For the angry right, and the angry left...

[erynthered]

Anger is all the rage

 

I know some of you dont like George Will. But today's article is pretty interesting. Grab a cup of your favorite beverage, and give it a read.

 

 

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will032607.php3

 

 

Many people who loathe George W. Bush have adopted what Peter Wood describes as "ecstatic anger as a mode of political action." Anger often is, Wood says, "a spectacle to be witnessed by an appreciative audience, not an attempt to win over the uncommitted."

[RI Bills Fan]

Anger is all the rage

 

I know some of you dont like George Will. But today's article is pretty interesting. Grab a cup of your favorite beverage, and give it a read.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will032607.php3

That article really pi$$ed me off...

[erynthered]

That article really pi$$ed me off...

 

 

kitty!

[Sketch Soland]

I've never been a George Will fan but he makes a great point in this article. People on every side of the political spectrum these days (especially the most extreme sides but not limited to them) substitute righteous or self-righteous anger in favor of rationale discourse and open-minded inclusion of the whole context of a situation. This is to appeal to their base constituency, zealot partisans in general that are noted for their emotional responses to issues rather than their intellectual weighing of the pertinent details.

 

There is certainly a place for passion and anger in political life as a catalyst for change and invigoration of public life, but it does need to be firmly controlled and channeled through a rational vetting process that can make the most effective use of the emotion without sacrificing the level head that is needed to operate in our diverse political climate.

[molson_golden2002]

Anger is all the rage

 

I know some of you dont like George Will. But today's article is pretty interesting. Grab a cup of your favorite beverage, and give it a read.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will032607.php3

I think you picked out the key quote from this George Will piece. I might add the last line in it:

Such people make one's blood boil.

Yes. He seems as guilty as anyone. This was a really idiotic piece, written to simply dismiss Bush haters as irrational. I love how he compares Bush haters to Clinton haters, when he himself was a Clinton hater par excellence. When he uses the example of Jackie Robinson to show how our heroes were quiet, composed types in the past, I would hold up frothing at the mouth George Wallace. Americans have always been angry. Don't most Buffalo fans admire the quiet and composed Chris Drury? What Will is doing is trying to explain away the deep contempt for a President, and really the failed, exposed and corrupt Conservative movement as a whole which is at its lowest point since the mid-1960's. Long gone is the Reagan Revolution. The hypocracy of Will's argument shines through when he compares Paul Krugman to Ann Coulter of all people. Sure, Krugman attacks Conservative policies and incompetence, but he doesn't run around calling people fags, girlie men and other childish names. That's a pretty ugly attack.

 

As to Bush haters vs Clinton haters, I'll just say I never really got the Clinton hate. Sure, that may say a lot about my political views, but I never saw where he screwed up so bad he deserved the hate that came his way. Bush on the other has a solid record of fug ups, big ones, that I need not mention.

 

 

Will's opinions reflect the backruptcy of the Conservative movement at this time.

[Bill from NYC]

I think you picked out the key quote from this George Will piece. I might add the last line in it: Yes. He seems as guilty as anyone. This was a really idiotic piece, written to simply dismiss Bush haters as irrational.

 

I don't agree. To me, the article speaks more to anger in every day life. Did you read this:

 

>>>>Under the headline "San Franciscans Hurl Their Rage at Parking Patrol," the New York Times recently described the verbal abuse and physical violence — there were 28 attacks in 2006 — inflicted on parking enforcement officers in a city that has a surplus of liberalism and a shortage of parking places. Parking is so difficult that George Anderson, a mental health expert, has stopped holding lectures there because his audiences arrive seething about their parking frustrations. Anderson represents the American Association of Anger Management Providers.<<<<

 

I find that we have become a judgemental, intolerant nation in many ways, and I truly do mean both "sides."

[Bungee Jumper]

As to Bush haters vs Clinton haters, I'll just say I never really got the Clinton hate. Sure, that may say a lot about my political views, but I never saw where he screwed up so bad he deserved the hate that came his way. Bush on the other has a solid record of fug ups, big ones, that I need not mention.

 

 

Anyone who "never saw where Clinton screwed up so bad" just wasn't paying attention. For starters, read up on his Afghanistan policy.

[erynthered]

I don't agree. To me, the article speaks more to anger in every day life. Did you read this:

 

>>>>Under the headline "San Franciscans Hurl Their Rage at Parking Patrol," the New York Times recently described the verbal abuse and physical violence — there were 28 attacks in 2006 — inflicted on parking enforcement officers in a city that has a surplus of liberalism and a shortage of parking places. Parking is so difficult that George Anderson, a mental health expert, has stopped holding lectures there because his audiences arrive seething about their parking frustrations. Anderson represents the American Association of Anger Management Providers.<<<<

 

I find that we have become a judgemental, intolerant nation in many ways, and I truly do mean both "sides."

 

 

Exactly, Bill. And I'm sure you saw the irony in the quote you posted.

 

For Mr. I hate " those people" Golden. Your complete inability to set aside your partisan regurgitation for one minute to understand this, only further proves the point of your hypocrisy, and idiocy.

[Sketch Soland]

I think you picked out the key quote from this George Will piece. I might add the last line in it: Yes. He seems as guilty as anyone. This was a really idiotic piece, written to simply dismiss Bush haters as irrational. I love how he compares Bush haters to Clinton haters, when he himself was a Clinton hater par excellence. When he uses the example of Jackie Robinson to show how our heroes were quiet, composed types in the past, I would hold up frothing at the mouth George Wallace. Americans have always been angry. Don't most Buffalo fans admire the quiet and composed Chris Drury? What Will is doing is trying to explain away the deep contempt for a President, and really the failed, exposed and corrupt Conservative movement as a whole which is at its lowest point since the mid-1960's. Long gone is the Reagan Revolution. The hypocracy of Will's argument shines through when he compares Paul Krugman to Ann Coulter of all people. Sure, Krugman attacks Conservative policies and incompetence, but he doesn't run around calling people fags, girlie men and other childish names. That's a pretty ugly attack.

 

As to Bush haters vs Clinton haters, I'll just say I never really got the Clinton hate. Sure, that may say a lot about my political views, but I never saw where he screwed up so bad he deserved the hate that came his way. Bush on the other has a solid record of fug ups, big ones, that I need not mention.

Will's opinions reflect the backruptcy of the Conservative movement at this time.

 

You completely miss the point.

 

But that is your prerogative.

[molson_golden2002]

I don't agree. To me, the article speaks more to anger in every day life. Did you read this:

 

>>>>Under the headline "San Franciscans Hurl Their Rage at Parking Patrol," the New York Times recently described the verbal abuse and physical violence — there were 28 attacks in 2006 — inflicted on parking enforcement officers in a city that has a surplus of liberalism and a shortage of parking places. Parking is so difficult that George Anderson, a mental health expert, has stopped holding lectures there because his audiences arrive seething about their parking frustrations. Anderson represents the American Association of Anger Management Providers.<<<<

 

I find that we have become a judgemental, intolerant nation in many ways, and I truly do mean both "sides."

I just don't see how we were such a tolerant nation in the past. That just doesn't square with the facts, Joe Demogio aside. How many lynchings have we had lately? This seems like a nostalgia piece to try and make the current polical situation to seem perverted because the Conservatives are the focus of much of that hate with the majority of Americans. He uses liberal San Franciso as an example, go figure!

[KD in CA]

You completely miss the point.

 

But that is your prerogative.

 

 

Yes but he completely makes Will's point.

[Johnny Coli]

I’m going to have to disagree with George Will. George Will is an entrenched beltway journalist columnist who pines for the good-old-days when gas-bags like him could pontificate and/or mail in a column twice a week then hit the DC cocktail circuit and glad-hand with the rest of the elitists. Far be it from George Will to actually ask a hard question instead of acting like a doe-eyed twelve-year-old meeting his sports hero when eating freedom cheese and drinking champagne in a ballroom with the political celebrities he so adores.

 

Will seems generally taken aback that anyone would be angry with Bush, and according to him it must all be an act. Well, people are actually angry with this administration—the lies, the open-ended and pointless war for legacy, the corruption, the arrogance. People in America aren’t feigning anger as an emotional fashion statement, they are legitimately pissed at what has happened to this country at the hands of George W. Bush.

 

Will mentions “bloggers”, as if internet blogs (I’m making the assumption that Will is particularly upset with any left-leaning internet sites, as he mentions repeatedly how angry everyone is with his hero, Dubya) are the source of hate and vitriol in this country, conveniently failing to mention right-wing hate radio and Fox News. If he would put down his martini for a second and turn on a TV, radio, or actually log onto the internets instead of beltway party-hopping he would see that there is just as much hate coming through the right window of his limo as the left. He singles out Howard Dean, yet makes no mention of Ed Gillespie or Ken Mehlman. He holds up SF (and those crazy liberals!) as an example of parking rage when he could have easily used any city in America. But when your going from brownstone-to-brownstone in a Lincoln Town Car on your paper’s voucher you just don’t get a good feel for the problem.

 

Perhaps after Will’s current spell of the vapors wears off he might take a gander at the polls (or read up on how the past election turned out) and see how the citizens of America feel about how well his hero is doing. People are pissed and it’s not for some exhibitionist show, it’s not pretend, and they’re not doing it to impress anyone. People are mad because, unlike George Will, they are actually informed as to what’s going on in this country.

[erynthered]

I’m going to have to disagree with George Will. George Will is an entrenched beltway journalist columnist who pines for the good-old-days when gas-bags like him could pontificate and/or mail in a column twice a week then hit the DC cocktail circuit and glad-hand with the rest of the elitists. Far be it from George Will to actually ask a hard question instead of acting like a doe-eyed twelve-year-old meeting his sports hero when eating freedom cheese and drinking champagne in a ballroom with the political celebrities he so adores.

 

Will seems generally taken aback that anyone would be angry with Bush, and according to him it must all be an act. Well, people are actually angry with this administration—the lies, the open-ended and pointless war for legacy, the corruption, the arrogance. People in America aren’t feigning anger as an emotional fashion statement, they are legitimately pissed at what has happened to this country at the hands of George W. Bush.

 

Will mentions “bloggers”, as if internet blogs (I’m making the assumption that Will is particularly upset with any left-leaning internet sites, as he mentions repeatedly how angry everyone is with his hero, Dubya) are the source of hate and vitriol in this country, conveniently failing to mention right-wing hate radio and Fox News. If he would put down his martini for a second and turn on a TV, radio, or actually log onto the internets instead of beltway party-hopping he would see that there is just as much hate coming through the right window of his limo as the left. He singles out Howard Dean, yet makes no mention of Ed Gillespie or Ken Mehlman. He holds up SF (and those crazy liberals!) as an example of parking rage when he could have easily used any city in America. But when your going from brownstone-to-brownstone in a Lincoln Town Car on your paper’s voucher you just don’t get a good feel for the problem.

 

Perhaps after Will’s current spell of the vapors wears off he might take a gander at the polls (or read up on how the past election turned out) and see how the citizens of America feel about how well his hero is doing. People are pissed and it’s not for some exhibitionist show, it’s not pretend, and they’re not doing it to impress anyone. People are mad because, unlike George Will, they are actually informed as to what’s going on in this country.

 

And you told ME dont attack the writer, attack the message.

Do as I say not as I do, right Johnny. Got it. Nice work.

[molson_golden2002]

You completely miss the point.

 

But that is your prerogative.

I didn't miss the point. I disagreed with it.

[Johnny Coli]

And you told ME dont attack the writer, attack the message.

Do as I say not as I do, right Johnny. Got it. Nice work.

Will’s sermon got what it deserved. To suggest that the public anger directed toward this administration is some fad is insulting and entirely wrong. His disingenuous horror at the public discourse and criticism leveled at George W Bush is the true act of theatre here. Poor Will can’t fathom that all the “hate” directed at this president could possibly be the very real psyche of the people—it must be pretend criticism, it must be anger manufactured to impress their peers, it couldn’t possibly have it’s motives based on how an informed electorate actually feels about this administration. And to prove this he mentions blogs and angry liberal “road rage” in San Francisco? The thesis of his column is complete nonsense, and I bet he knows it’s complete nonsense.

[Bungee Jumper]

Will's sermon got what it deserved. To suggest that the public anger directed toward this administration is some fad is insulting and entirely wrong. His disingenuous horror at the public discourse and criticism leveled at George W Bush is the true act of theatre here. Poor Will can't fathom that all the "hate" directed at this president could possibly be the very real psyche of the people—it must be pretend criticism, it must be anger manufactured to impress their peers, it couldn't possibly have it's motives based on how an informed electorate actually feels about this administration. And to prove this he mentions blogs and angry liberal "road rage" in San Francisco? The thesis of his column is complete nonsense, and I bet he knows it's complete nonsense.

 

Will can't fathom much from his ivory tower, frankly.

 

Really, columnists like him and Buckley...do they ever leave the friggin' house? They all have the same ridiculous "Everyone I know agrees with me, so I must be right" attitude that the rest of the press has, but compounded by the mistake of believing that their eight martini-sipping old-money goofball tennis buddies are somehow representative of the entire nation.

[Sketch Soland]

Yes but he completely makes Will's point.

 

[Sketch Soland]

Will’s sermon got what it deserved. To suggest that the public anger directed toward this administration is some fad is insulting and entirely wrong. His disingenuous horror at the public discourse and criticism leveled at George W Bush is the true act of theatre here. Poor Will can’t fathom that all the “hate” directed at this president could possibly be the very real psyche of the people—it must be pretend criticism, it must be anger manufactured to impress their peers, it couldn’t possibly have it’s motives based on how an informed electorate actually feels about this administration. And to prove this he mentions blogs and angry liberal “road rage” in San Francisco? The thesis of his column is complete nonsense, and I bet he knows it’s complete nonsense.

 

Discard the fact that George Will wrote the column. Let's distill the pertinent idea that he touches on and use this idea to bring the conversation above the partisan bickering level that it is so easy to get bogged down in. The idea that anger from the "very real psyche of the people" should be channeled in the most appropriate way to achieve mutually beneficial results not only for our nation but for our two-party political process in general is an idea than any sane, rational, and not completely biased partisan should and must get behind if you truly have best interests at heart. Be you democrat, republican, liberal, or conservative, you have an extremely vested interest in engaging each other in the right kind of dialogue and debate so that the best ideas and policies can emerge from a more efficient and productive process.

 

So when you think to castigate Will for this article based upon his conservative predilections, think for a moment about the possibility that inside this column might be a kernel of a good idea ready to emerge if partisans on both sides of the aisle would only temper their obscene rhetoric and channel their anger and passion into something other than blowing up their already grotesque, childish, and amazingly short-sighted egos.

[Bill from NYC]

Will can't fathom much from his ivory tower, frankly.

 

Really, columnists like him and Buckley...do they ever leave the friggin' house? They all have the same ridiculous "Everyone I know agrees with me, so I must be right" attitude that the rest of the press has, but compounded by the mistake of believing that their eight martini-sipping old-money goofball tennis buddies are somehow representative of the entire nation.

 

Tom, you know me. I don't care about columnists.

The fact is that today, people ARE angry, and let's forget politics as much as we can.

 

Laws were proposed about bells on ice cream trucks in NYC. They disturb people. Mark my words, there are going to be assaults and yes murders because of cell phones on trains. There already were several murders because of the smoking ban in bars.

The situation in San Francisco struck me not because they were liberals, but because of the "anger management" aspect.

 

MG made an excellent point (yes, I said that) about lynchings in the past, etc. What I see happening is the creation of new "villians" in this country. "Noise" drives people nuts, as do smokers, people who barbecue, people who use i-pods, etc.

 

I think that all of us would be better served to be angry less often, and I do include myself in this statement. The losers are those who can only see the political aspect.

[RI Bills Fan]

Discard the fact that George Will wrote the column. Let's distill the pertinent idea that he touches on and use this idea to bring the conversation above the partisan bickering level that it is so easy to get bogged down in. The idea that anger from the "very real psyche of the people" should be channeled in the most appropriate way to achieve mutually beneficial results not only for our nation but for our two-party political process in general is an idea than any sane, rational, and not completely biased partisan should and must get behind if you truly have best interests at heart. Be you democrat, republican, liberal, or conservative, you have an extremely vested interest in engaging each other in the right kind of dialogue and debate so that the best ideas and policies can emerge from a more efficient and productive process.

 

So when you think to castigate Will for this article based upon his conservative predilections, think for a moment about the possibility that inside this column might be a kernel of a good idea ready to emerge if partisans on both sides of the aisle would only temper their obscene rhetoric and channel their anger and passion into something other than blowing up their already grotesque, childish, and amazingly short-sighted egos.

 

Well... Okay... But it still pisses me off...