragment? Why did they suddenly skip from one guy to the next before the first guy completed his statement?” I have, and it frightens me that people can mistake that kind of naked manipulation of quotes for trustworthy journalism.

        Also, notice that Stewart does show some Fox News commentators saying you can’t violate the Constitution. He glosses over it, but I find it significant since it only confirms what I’ve been saying all along. A lot of people appear on Fox News and express a lot of different opinions, so you can’t point out any one of them and say, “This is the Fox News agenda.”

        • The Deuce

          Also, notice that Stewart does show some Fox News commentators saying you can’t violate the Constitution. He glosses over it, but I find it significant since it only confirms what I’ve been saying all along.

          It’s especially hypocritical since, after stringing together a bunch of out-of-context quotes to present them as a monolithic bloc in favor of breaking nearly all the amendments, he himself comes out for breaking the 2nd at the end of the clip (He thinks this makes Fox inconsistent, rather than himself, since as a liberal he and his audience it as self-evident dogma that the 2nd can and should be singled out for breaking). And unlike Fox, you won’t find anyone in Comedy Central’s fake news lineup to disagree with him on that.

    • Dan C

      Fox News is closer to Catholicism than ABC like basketball is closer to baseball than football.

      Pelvic concerns do not define the Church. If your only economic reflection is defined by Sirico, Novak, and Weigel and not Benedict and the Church, then perhaps I understand where your grave moral errors originate. If Neuhaus and Weigel and the conservative blogosphere from 2004 define your foreign policy and just war ethic, I can understand where you have deviated from the thinking of the Church.

      Fox News barely approaches the Church on some pelvic issues, but unlikely has any support of the real enemy of marriage-divorce. It is not an organ of holiness or the Church. Acknowledging it as such suggests you believe too many conservative and GOP issues are blessed by Holy Mother Church.

      Really those are just blessed by His Immenseness Karl Rove.

      • Newp Ort

        Well, the balls are both round…

      • Newp Ort

        oh and really excellent comment.

      • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

        It depends on the outlet. ABC is far more neutral than, say, hostile MSNBC. Compared to that, FOX is far less hostile. Likewise, if you want to find out some things, like the Gosnell story, you could do worse on television news than FOX. FOX is not, nor has it ever been, equal to the Faith. But compared to some outlets (maybe not others), it is not as consistently and openly hostile.

        • Dan C

          When you exclude matters of war or economics, or about 90% of the Sermon on the Mount, yes, you can come to this conclusion.

          • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

            Though FOX certainly advocates positions outside the fold, advocating a wrong headed economic policy is not the same as advocating abortion. Supporting the government’s crackdown on religious liberty by way of the HHS mandate is different than being stupid about our military policies. And assuming that there is truth behind the Christian faith is different than the assumption that the Christian faith was a major source of evil and suffering born of fairy tales and lies about some guy who may or may not have existed. In short, don’t confuse FOX with Catholic teaching, but don’t assume there is anything worse than the basic assumptions that drive most of the other media outlets.

        • Bryan

          ABC is neutral? Jay Carney is married to ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman. Susan Rice is married to ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron. And White House deputy press secretary Katie Hogan is married to Matthew Jaffe, a reporter for ABC News and Univision.

          • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

            Not saying it’s fair and balanced, but compared to outlets like MSNBC, NBC, or even CNN, let’s face it, ABC is the picture of neutrality.

    • Newp Ort

      GOP is backing gay marriage, little by little. Once enough repubs are then FOX will too. And they will congratulate themselves on how tolerant they are. And then they’ll be pro-war and pro-rich and anti-poor AND pro gay. Oh, and marginally pro-ife. That’s your most Catholic news network.

      • Rosemarie

        +J.M.J+

        It’s the nature of man-made viewpoints, like “conservatism” and “liberalism,” to change with the times. How many 1960s liberals would have accepted the concept of “gay marriage” back then – pre-Stonewall? Heck, even twenty years ago it was still “out there.” But now it’s liberal dogma. Considering the difference between what passes for conservatism today and what the term meant forty years ago, it’s quite likely “conservatives” forty years from now will be all for “gay marriage.”

        Right now, though, they largely aren’t. I can’t concern myself with what Fox News might endorse decades from now, if it still exists – if this country still exists. What it might do in the future isn’t relevant to the question of how close it is to Catholicism today.

        • Newp Ort

          I mean like 5 years, maybe ten not decades. People are getting ok with the idea.

  • R. Suther

    Ps. Correction. It should read, “Foxnation ATTRACTS Media Matters and Huffpo readers to the site to “defend” the Democrat agenda.

    One more thing: I think you need to look at the Big Picture when it comes to the Major News Outlets. The Left Controls the AP, UPI, Reuters, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, etc. Fox is the only Conservative voice in the Wilderness. Again, you can pick on Fox for some “minor” stuff, but what is that compared to the Pro-Choice / Baby Killing major news outlets? They won’t even cover the Gosnell case in Penn.. Fox is covering the Gosnell case. As for TED NUGENT, he is an American Citizen and he has the same equal rights to voice his opinion just like anyone else on this forum…including Mark Shea :-) Ted loves his 2nd Amendment Rights and he is vocal about it. I’m sure Mark Shea will be vocal when they eventually (and they will) come after the Catholic Church. When the Left makes Gay Marriage legal, they will try to Marry in a Catholic Church….then when the Church says, “no”, the Gay Couple will sue the Church…. surly Mark would be very vocal at this point. The Left HATES the Catholic Church. Ever watched “For Greater Glory”? It’s coming. Again, look at the hatred toward Catholics on Huffpo or Media Matter’s sites. Go in there and say, “Hi, I’m a Devout Roman Catholic” – and then watch what happens. You’ll be in the Roman Colosseum with the Lions chomping at your face.

    • Mark S. (not for Shea)

      My mom, whom I love dearly, trots out that same argument: “I watch Fox because they’re the only conservative voice, and all the other networks are so liberal. I like to hear my own point of view.”

      Which is sad. People no longer want the Truth. They want their version of the truth (which is no truth at all). This isn’t journalism. It’s just a team sport. Us vs. Them. Pick a side.

      Just because MSNBC is blatantly liberal is no excuse for Fox to be blatantly Right Wing. We should demand Truth from the media. Not a viewpoint.

      As for the second point, this is PRECISELY why we have to defend the rights of even the most heinous terrorist. If we allow the government to strip the bad guys of their inherent human rights today, then there’s a pretty good chance they’re simply going to be calling us the bad guys tomorrow.

      • merkn

        Another reason some of us watch FOX on occasion is that they don’t actively insult us and treat our beliefs with complete contempt as many other media outlets do. I have no use for O’Reilly who I think is a fraud, Hannity is unwatchable. Karl Rove? OMG. Fox and friends in the morning hurts my head, they are so awful. But: they don’t call me a misogynist or a homophobe because I accept the Catechism. They don’t call me an anti evolutionist anti science dolt because I don’t accept the latest science fads. So if I have to watch cable news on , I put FOX on. It is not good. But it’s not insulting. (What a great ad slogan.)

        • Mark S. (not for Shea)

          Fox News only occasionally insults my beliefs, but they constantly insult my intelligence. ;-)

          • Rosemarie

            +J.M.J+

            Approximately 80% of all television today insults our intelligence.

            • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

              You are very kind to say only 80%.

              • Rosemarie

                +J.M.J+

                Yeah, you’re right. I was too generous. :-)

          • R. Suther

            I like your work, Mark…I’ve got an autographed signed copy of “By What Authority?” Also, we use to discuss stuff on Steve Ray’s forum. But over the years, it seems the Seattle Culture is starting to “creep in” on your judgment. Maybe you need to be like St. John and go out into the Wilderness for a while….and I’m not joking. Also, sometimes we lose our focus being in our Ivory Towers too long.

            Ps. I’m not just judging you on this one issue in this thread… I’ve surfed your stuff – now and then – for years … each time I read your stuff you sound more and more like the Philosophy coming from the Democratic Party or from the left. Let me guess, you’re gonna be in support of Gay Marriage or Women Priests soon? Yes, that was harsh, but I’ve got many friends and family that are Catholic ….and they are Democrats…and they are NOW Pro-Choice (many didn’t use to be) and many are Pro-Gay (and many didn’t use to be). I hope you don’t go down the Road of the Episcopal Church in your thinking, Mark?

            • Mark Shea

              Don’t be silly. Criticism of right wing heresies is not endorsement of lefty ones.

      • R. Suther

        Maybe the mainstream media has gone so far left (as our culture is going to the left), it makes Fox look “Really” Radical and Conservative. BTW, the Mainstream Media NOT covering Gosnell v. Fox covering Gosnell does not disturb you? Hmmmmm. How liberal are you?

    • Dan C

      Your fear mongering about the government coming to crush you forgets that it was the conservative project, aided and abetted by American Catholic conservatives that supported Central American thugs as they created Catholic martyrs in the 1970′s and 1980′s. There is a conspiracy of silence about Archbishop Romero (unless you can put Opus Dei in the same sentence) among AmConCaths or the four martyred Churchwomen of El Salvador. Then, folks died for the faith. Really died. Not thought they might have to. And AmConCaths at the time were unsympathetic to the point of suggesting that they somehow the victims deserved it because working on behalf of the poor was Communistic, and therefore nuns and priests and others needed to be annhilated.

      Now, in a fantsized dystopian future America, AmConCaths are holding off the government with their Bibles and their AK-47′s (thanks to the papally-supported, Holy Second Amendment).

      Not like being truly killed at a Mass in a convent. Or really raped and murdered on a road, or chucked out of helicopters at 1000 feet at sea. Repeating the fantasy makes it more real, and justifies the guns.

      • R. Suther

        5000 murdered everyday since the 70′s (innocent babies) because liberals want to keep it legal. Back in 2000 and 2002, the GOP had the chance to overturn Roe v. Wade in Congress (they had the numbers anyway), out of the 25 Catholic US Senators in the Senate, only 2 voted for overturning Roe V. Wade… all the Liberal Catholics (GOP and Democrats) voted to NOT overturn it. Enough said.

        BTW, that was the Cold War….. you’re trying to compare Apples and Oranges. We were fighting Atheistic Communist all over the world. Mao murdered 70 million people and outlawed Religion; Stalin murdered 15 million and persecuted Religion.

    • Newp Ort

      Wow. They were mean to you on a web site. You’re like the St Lawrence of our time. Red, white and now digital.

      • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

        I missed where the Internet is OK to be the place to express hatred for Catholics (or anyone else for that matter). Maybe I didn’t get the memo.

        • Newp Ort

          Not so much ok as what did u expect. Welcome to the interwebz!

          Seriously, don’t make any presumptions based on the rudeness of internet combox warriors.

      • R. Suther

        I was making a point about how those with “Liberal Thoughts” in the USA are Darwinist and Beasts in their thinking…. dog eat dog. I’ve been on the net for 15 years, this isn’t new to me…. but you need to wake up and smell the coffee. Those on the LEFT are much more dangerous than those on the Right. Again, Abortion v. 2nd Amendment. Also, the GOP has on their platform “All Life is Sacred.” Like I said, the left is coming after Catholics in a Violent way…. give it 5 to 10 years. As Cardinal Francis George of Chicago said, “I will die in my bed; my successor will die in prison; his successor will die in the public square. “

  • Mike

    Again, Mark I think your analysis is wrong. But alas we disagree. I think it is perhaps you who is selling more fear than Fox.

  • http://disputations.blogspot.com Tom K.

    “We’ve survived terrorists, assassins and bomb throwers throughout our history….”

    You used to call Ann Coulter a bomb thrower, Mark, and say bomb throwers serve a purpose.

    Do you still think that’s true?

    • Bryan

      Ah, finally…here comes the gentle lull of condescending progressive pedantry, replete with a mimicked gesture of Socratic reasoning, to safely lead us all bitter clingers to the Correct Way of Thinking about Ann Coulter and Fox News (spoiler alert: it turns out that we’re supposed to hate them!)

      • http://disputations.blogspot.com Tom K.

        What are you babbling about, Bryan?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X