printAdmittedly, it didn’t take much to revive the moribund CNN slot which had been occupied for decades by the braindead Larry King. Piers Morgan is a lefty, but for a bloke who works for CNN—and does lightweight stuff—Piers does a good interview. (I mean, contrast Morgan with the mindless Anderson Cooper!)
And boy-oh-boy, did Mr. Morgan, politely yet emphatically, expose Madam Christine O’Donnell’s high-and-mighty antics. The former Republican candidate for Senate in Delaware appeared on “Piers Morgan Tonight” to promote a book (which some major publisher, sadly, found worth publishing). O’Donnell being O’Donnell, she refused to answer a question about a topic she discussed in the very book her host had had the courtesy to read. (I give Piers props for that; it must have been torture.)
Speaking of mindless and narcissism, here Cooper goes into paroxysm of laughter over a an overwritten spoof he or one of his side kicks wrote about actor “Gerard Depardieu’s [recent]… airplane peeing incident.” I find the Keith Obermann-like bloated text from which Cooper was reading far more offensive that the actor’s behavior (which you just know had to be provoked by the American airline on which he was flying).
That’s funny; I really like Anderson Cooper, but can’t stand Piers Morgan.
I got a different perspective on O’Donnell myself. I haven’t read her book or intend to; however, she went on the program to promote her book. However, just as Mr. Gottfield took exception to the matter of race in your book, this interviewer decided to destroy her book sales by riding her on a PC item, homosexual marriage. Whereas, we have a comments section on Taki, and your blog to defend your book, no such thing exists on that tv show. She had no choice but to leave. Its like the girl on a date and when the boy puts his hands in the wrong place and refused to keep them to himself, she has not choice but to leave or allow the boy to have his way. Don’t you just know how he would rape her in public if she had been gracious enough to let him discuss ‘gay marriage.’ To be completely honest, she should not have expected him to be honest and meet his agreement to only discuss the book in general. I haven’t met a ‘fair’ democrat in twenty years.
[You wrote: “However, just as Mr. Gottfried took exception to the matter of race in your book…” Dr. Gottfried did no such thing. He conjured Jewy-related factoids that were nowhere in my book. He conjured an angle that was not in my book. Had you read my book—or refreshed you memory by looking at the text—you’d see that your analogy above doesn’t hold. Feel free to defend this ditz of a woman for refusing to answer an annoying question about a topic she addressed in her book. However, comparing her behavior to the review of my book by a “friend,” who conjured things that were not in my book, or to my response thereto, doesn’t advance your argument.—IM]
In a sense, I don’t understand “political” social conservatives. I can understand fighting for personal sovereignty such as private schools to keep kids away for the mindless blather in government schools (although the sad part is that the “private” and “religious” schools are often as mindlessly trendy but with possibly less disciplinary problems). But why expect any politician – Yeehaw Huck, McCain, Obama, Nixon, Clinton, Reagan to be some sort of Messianic moral cleansing agent seems to escape me. Why do we need “Socialism for the Soul”??
A sovereign people should take responsibility for their economic life and their moral life (and afterlife???)
@Myron Pauli 08.18.11 7:46 pm
”why expect any politician – Yeehaw Huck, McCain, Obama, Nixon, Clinton, Reagan to be some sort of Messianic moral cleansing agent”
You grossly overstate the expectations of the ‘moral majority’ (if is still is a majority) and the Right as awaiting a messiah; ‘messiahs’ are solely the expectation of the irreligious Left.
What is expected by the Right and social conservatives is that leaders/politicians oppose government inserting itself antithetically into matters of longstanding and deep moral significance held to with conviction of the majority and the tradition of millennia, marriage, as an example. If government means to expand the franchise of ‘moral’ and ‘legitimate’, and even more dangerously insist citizens be legally bound to accept loosed morals, then it becomes the responsibility of citizens to respond politically. It is not a wish to impose morality; it is a wish that the moral underpinnings of a Judeo/Christian civilization not be imposed upon, or as is increasingly evident – removed.
Morality should not be a concern of government. Frankly, if Barney Frank wants to marry Liberace or call his toaster “wife” doesn’t mean that I will go out and do the same. But then I fail to understand why the government needs to get into some silliness like the marriage business in the first place. Adults can sign contracts (and can even agree to use a church, synagogue or – politically incorrect – mosque for arbitration if they want) and most of these “culture war” issues appear to be one side trying to achieve some “official endorsement”.