Gibson falsely claimed human-rights groups have not condemned reported torture, murder of two U.S. soldiers
SUMMARY: Fox News host John Gibson falsely claimed that "human-rights groups" haven't "sa[id] a word" about reports that two U.S. soldiers had been brutally tortured and murdered by an insurgent group in Iraq. In fact, two major human-rights organizations, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, denounced the killings and alleged torture as potential "war crimes."
During the "My Word" segment on the June 21 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, host John Gibson falsely claimed that "human-rights groups" haven't "sa[id] a word" about reports that two U.S. soldiers in Iraq had been brutally tortured and murdered by an Al Qaeda-affiliated group, adding that "the silence from the human-rights groups is grotesque." Gibson concluded that the human-rights organizations, "who protest mistreatment such as feeding detainees Froot Loops or denying them sleep or peace and quiet while we try and get information from them," have "probably" remained silent about the incident because "they're embarrassed at the behavior of the people they're defending." However, two of the world's largest human-rights organizations, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, publicly denounced the killings and alleged torture as potential "war crimes."
On June 21, the executive director of Amnesty International USA, Larry Cox, responded to the alleged torture of the two soldiers:
Amnesty International, first and foremost, extends its sincerest condolences to the families of Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker for their tragic loss. We are deeply disturbed by reports that these two soldiers were brutally tortured. These reports, if proven true, may rise to the level of war crimes.
Amnesty International condemns the torture or summary killing of anyone who has been taken prisoner and reiterates that such acts are absolutely prohibited in international humanitarian law. This prohibition applies at all times, even during armed conflict. There is no honor or heroism in torturing or killing individuals. Those who order or commit such atrocities must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law without recourse to the death penalty.
Amnesty International again calls on armed groups in Iraq to immediately cease all executions, torture or ill-treatment of people. Armed groups, like other parties to the conflict in Iraq, are required to comply strictly with international law and remain accountable for their actions.
In addition, Human Rights Watch also issued a condemnation of the incident on June 21:
Yesterday's recovery of the bodies of two U.S. soldiers in Iraq, reportedly with signs of torture, highlights the serious violations of international humanitarian law (laws of war) committed by insurgent groups in Iraq, Human Rights Watch said today.
All combatants in Iraq are subject to attack. But captured combatants must be treated humanely. Torture and other cruel treatment, as well as summarily executing a captured combatant, are war crimes.
This is not the first time human-rights groups have criticized the tactics of insurgents in Iraq. In the July 2005 report "Iraq, In Cold Blood: Abuses by Armed Groups," Amnesty International documented brutal attacks by insurgents, saying that "[m]any of these killings by armed groups ... constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity." Similarly, in October 2005, Human Rights Watch released a report documenting "crimes committed against civilians by insurgent groups" in Iraq while also "address[ing] the arguments these groups and their supporters use to justify unlawful attacks."
From the June 21 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON: "My Word": The silence from the human rights groups is grotesque. Two American soldiers are captured, time now for the insurgency to prove they can abide by the Geneva Accords or any standard of decency, or it's time for them to prove they can confine their barbarity to simple, aggressive interrogation techniques or time for them to prove that they are better than the hated Americans. But none of that.
Instead, it's gouging out the eyes, hacking off the limbs, cutting off heads, booby-trapping the bodies. OK, let's say we already know about these people we're fighting. We can recall only a few days ago, the days immediately prior to killing [terrorist leader Abu Musab al-] Zarqawi, 17 heads were found in fruit boxes in the same area where these American soldiers were captured, tortured, and slaughtered like farm animals.
We already know how bad these people are that we're fighting, but where are the human-rights groups who protest mistreatment such as feeding detainees Froot Loops or denying them sleep or peace and quiet while we try and get information from them, or going so far as to let a dog snarl at them or dunk their heads under water for a few moments?
"These people are being tortured," the human-rights groups howl. What do they have to say about the head-cutters? Nothing? Why is that? Is it because they're embarrassed at the behavior of the people they're defending? That's probably it. Pure embarrassment, so they don't say a word. Let it quickly be forgotten, like that poor Nick Berg, whose head was removed and dangled before a camera.
The insurgents are trying to kill us. We worry about rules of engagement. The insurgents infiltrate the Iraqi military, then ambush the American troops they're patrolling with -- and that happened recently -- but we put Marines in chains on the allegation they killed an Iraqi who wasn't an insurgent after all.
The people who are trying to kill us will kill Iraqis to get to us, but the problem is the American Marine who returns fire, a building collapses, and innocents are crushed? The human-rights crowd needs to speak up, and this time not about the Americans, but for the Americans. That's "My Word."
Opinion is one thing, brazen lying is something else. Of course, our troglodyte apologists will assure us that this can't possibly be orchestrated. Bullsh*t. This message is consistent across the Conservative Liar spectrum, from Rush Limbaugh down to the local talk radio liars.
Sadly, the trailer park republicans are just stupid enough to believe this crap.
Amnesty International released their statement at 1:36pm and as of 4:15pm they hadn't listed it on their website. Gibson's show airs at 5:00. Is it live or pre-recorded? I don't know, but to call this "brazen lying" is just stupid.
As for Human Right Watch. No timestamp, but this is just a great message, you can really feel their compassion for the troops:
[link to hrw.org]
That makes everything okay, doesn't it? I'm sure Gibson issued a retraction as soon as he realized that he had erred.
GMAFB
But my point is, HRW apparently doesn't have time to actually look into the story about the brutal torture of these troops. However, on other issues, in fact any other issue, they can.
HRW: "Iraq: Insurgents Commit War Crimes"
"Yesterday’s recovery of the bodies of two U.S. soldiers in Iraq, reportedly with signs of torture, highlights the serious violations of international humanitarian law (laws of war) committed by insurgent groups in Iraq, Human Rights Watch said today. All combatants in Iraq are subject to attack. But captured combatants must be treated humanely. Torture and other cruel treatment, as well as summarily executing a captured combatant, are war crimes."
HRW: "U.S.: Supreme Court Allows Challenges to Lethal Injections"
Prisoners Claim Execution Method Risks Excruciating Pain
(New York, June 12, 2006) – The Supreme Court ruling today on lethal injections will allow death row inmates to challenge an execution method that is less humane than it appears, Human Rights Watch said today. The court ruled unanimously that condemned prisoners can challenge the humaneness of the lethal series of chemicals that will be used to execute them. “Prisoners will now be able to challenge state use of a three-drug concoction that may amount to cruel punishment,” said Sarah Tofte, coauthor of the recent Human Rights Watch report, “So Long As They Die: Lethal Injections in the United States.” “As these cases reveal the risk of excruciating pain in lethal injection procedures, states may come to realize that any method of execution is cruel and unusual.”
Lethal injection executions are virtually the only form of execution used to kill prisoners in the United States. Of the 1,026 executions since 1976, 858 were by lethal injection. Every execution in 2005 was by lethal injection.
Mounting evidence suggests at least some prisoners may have suffered horribly before they died, awake and wracked by pain but unable to move to let anybody know, Human Rights Watch said in its April 2006 report. Logs from six recent executions in California reveal that prisoners’ chests were still moving regularly up and down long after the anesthetic in the three-drug protocol should have stopped their breathing – suggesting they were awake and suffering. Toxicology reports from executions in North Carolina also suggest some prisoners had been inadequately anesthetized.
Dr. Jay Chapman, an Oklahoma medical examiner with no pharmacology experience, invented the lethal injection protocol in 1977 without doing any research. The three-drug sequence he devised is now used in all 37 lethal injection states; Nebraska executes prisoners by electrocution.
Under the protocol, the condemned prisoner is strapped to a gurney and injected first with a massive dose of the anesthetic sodium pentothal, which should render him unconscious. Next comes pancuronium bromide, a drug that paralyzes voluntary muscles, including the lungs and diaphragm, but leaves a conscious prisoner able to experience pain. Then potassium chloride brings swift cardiac arrest.
Potassium chloride is known to be so painful that U.S. veterinarian guidelines prohibit its use on domestic animals unless the vet first ensures they are deeply unconscious. No such safeguards are routinely observed for lethal injection executions.
“It’s clear that more care is taken in the U.S. for killing dogs than for killing prisoners,” Tofte said.
The executioners, normally corrections officers rather than medical staff, stay behind a wall injecting drugs into IV tubes, and cannot necessarily see the prisoner. No one makes sure the prisoner is unconscious after the anesthetic is administered; if he is not, he will be aware of suffocating from the pancuronium bromide and will feel the fiery pain of potassium chloride coursing through his veins to his heart.
Human Rights Watch opposes capital punishment in all circumstances and calls for its abolition. But until the 38 death penalty states and the federal government abolish capital punishment, international human rights law requires them to ensure they have developed a method of execution that will reduce, to the greatest extent possible, the condemned prisoner’s risk of mental or physical pain and suffering.
“Judges will no longer be able to dismiss the prisoners’ challenges to lethal injection protocols as frivolous stalling tactics,” Tofte said. “Even those convicted of the most heinous crimes are entitled to humane treatment.”
Really shows you were they stand on the issue.
This bogus talking point is getting tiresome. Rush Limbaugh and his pet parrots have fabricated this to beat up liberals.
Let's break it down...
Why don't liberals complain as loudly about the enemy's barbarous actions? Well, could it be that we don't think rhetoric will do any good? If they are truly barbarians, they will commit barbarous acts. All we can do is hunt them down and try to kill them...and the U.S. military is doing that already. Limbaugh actually undercut himself, which he often does, when arguing a different point. He said that "terrorists will do what terrorists do, no matter what we do or say". Of course, that contradicts most of the Right's rhetoric about "emboldening the enemy", but he found it useful at the time, and his audience isn't likely to catch the contradiction.
Second, why do liberals criticize our own failings?
Could it be that we know that the U.S. can do better, and that we CAN actually effect change from within? Could it be that we have set ourselves up as morally superior to the terrorists, and that turning a blind eye if our own troops commit war crimes will undermine our moral authority?
I know, it's easier to say that Liberals hate America and want us to lose. When you say that, you are LYING.
If you take that frame of mind, why continue to try and find instances of "conservative misinformation"? Obviously your rhetoric isn't doing any good. Fox News continues to dominate every other cable news channel. Maybe your attempts are in vain and you should just give up.
And miss out on all this sparkling conversation with people who take themselves way too seriously? Not on your life.
Maybe you're seeing the truth.
Personally, I try not to take myself too seriously, but I do take the actions of terrorists seriously.
I just think it's awfully narrow minded to say it doesn't matter that groups who are supposed to be for human rights to (figuratively) toss a penny in the collection plate for dead soldiers, and then lay crisp one hundred dollar bill into all of the others.
I don't know which of Rush's talking points you're regurgitating now. What collection plates are you talking about? Let's take a look at how the Bushies have funded veterans benefits, and then talk to me about "supporting the troops"?
I'm not talking about donations. It was an anology for the coverage these groups give the troops versus what they give other causes.
Are you really that encased by your hatred for the right that you don't even read the posts, or consider the context of my previous posts?
But rejected as lame. Still not sure who "all the others" are. If you mean their other causes, I think it safe to say they speak up for those who have no other advocates. American soldiers have plenty of advocates. We do support the troops, and are horrified when they are mutilated and killed. This notion that we don't protest enough is just more bullsh*t from the Right.
You conservatives must feel real smug with your assumption that some of us must hate the troops because we do not love Bush and the mess he is making. It sure makes it easy to shut your mind to the idea that this war has never been fought for the official reasons given and that those of us who felt the war was a mistake, do not take pleasure in seeing what has happened to our troops. Maybe that is how YOU would handle feeling vindication!
Gibson certainly feels comfortable assuming that the administration critics are monsterous traitors. This little fantasy makes everything so simple for his lazy mind. It seems that all he had to do was contact the human rights groups he is attacking in order to find out what their response was. No! instead he will build the straw man up that the war critics hate America and hate our troops. That way Gibson's closed mind can rest easy knowing that he can discount all those confusing facts that seem to keep popping up.
I know you guys don't like that, but that's the truth. Don't even go there with "I hate the troops" BS eithier- I'm stating a simple logical consequence of OUR OWN ACTIONS. When this administration vigorously defends torture as a legimate way to extract information and something that we CAN and WILL use, and to hell with the Geneva conventions 'cuz we're "at war, dammit", what else do you expect? We reap what we sow. And when we sow torture, well.... here we are.
We can hardly lead the way from the gutter. Whether Amesty International condemns it quickly enough for Gibson is absolutely irrelevant.
Great point. The lack of funding by this administration and this republican controlled congress for veterans’ benefits is appalling. It is why to call them pro-military is such a misnomer. They are pro-war; not pro-military. They will fund the bombing and the weaponry but not the protective gear or the aftercare for our fallen and wounded. I guess that is why you see more military families speaking out against the republicans then ever before.
A new variant of the equation...
Ratings + Fox News = facts.
Pathetic.
1. Support the war 2. ??? 3. Profit!
…even took us off topic a fair bit myself. But this is such an odd tangent I am having a problem locating your point. What does their stance on the death penalty and lethal injection have to do with anything? Or is your point that you don’t care that Gibson gave false information about their position on the torture of our troops because you don’t agree with their position on the death penalty so who cares what is said about them?
It was that in human rights groups, in this case HRW, they will give a huge amount of attention to say a story about the death penalty, but give a cold, dismissing note to the murder and brutal torture of our troops. Do yourself a favor, read other the posts for context, (I know it's difficult, but at least try, and think before you type.
Well the context was your original post. You posited it was inaccurate to call it a lie that Gibson said they were silent on condemning the torture of our soldiers. Then when it was pointed out to you that it was indeed a lie you changed gears and said that wasn’t your point. Now you clarify and say your new point (even though your first one was quite clear but unfortunately easily proven incorrect) is you didn’t feel their condemnation was passionate enough for your liking (and you used a totally unrelated comment to “prove” your position) so that somehow justified the lie Gibson told. I read your posts carefully I understand your context and obfuscation and I am simply pointing out the silliness of it. Now if you want to go off on a tangent to discuss how you don’t think there statement was passionate enough that’s one thing but to try and backtrack and change your point once it is proven incorrect is a little less the honest don’t ya think?
Knocks him out! Folks, that's gonna leave a MARK!
As Nerzog pointed out, why should they go on and on trying to get terrorists to stop torturing people? They mention it, but it's not like they can go to the terrorist congress and get the terrorist ways and means committee to consider a bi-terrorist bill denouncing the use of torture. They are spending their time on issues that they can change.
Really, be honest. What else can they say about the incident that would be of any value? If they said any more you and your ilk would complain that they are "using" the soldiers deaths to promote their own agenda. Sheesh.
That is the subtle point that these TROGLODYTES cannot wrap their brains around. Black and White thinking, once again.
Well at least condemn it. Read their article (if you can call it that). It was like standard legal notice.
This is my interpretation of them telling a father child son was killed:
"Hello I'm from the Human Rights Watch. Sir, your son was killed in Iraq by insurgents, I wanted to tell you that. Goodbye."
muy misspelglings
my mistake, my spelling and grammar in my previous post were incorrect. Forgive me please.
Do you think your president will attend those two boys' funerals? Maybe you should focus your vitriol on to the man that started this thing as opposed to those who try to prevent such actions. Your arguments are misguided and frankly, quite simplistic and narrowminded.
the denunciation of the torturious murder of our troops by the human rights groups is not enough for you. It still remains that Gibson completely failed to do his job and actually find out what the position of the human rights groups were before he denounced them.
and while we are at the subject of "standard legal notice" language, how about the term "collateral damage" when applied to civilians. I am sure that one goes over well too.
"they" were suppose to be better than "us". More compassionate and caring. Especially since we're talking about a "human rights group". I would think they would have more respect than that. Obviously only when dealing with the terrorists. And you all here seem to acknowledge that.
What I can't understand is why you are all taking this personally. I'm not attacking any of you personally. However, you take it as such, maybe that says should signify something more about yourselves.
Don Rumsfeld -- signed by autopen.
But the death penalty argument is a lot more complex than torture. Torture is evil, the soldiers were tortured. Other than repeating yourself what more needs be said? The death penatly is LEGAL, it has precedence as being a decent alternative if you want to dispute that it takes more than just SAYING its not civilized or acceptable thats just making an assertion many would disagree with. I assume any decent person would agree that torture is evil.
If you don't like brazen lying how about brazenly making up facts. If Gibson wanted to rant during his MY Word segment about these groups, and their position on this issue, the appropriate thing to do would be contact them and find out if they have a position and if they have released a statement. At which time he would have been notified that they have and could have obtained a copy of the statement. Simple due diligence would have avoided him giving the wrong information out to the public during his rant.
In days past, a man's word was his bond. John Gibson makes it clear that his word isn't worth the teleprompter screen that projects the lies he spews at his audience.
News=Propaganda. This is no accident. The Republicans have systematically removed the laws which kept this from happening. Now we have a handful of corporations owning the media, and we can no longer trust what we hear. They can lie and misinform all they want, but if they inadvertently show a boob for a fraction of a second, they get fined half a million dollars. Thank you, troglodytes!
Sean Hannity is even on record praising "advocacy journalism", which is nothing more than propaganda. They know that their policies won't stand the light of investigative journalism, so they have done their best to discredit such reporting and stamp it out.
May they rot in hell.
"Sadly, the trailer park republicans..."
I agree with you about the use/abuse of MSM as a disinformation machine in the hands of the conservatives in power. Having said that, do you have to play with class-based stereotypes in order to make your points? Fox News misinforms people from all the different socioeconomic strata. All you did is reinforce other stereotypes about "liberal elites" when you posted that comment.
The people that I know that live in trailers are much more complex than you give them credit for, much more intelligent than you give them credit for, and much more liberal than you give them credit for.
It is so hypocritical to use these terms. It is the very definition of elitism. And it is incorrect any way. The devout right-winger sitting in his "corner office" will believe the lies just as easily because they will not question what they want to believe. I think these right-wingers don’t bother to fact check because they are so immersed into a belief in their own creation—the liberal stereotype.
However, the elite Republicans sitting in the corner office are few in number. And, I really don't think they believe half the crap these bozos put out. They know it's propaganda, but it helps keep the Republicans in power, and that is good for the Country Club Republican's wallet.
The Trailer Park Troglodytes are the base for the Republican party, especially in the South. These are the Religious, hyper Jingoistic fanatics to whom this rhetoric is aimed. These are the fools that run drooling to the polls, torches and pitchforks in hand, to vote against Gay Marriage and Flag Burning. Meanwhile, the thieves they put in office are robbing the country blind.
Of course it's not all that simple. Some of the Republican elite DO believe this garbage; they're just as dumb as the Evangelicals. And, not all Evangelicals are dumb; Pat Robertson knows that all this stuff is just crap, but it has made him filthy rich, so why stop?
I think, however, that you will find these "stereotypes" based on general truth.
As for what the Republicans think of us; how naive can you be? Do you really think that being nice to these people will help? The moderates are not in control of the GOP. Listen to Rush Limbaugh for a few days if you can stand it. These people already hate us and think that we want to destroy America. What are they going to believe; your logical, reasonable arguments, or Rush's self-affirming bullsh*t. You get three guesses.
Use facts and logic to back them into corners, and when they sling insults at you, call them on it and point out that their positions must be very weak if they need to resort to name calling. We're supposed to be better than that.
When Gibson lies, by all means call him a liar. When someone parrots Gibson, call them on that. When religious zealots make hypocritical statements about muslim extremists, let them have it. Taking cheapshots at someone's home just gets all your other arguments dismissed. Do you want the "trailer trash" to see your point of view and maybe change their minds or do you just want to prove your superiority?
Part of the reason that faux news has a following in the poorer strata of our culture is that faux news plays on the out of touch, chardonnay sipping, brie eating liberal elite stereotype that your trailer park comment reinforces.
And you're fooling yourself if you think logic will work on these people. Their economic status is really beside the point, except that it makes their votes for elitist Social Darwinists seem all the more amazing. No, my friend, these people believe that the world is only 6,000 years old, that the Grand Canyon was formed by Noah's flood, and that Jesus is going to snatch them up to heaven at any minute. No amount of logic is going to persuade them to vote Democratic. Trust me, my sister in law is one of them.
Are you saying that i secretly or unconsciously think all people who live in trailers are right wing troglodytes? cuz that's what the Shakespeare allusion means.
Second off, my sister lives in a trailer, she's a middle school band teacher, her husband is a dairy farmer. They both vote DEM, and both are vocal about the damage that the bushies are doing to this country. "take my word for it." we can both dig up anecdotal "evidence" to support our claims.
Third off, address their arguments, not their abodes. If you can't change someone's mind with logic and evidence what makes you think that making fun of them will work?
Using facts and logic to back them into a corner doesn't work, as you must have observed if you've been reading this forum for any length of time. They'll simply say "there is no corner" and continue to bombard you with lies.
Nerzog, assuming that all conservatives are as bullheaded and blind to reality as the repubs and trolls who post here (with sincere apologies to Jeter2, right on and other devil's advocates who play here) makes just about as much sense as assuming that all people who live in trailerparks are rightwing bible thumping loonies who are waiting for the rapture. or that all blacks are lazy or that all hispanics are mexican illegal aliens, or that 4 out if 5 dentists chew Dentine gum.
you can have the last word, this digression has gone far enough.
ps. it is safe to assume that all Faux News bobble heads are chickenhawk cowards who are actively working to destroy democracy in all it's forms.
Apparently, you have a hangup about the use of "trailer park". I'm truly sorry if that offends you, but I find the rhetorical device "trailer park troglodytes" too much fun to abandon. As with most rhetorical devices, it is not meant to be taken literally. Kind of like Rush's "drive by media". Are they all in cars? Do they really just "drive by"?
As for the audience, my invective IS aimed at the Trolls. If that makes me a troll, then I can live with it. The moderates you are trying to persuade with your admirable approach are not reading this website. Most of them don't even know it exists. The only way you can reach them is through mass media, which is owned b the Country Club Troglodytes. Good luck with that.
…to abandon no matter how incorrect and offensive it may be then please carry on. Sorry for interupting to point out the misinformation you were giving out. By the way isn’t this pretty much how Coulter and crew defend their offensive comments…they enjoy the reactions it gets so who cares if it is inaccurate or offensive. Just something to think about.
But Ann Coulter is a nationally syndicated best selling Author. I'm not. My rhetoric is based on truth. You can deny it all you want, but a large percentage, perhaps a majority, of the Republican base is made up of lower income white evangelicals. The Republicans recognize this and fabricate their rhetoric accordingly. This base is slavishly loyal to the Republicans, and WILL NOT CHANGE THEIR VOTES. I will ridicule them for this; if you find that offensive, don't look.
And painted as cowards and wimps. I'm with Nerzog here- the time for nice, civilized debate has long passed, the GOP strangled it. America doesn’t seem to respect this kind of debate any longer. It sucks, but it's the truth. This GOP isn't about following the rules of civility, as we all know. They are about WINNING AT ALL COSTS, cheating if necessary. We need to understand this if we have any intention of beating them and regaining control of this disaster. Not to say that we have to cheat, just that we need to understand that THEY will, and will do much more to win.
Think of it this way- when one team knows, respects, and follows the rules of the game, but the other team DOES NOT, at all, and does WHATEVER they like with no regard for any rules (and no ref in sight) which side is at a disadvantage?
Look, if we can EVER take back the majority, then we can reframe and reset the way things are. If we want to do THAT, we need to play the game as it is now- dirty, and with no rules; bare-knuckled street fighting, using trash-cans, bottles, or whatever else happens to be lying around. Otherwise, we'll lose again.
Sure, we can say "we're better" in defeat, but what's that gotten us in the last 12 years? What's more important: Re-gaining control of the country and stopping the runaway train to destruction, or being "better"? Sorry, I just don't buy that we can be both, not in THIS atmosphere that the GOP has thoroughly poisoned. At another point in history, absolutely. But not now.
I understand your point of trying to be better, I really do, but at some point we have to wake up and play the game to WIN, whatever the rules may be, however distasteful we may find the game. We simply cannot afford to lose again, or we as a country are DONE.
That’s how I see it, anyhow.
First off don’t know what you are talking about as far as what Republicans think of us and my naiveté in that regard. I didn’t say anything about that. So I can’t really respond to that point. However you really compounded your error with this rant about “the trailer park…” I come from an extremely well-to-do area, not saying this for any reason other then to share with you that these well educated, prominently placed and wealthy people are no less intelligently stunted when it comes to these issues. I have heard some of the most offensive bigotry and racism come from these people. Their views are not based on their socioeconomic status or where they live…period. It is a sign of the person and not their economic and social status; to say otherwise is bigoted elitism. I am not saying you are a bigoted elitist but your comments here are.
...On the spear of literal interpretation. I'm amazed at all this appoplexy over the phrase "trailer park". Maybe I need to explain it. Trailer Park is a common slang phrase used to insult lower income white people. (I know they don't all live in trailers) I didn't invent it, it's part of the language. Yes, I realize that not all poor white people vote Republican. However, here in the South, there is a significant demographic segment of lower income evangelicals, mostly white, who will vote Republican because of issues like abortion, prayer in school, gay marriage, teaching evolution in school, etc. They do this despite the fact that Republican policies DO NOT HELP THEM economically. That is why I usually throw in the word "Troglodytes", to distinguish them from the lower income Democrats.
Now, for your rich Republican friends; that makes perfect sense. I know several myself. Some of them actually believe all the Christofascist garbage and vote Republican for the same reason as the Trailer Park Troglodytes. Many are just modern day Archie Bunkers who have made some money, and find their bigotry justified by Republican Rhetoric. In any case, it makes a little more sense for them to vote Republican, because they get a tax cut out of the deal.
There, I hope this helps.
Maybe this point is too subtle...I don't ridicule these people for being poor; I ridicule them for being stupid. I also ridicule the rich idiots that vote Republican, but at least they have a logical, economic reason for doing so.
If pointing this out makes me a bigot, so be it. At least I'm not trying to infuse my bigotry into the U.S. Constitution.
I was quite specific in saying I was calling the comments bigoted elitism not you. I don’t know you so how can I make that accusation. I just read your comments and am characterizing the words not the person in this case. I understand your point about the stupidity of some of these devout right-wingers. I applaud your efforts to point it out for all to see. My only problem was how you chose to classify them as “trailer trash”. I felt it was not only offensive but inaccurate because it is not a result of them living in a trailer; in fact most don’t. I do understand that you are using a slang term but many slang terms are offensive because they are rooted in some form of stereotyping bigotry. I also thought the slang marginalized your entire position and made it easily dismissed even though some of your points are quite valid. I am aware that you probably could care less what I think and I’m sure you have complaints about my approach but this is a forum open to discussion and debate and your comments struck me so I opined on them…nothing personal.
As I explained before, I know that all right wing nuts are not "trailer trash". But many of them are, and they're the ones at whom my ire was aimed at that particular moment. Again, I don't disdain them for their poverty...unlike my right-wing counterparts, I don't see poverty as a character flaw. I disdain them for their religion-induced stupidity, which I DO see as a character flaw.
But, I guess I'm getting what I deserve. I jumped a troglodyte earlier for using a "collection plate" analogy. What goes around comes around, I guess.
A lot of trailer park dwellers are good democrats...hard working, honest people who really just want to get by, and could care less about politics. To these people I apologize for lumping them in with their Christofascist neighbors.
Quite frankly, I know some people living in large homes in wealthy neighborhoods who think alot less than some "trailer park" people I've known.
Speaking of the non-thinking, in the July 2006 Scientific American, Michael Shermer writes about the recently published results of a study of individuals with "strong" political leaning - Republican or Democrat - during the 2004 presidential debates. The subjects were asked to assess contradictory statements made by each candidate while monitored via fMRI. Naturally, the subjects spoke favorably of their own party's candidate while hammering the other. But here's the punchline of the study as noted by Shermer...
The neuroimaging results [of the subjects], however, revealed that the part of the brainmost associated with reasoning - the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex - was quiescent.
What were the active parts? Those involved with emotion, conflict resolution, moral accountability and reward/pleasure.
The part above from "The neuroimaging results..." through "...was quiescent" should be in quotes, with credit to Mr Shermer.
And it probably tells us that we're wasting our time with logic, since those opinions aren't BASED in logic, but emotion.
*forehead smack* No WONDER I can't make any headway with the Republicans I know.... "Don't confuse me with the FACTS, darnit!"
could that be a Fruedian slip on his part?
His paycheck does say Fox News.
It's interesting that the right is attacking the very same groups whose reports they used to justify the Iraq invasion.
My word is that Gibson is a knucklehead. He doesn't care about the truth. Someone had it right about O'Reilly and I think it's beginning to apply to the rest of the knuckleheads at FOX News. O'Reilly can't bring himself to criticize the administration and the man he's been a cheerleader for so long, so he has to blame someone else, even if he has to fabricate the reason. Gibson can't face the fact that the current administration is mucking up everything at home and abroad, because he's been such a mouthpiece (insert your own pun here) championing that group.
It doesn't matter if Huamn Rights Watch or Amnesty International condemned the deaths of the two soldiers either before or after Hair Helmet Head's show is produced and aired.
His was just another attack on the human rights groups because they were quick to protest American attrocities. That automatically puts them in the category as "the enemy" in the mind of Gibson and his ilk
"The silence from the human rights groups is grotesque"
Take your fingers out of your ears and stop chanting, "I can't hear you, I can't hear you..." and you might be surprised what they are actually saying.