Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘op-ed’

Ann Coulter Op-ed: Asian Women Are Too Damn Hot!


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Mar 24, 2021

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Asian Women Are Too Damn Hot!

Source: Sanja Bucko/Warner Bros. Entertainment via AP

Does anyone else find it odd that so many Asian activists reacted to the mass murder of (mostly) Asian women last week by talking about how smoking hot they are?

I was at law school when I first noticed the phenomenon of liberal women pretending to be outraged as a cover for bragging. Average-to-ugly girls would work up feigned indignation about how a guy had “sexually harassed” them that day, then launch into a 20-minute retelling of some compliment they’d received. A man talked to me! I think he likes me … Let’s see, how do I work this into conversation for the rest of the week?

But it’s a peculiar reaction to mass murder.

Now that a white supremacist mass shooter (check that, turns out he was a radical Islamic Syrian refugee!) has committed a different mass murder in Boulder, Colorado, will we see hippies on TV, denouncing the assumption that Birkenstock-wearers are all sex gods?

No, of course not! Only liberals would think an appropriate response to an infamous crime is to talk about how sexually desirable they are. Liberalism makes everybody stupid.

Thus, for days after the fatal shooting of six Asians and two whites at massage-cum-sex spas in Atlanta, Asian activists and professors blanketed the airwaves to demand that white men STOP treating them like sex objects — whom they fantasize about, they want, they covet. Newspapers were chock-a-block with first-person accounts of Asian women being salivated over by white men.

Christine Liwag Dixon modestly began her tale of oppression for The Washington Post’s “The Lily”: “When I was 16, a boy I thought was my friend said, ‘I can’t figure you out. Asian girls are either smart or hot. But you’re both.'” She’s older and married now, but still cherishes this comment from high school.

Amid her recitation of other compliments she’d received over the course of a lifetime — some stupid, some vulgar, and some, I’d wager, completely fictional — Liwag Dixon remarked, “It no longer surprises me, but it still hurts.”

Well, naturally. Who wouldn’t be hurt to be called both smart AND hot?

Among the distressing compliments detailed by Liwag Dixon, she reports that she was often called “exotic.” (I will NOT link to the scene in “NewsRadio,” where Beth explains the meaning of words like “cute,” “beautiful” and “exotic.”

Professors of color were prepared with scholarly opinions about how tantalizing Asian women are. Elaine Kim, professor emeritus in Asian American studies at the University of California, Berkeley, told the Associated Press that the Atlanta shooter probably had “an addiction to fantasies about Asian women as sex objects.”

However that may be, these particular spas were known as fronts for prostitution, which may also have put the idea of sex in the shooter’s head.

Another Berkeley professor, Catherine Ceniza Choy (Ethnic Studies), conveyed that the shooting “echoes a long-running stereotype that Asian women are immoral and hypersexual.” Ellen Wu, a history professor at Indiana University, confirmed that “from the moment Asian women began to migrate to the U.S., they were targets of hypersexualization.”

It all had a familiar ring …

HEY! Anybody remember the Duke lacrosse rape hoax?

Before the gang rape of a black stripper was exposed as a complete fraud — though well after three white families had their pockets emptied and their names dragged through the mud — an enormous amount of the commentary centered on white men’s lascivious interest in black women. (So of course the gang rape had to be true!)

The Duke lacrosse case “fed the stereotype that black women are hypersexual and readily available,” as the Associated Press put it. The article quoted a number of black coeds on how white guys just can’t keep their hands off African American ladies:

“The young black women can almost finish each other’s stories.

“They go to a party, a concert, a nightclub. Twenty-somethings of all colors are flirting and dancing. And then it happens.

“Inevitably, a woman says, a white man asks her to dance erotically while he watches. Or he grabs her rear end. Or asks for sex, in graphic detail, without bothering to ask her name.”

A black Duke coed, Audrey Christopher, complained to the Durham Indy that “at one of the quad parties, it was me and another black female friend, and these white guys immediately told us how they liked hanging out with black girls because white girls are sheltered and we’re more free …”

Again, the professors of color weighed in. Rebecca Hall (Surprise! Also Berkeley) said of the Duke gang-rape charges, a “black woman is somebody who has excess sexuality … it’s excess sexuality that white men are entitled to.” Duke professor Mark Anthony Neal said: “The message that men get about black women is these are women that are available to them, that they have easy access and their sole purpose is to serve their pleasure.”

To the extent that their argument isn’t simply that black women are hot, hot, hot, but that white men feel entitled to pillage black bodies, that’s not borne out by the data. According to FBI crime statistics, approximately 15,000 to 30,000 white women are raped by black men every year, while, on average, zero black women are raped by white men. (The department uses “0” to denote fewer than 10 victims.)

Nor, of course, was the rapacious white male theory supported by the facts of the very case they were discussing.

We don’t have a lot of women mass shooters, so it’s hard to flip the script. But maybe, in the future, whenever a white man is falsely accused of rape (Steven Pagonesthe Duke lacrosse players, a fraternity at the University of Virginia) or murder (Darren WilsonJake Gardner, Staten Island police officers), white men should fan out across the airwaves to talk about how damn sexy they are.

Until then, I’m begging you, white men, please, for the love of God, STOP turning liberal women into your sexual fantasies!!!

Ann Coulter Op-ed: NYT: Was He Innocent? ANSWER: No.


Commentary by Ann Coulter  Ann Coulter | Posted: Feb 17, 2021

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
NYT: Was He Innocent? ANSWER: No.

Source: AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews

Trending

Here is this week’s installment of “The New York Times is ALWAYS lying about criminals (and probably everything else).”

The Times desperately wants you to believe that there are actual cases of innocent people being put to death in America. Their current poster boy for the cause is Sedley Alley, executed in 2006. But the Criminal Lobby is hoping a post-mortem DNA test — on evidence that has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence — will allow them to howl that an INNOCENT man was executed!

I knew nothing about this case, but I knew the Times’ description of the facts was a lie. How did I know?

1) No jury would have convicted a man, much less sentenced him to death, much less had that sentence repeatedly upheld, on such a flimsy record; and

2) There is no credible evidence that a single innocent person has been put to death in this country for at least 75 years.

Here are the facts the about the Criminal Lobby’s latest baby seal.

On the night of July 11, 1985, two Marines from a naval base in Millington, Tennessee, reported a possible kidnapping after they heard a female jogger screaming, “Don’t touch me!” “Leave me alone!” They ran in her direction, but just as they got close, a station wagon peeled off the side of the road. A gate guard also reported seeing a station wagon, which he said was being driven by a man constraining a woman.

All three witnesses described the car as a late-model green or brown Ford or Mercury station wagon with wood paneling, Kentucky tags and a loud muffler.

Alley, who owned a dark green 1972 Mercury station wagon with wood paneling and a Kentucky license plate, was brought in for questioning at 1 a.m. that night. The Marines who’d reported the kidnapping identified Alley’s vehicle as the one they’d seen, both by sight and by the roar of the muffler.

But Alley and his wife gave a satisfactory explanation for their whereabouts and were released.

At 6 a.m. on July 12, the body of 19-year-old Marine Lance Cpl. Suzanne Collins was found in a nearby park. Alley was arrested and promptly confessed to murdering her — claiming it was an “accident.”

He told his wife, “Yes, I killed the gal at … Orgill Park.”

In his lengthy, tape-recorded confession, Alley tried to soft-pedal his barbaric crime, claiming he’d hit Collins with his car by accident, and only decided to savagely beat her to death because, as he was driving her to the hospital, she threatened to turn him into the police.

Alley then took investigators to the precise spot where he’d murdered Collins and even showed them the tree where he’d broken off the branch that he’d jammed inside of her.

At trial, Alley admitted he did it, but pleaded insanity. The jury didn’t buy it, convicted him and sentenced him to death.

Here is what the Times’ Emily Bazelon tells that paper’s clueless readers about Alley’s case:

     “[T]wo Marines … reported crossing paths with Lance Corporal Collins while she was running. They said that moments after they saw her, they dodged a brown station wagon with a blue license plate … [L]aw enforcement officers stopped Sedley Alley, then 29. He was driving a dark green station wagon with a blue plate.”

Times readers are led to believe that although witnesses said it was a BROWN station wagon, Tennessee yokels picked up a guy in a GREEN station wagon!

Except that’s not true. The BOLO alert (“be on the lookout”) put out by the Naval Investigation Service identified a “a brown or green Ford or Mercury station wagon with woodgrain on the sides.”

Bazelon:

     “When the investigators began interrogating him, Mr. Alley, who had been drinking, denied knowing anything about Lance Corporal Collins and asked for a lawyer. But 12 hours later, he signed a statement confessing to the murder.”

Times’ readers are supposed to think these backwoods Nazis interrogated Alley without a lawyer for 12 hours until he confessed!

In fact, the only reason he signed a statement “12 hours later” was that, after being questioned the night of the crime, he was sent home. Alley wasn’t arrested until after Collins’ body was discovered the next day, whereupon he quickly confessed.

Bazelon:

     “Mr. Alley’s admission, which he later said was false and coerced …”

Yes, “later” in the sense of “20 years later.” For two decades, Alley never denied he’d murdered Collins. He only recalled that his confession was “coerced” in 2004, when he was trying to delay the hangman’s noose.

Bazelon:

“But the location he gave for the collision didn’t line up with the witness accounts.”

There were no “witness accounts” for “the collision” for the simple reason that there was no collision. “My car hit her by accident” was Alley’s attempt to mitigate his barbarous crime.

You know what else, Emily? His car wasn’t seen driving in the direction of the hospital, either!

Somehow, his lies not matching the facts is supposed to be a point in Alley’s favor.

Bazelon:

     “[Alley’s confession] did not match the physical evidence. … He said he … stabbed her with a screwdriver and killed her with a tree branch. … And the autopsy report showed that Lance Corporal Collins was not hit by a car nor stabbed with a screwdriver.”

Again: There was no collision.

I’m not sure what Bazelon’s point is about the screwdriver and the tree branch, but here’s the evidence presented at trial:

“The pathologist, Dr. James Bell, testified that the cause of death was multiple injuries, [many] of which could have been fatal. … He testified that the injuries to the skull could have been inflicted by the rounded end of defendant’s screwdriver that was found near the scene … He identified the tree branch that was inserted into the victim’s body. It measured 31 inches in length and had been inserted into the body more than once, to a depth of twenty inches …”

Bazelon:

     “Tire tracks found at the crime scene didn’t match Mr. Alley’s car, shoe prints didn’t match his shoes, and a third witness who saw a man with a station wagon, close to where Lance Corporal Collins was killed, described someone who was several inches shorter than Mr. Alley, with a different hair color.”

Times readers are perfectly prepared to believe that a jury of toothless hicks looked at evidence overwhelmingly clearing Alley and convicted him anyway.

But that didn’t happen, because having seen the evidence for themselves, Alley and his lawyer decided his best course was to admit he did it and plead insanity. All this alleged evidence is post-hoc nonsense invented by defense lawyers that has not been admitted under the rules of evidence, has not been subjected to cross-examination, and would not prove his innocence.

Seventy-five years and counting with no credible evidence that a single innocent person has been put to death in America.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: My Nation-Unifying Impeachment Solution


Commentary by Ann Coulter  Ann Coulter | Posted: Feb 10, 2021

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
My Nation-Unifying Impeachment Solution

Source: AP Photo/Alex Brandon

Senate Republicans should offer to convict Donald Trump in return for Democrats agreeing to fund the wall. Trump is not going to run again anyway. In four years, he will be as viable a presidential candidate as Hillary was in 2020. You wouldn’t have guessed that, either, from all the gnashing of teeth about the MOST QUALIFIED WOMAN EVER TO SEEK THE PRESIDENCY immediately after she lost. 

The reason elected Republicans, Fox News, OAN, Newsmax and a hundred talk radio hosts are terrified of supporting conviction is that they don’t want to look like Mitt Romney and incur the wrath of the Trump base (whatever remains of it).

Trading conviction for a wall solves that. It will remind Trump loyalists that he betrayed them on his central campaign promise, and also will actually fulfill that promise.

Democrats, if they have half a brain, will leap at the offer. They are about to destroy Biden’s presidency by defining themselves — as The New York Times’ Frank Bruni put it — as “antonyms to Trump.” Trump was for a wall. Ipso facto, Democrats are for open borders.

Trump was lying, liberals! Even President Obama was for border security. Great socialist hope Bernie Sanders has denounced open borders as a gift to the Koch brothers.

They don’t care. Trump supporters wanted a wall, so we’re going to punish them by throwing open the border!

If Biden continues with his tsunami of open border executive orders: 1) COVID-19 cases will multiply, as untested, unvaccinated third-worlders pour in at breakneck speed; 2) Black and Hispanic unemployment will go through the roof; and 3) crime — already reaching mind-blowing proportions — will become as potent a political issue as it has ever been.

Good luck in 2022, Democrats!

But if Democrats were to trade wall funding for the holy grail of a Trump conviction, they could save Biden’s presidency, humiliate Trump, and explain to their nut base, We know, we know — walls don’t work — but we had to trade it to convict Trump! Aren’t you happy?

It’s win-win-win all around.

Sitting on a nation-unifying idea like that, I never should have tuned into the impeachment trial. I knew the Democrats would somehow manage to turn me against conviction. I’m still not pro-Trump — that’s a tall order. But could Democrats please ease up on the hysterical weeping?

The president is not supposed to be organizing protests at all, much less against his own vice president. Isn’t that enough? You don’t need to juice up the story, Democrats.

Impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin:

“All around me, people were calling their wives and their husbands, their loved ones to say goodbye ….

“[My] kids, hiding under the desk, placing what they thought were their final texts and whispered phone calls to say their goodbyes. They thought they were going to die.”

Yes, being forced to listen to the Trump “shaman” gas on about organic food could have annihilated legions!

Trump is a selfish, ignorant child. But he is not responsible for the reactions of neurotic liberals.

It would be as if Raskin’s neighbor smashed into his parked car, then drove off. Raskin has a perfectly good case without having to wail, I WAS AFRAID HE WOULD COME TO MY HOUSE AND MURDER MY ENTIRE FAMILY!

Raskin’s most precious argument was this:

“Of all the terrible, brutal things I saw … watching someone use an American flagpole, the flag still on it, to spear and pummel one of our police officers ruthlessly, mercilessly, tortured by a pole with a flag on it that he was defending with his very life.”

First, give me a break, Democrats, pretending to give a crap about the American flag.

Second: “Tortured”?

Impeachment managers apparently used a thesaurus to write their speeches:

Siri, give me a synonym for “poke” or “strike.”

Siri: jab, punch, prod, thrust, wallop … TORTURE.

Really?

Yup, it’s right there in Roget’s!

Curiously, even the teary-eyed Raskin didn’t allege that Officer Brian Sicknick was killed by the protesters, a claim being made hourly on MSNBC.

Raskin: “People died that day. Officers ended up with head damage and brain damage. People’s eyes were gouged. One officer had a heart attack. One officer lost three fingers that day. Two officers have taken their own lives.”

Jeremy Bash, later that day on MSNBC: “They killed a cop, Nicole!”

If Officer Sicknick’s death truly resulted from injuries sustained at the hands of the mob, it would be the case in chief against the protesters. (We’re not counting heart attacks, much less suicides that occurred days, or weeks, later.) But no one in the media has been able to scare up a single eyewitness to the attack on Brian Sicknick?

Unlike defund-the-police liberals, I actually am heartbroken about the death of a Trump-supporting law enforcement officer.

But the media are lying about his death. First, they claimed he was hit on the head with a fire extinguisher. Then they said he was dragged into the crowd and beaten. All that is known for sure is that after Sicknick returned to headquarters, he collapsed and later died.

Last week, CNN nonchalantly inserted this into a story on Officer Sicknick: “Medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true.”

There’s no hope for our media, who are irredeemable liars. But there’s still a chance for everyone else to come out a winner here! Trade conviction for a wall, Republicans.

Ann Coulter Op-ed: What Now?


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Nov 04, 2020 5:33 PM

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
What Now?

Source: AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

Trending

This may be the strangest election in history in that there is no evidence that any sizable group of people want Biden for president.

It’s his fourth time running for that office. This year, Biden lost three primaries in a row, coming in fourth in the Iowa caucus, fifth in New Hampshire a distant second in Nevada. At the end of February, he had accumulated a paltry 14 delegates — compared to 45 for Bernie Sanders and 26 for Pete Buttigieg.

Then James Clyburn said, Vote for Biden and African Americans in South Carolina voted for Biden. (Although the black vote is NOT monolithic, they decided to make an exception this one time and vote monolithically.)

Democrats never looked back.

Biden has nothing going for him — no constituency, no fanatical supporters, just a career in politics that stretches back 50 years.

Bill Clinton had Southern Democrats and baby boomers. Gore had the global warming zealots. George Bush had conservative Christians and Texans. Even Hillary had fanatical supporters. Remember the PUMAs (Party Unity My A$$)? How about the weeping loons at the Javits Center on election night 2016?

Will anyone weep that Biden lost? No, they’ll weep because Trump won. Yes, much of Trump’s vote hated Hillary, but surely at least 70 percent of them actually supported Trump. Ninety-nine percent of Biden’s vote is: “I Hate Trump.”

How did Joe Biden become the nominee? Because he was the candidate most acceptable to black people. Why? Because he was Obama’s vice president. There’s a coalition built on rock.

Combine the empty suit from Delaware with Kamala Harris, who was polling at about two percent among Democrats before she dropped out of the primaries. Harris added nothing to the ticket — except Biden’s ridiculously narrow, self-imposed requirement that his vice president be a woman of color.

Unfortunately for him, there just aren’t a lot of massively impressive black women who are elected Democrats right now. Barbara Jordan is dead. Shirley Chisholm is dead. Either of them would have been chosen over Kamala.

When Harris’ campaign crashed and burned, I thought I’d embarrassed myself by predicting she would be the Democrats’ 2020 presidential nominee back in 2016 before I’d ever heard her speak — before she’d even won her Senate race.

But on this, I was right: She strokes all the media’s erogenous zones.

— She’s got the Hollywood glamour!

Why, I think she’s even better looking than Michelle Obama! Not as gorgeous as Beyonce, but beauty like THAT only happens once a century.

(Harris will be in a dozen Vogue fashion shoots.)

— She’s so cool!

She wears sneakers, and cited Tupac as the “best rapper alive.” (Wait, what? Oh, we didn’t know Tupac was murdered in Las Vegas 20 years ago, either.)

— She’s presentable in Hollywood and the Hamptons.

Poor Al Sharpton has been lurking around for 30 years, but Kamala is someone we can invite to our apartments.

Harris isn’t a huge hit with the Democratic base. She’s a hit with the people who make decisions for the party. My prediction is redeemed.

If voters had been forced to focus on Harris, Trump would’ve won in a landslide. But this election was entirely a referendum on Trump. It’s irrelevant who he’s running against. Maybe if they had dug up Hitler to run against him other issues would have come up, but even that’s not a sure thing.

Harris sent out a tweet the day before the election saying, “There’s a big difference between equality and equity,” along with a video demanding that “we all end up at the same place.”

Is anyone listening? She’s not saying everyone should have an equal opportunity, but that everyone should get the same stuff.

Hello? Suburban women? Harris wants to move poor people next door to you whether they can afford the house or not. It’s as if Harris was running a test: Do people even care what we’re running on?

Democrats could come out for vivisection of little children. No one cares! A significant share of the electorate was voting for Anyone But Trump.

The media had whipped enough of the population into such a blind Trump hatred that the Democrats’ vetting process for Biden was: “What’s your name? OK, you’ll do.”

What happens if this bland, place-holding figurehead is sworn in as president? Assume on Jan 20th, Trump’s gone. Now what?

The media can’t blame the next black man killed by cops on Trump and they can’t turn off the coronavirus panic. Does the virus suddenly go away because someone new is in the White House? The toughest job for the media is going to be coming up with an excuse to put Trump on the front page once he’s gone.

Have they thought about what happens next?

Ann Coulter Letter: “How to Write a New York Times Op-Ed in Three Easy Steps”


waving flagAnn Coulter  | 

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/09/02/how-to-write-a-new-york-times-op-ed-in-three-easy-steps/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

How to Write a New York Times Op-Ed in Three Easy Steps

Today we’ll talk about how to write a New York Times op-ed in 45 minutes or less. We all like labor-saving tips!The main point to keep in mind is that your op-ed is not intended to elucidate, educate or amuse. These are status pieces meant to strike a pose, signaling that you are a good person.After reading your op-ed, readers should feel the warm sensation of being superior to other people — those who don’t agree with you. The idea is to be in fashion. It’s all about attitude, heavy on eye-rolling.

 

(1) Psychoanalyze conservatives as paranoid and insecure.

Liberals — who, to a man, have been in psychoanalysis — enjoy putting people they disagree with on the operating table and performing a vivisection, as if conservatives are some lower life form. 

Thus, for example, an op-ed in this week’s Times by Arthur Goldwag was titled “Putting Donald Trump on the Couch.”

This should not be confused with Justin A. Frank’s 2004 book, “Bush on the Couch,” offering a detailed diagnosis of Bush’s alleged mental disorders.

Nor should it be confused with a column that went up on Daily Kos the day after I wrote this column, psychoanalyzing me. (I’m just glad I snubbed the guy in high school.)

Goldwag explained: “Mr. Trump’s angry certainty …”

Let’s pause right here. I am obsessed with Donald Trump. I wish I could cancel my book tour and just lie in bed watching his speeches all day long. I’m like a lovesick teenager studying Justin Bieber videos. And I’ve never seen Trump look angry.

(Goldwag continued) ” … that immigrants and other losers are destroying the country while the cultural elites that look down on him stand by and do nothing resonates strongly with the less-educated, lower-income whites who appear to be his base.”

Yes, Trump’s base are “less-educated.” This is as opposed to Democratic voters, who couldn’t figure out how to fill in a Florida ballot in 2000.

True, writing like this will expose your own gigantic paranoia at being excluded from historic WASP America. If you start obsessing over the Augusta National Golf Club (as the Times did for one solid decade), people will naturally begin to suspect that you’re resentful toward traditional American culture.

But I am not giving lessons in self-esteem here. I’m trying to help you dash off an op-ed in record time. Psychoanalysis has been liberals’ go-to move forever.

Following the 1964 presidential election, the American Psychiatric Association was forced to issue “the Goldwater rule,” prohibiting shrinks from psychoanalyzing people they’d never met, after a few thousand of them had issued their professional opinion that Barry Goldwater was nuts. (A “frightened person,” “paranoid,” “grossly psychotic” and a “megalomaniac.”)

Some Times writer probably produced an op-ed calling Calvin Coolidge “paranoid.”

It’s not very interesting, but, again, the sole purpose of your op-ed is to assure the status-anxious that they are better than other people.

(2) The perfect hack phrase is to say conservatives are “frightened of the country changing around them.”

Examples:

– “The Tea Party, to be most benign about it, is primarily white, it is witnessing a country changing around it. It feels angry, feels — the diversity.” — Katrina Vanden Heuvel, MSNBC, May 24, 2012

(You want angry? Go to an Al Sharpton rally.)

– “Old white guys (are) caught in a demographic vice, right? (They) are frankly a little nervous, right? The country is changing around them. … The country is becoming more brown, and more — younger. And the values are changing. Gay rights, women are working. I mean all of these things are happening and they are not quite sure what to do.” — Jamal Simmons, MSNBC, June 15, 2013

– “I don’t think these are organized hate groups. These are, by and large, more or less everyday citizens who are very fearful of the way the world is changing around them.” — Mark Potok, (spokesman for the country’s leading hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center) in “Changing World Draws Racist Backlash,” The Philadelphia Tribune, June 28, 2010

I thought it was a nice gesture that Mark admitted that conservatives are not “organized hate groups.” We owe you one, Mark! You’re a super guy.

(3) Call conservatives “aggrieved” as often as possible.

Yes, this from the party of reparations, #BlackLivesMatter, comparable worth, “Lean In,” the DREAM Act and so on. If the Democratic Party were a reality TV show, it would be called “America’s Got Grievances!”

Examples:

– “‘We don’t have victories anymore,’ Mr. Trump told those deeply aggrieved Americans in June.” — Arthur Goldwag, op-ed: “Putting Donald Trump on the Couch,” The New York Times, Sept. 1, 2015

– “Mr. Bush has to win over a fair chunk of the aggrieved, frightened Trump voters.” — New York Times editorial, Aug. 26, 2015

– “You have this aggrieved conservative industry that makes their money by being aggrieved.” — John Feehery, Republican spokesman for former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, quoted in New York Times, Jan. 15, 2015

You’re doing this not just for the $75 you’ll make for writing a Times op-ed. Dreadful hacks meet a need.

A lot of people are followers by nature. They just want to be told: Here are the politicians you admire, and here are the ones you disdain; here are the people you worship, and here are the ones you disparage; here are the TV shows you like, and here are the ones you despise.

Times writers are like personal shoppers for people too lazy to form their own opinions. Just don’t imagine that this is good writing, comedy or art. But it’s not bad for something you can dash off in about 45 minutes!

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: