DOCSLIB.ORG

How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) The World According to ANN COULTER How to Talk to a Liberal Historically, the best way to convert liberals is to have them move out of their parents' home, get a job, and start paying taxes. But if this doesn't work, you might have to actually argue with a liberal. This is not for the faint of heart. It is important to remember that when arguing with liberals, you are always within inches of the "Arab street." Liberals traffic in shouting and demagogy. In a public setting, they will work themselves into a dervish-like trance and start incanting inanities: "BUSH LIED, KIDS DIED!" "RACIST!" "FASCIST!" "FIRE RUMSFELD!" "HALLIBURTON!" Fortunately, the street performers usually punch themselves out eventually and are taken back to their parents' house. Also resembling the Arab street, liberals are chock-full of conspiracy theories. They invoke weird personal obsessions like a conversational deus ex machina to trump all facts. You think you're talking about the war in Iraq and suddenly you start getting a disquisition on Nixon, oil, the neoconservatives, Vietnam (Tom Hayden discusses gang violence in Los Angeles as it relates to Vietnam), or whether Bill O'Reilly's former show, Inside Edition, won the Peabody or the Peanuckle Award. This is because liberals, as opposed to sentient creatures, have a finite number of memorized talking points, which they periodically try to shoehorn into unrelated events, such as when Nancy Pelosi opposed the first Gulf war in 1991 on the grounds that it would cause environmental damage in Kuwait. Oddly enough, about half of liberal conspiracy theories involve the Jews. So be prepared for that. A major impediment to arguing with liberals is: They refuse to argue. Liberals' idea of a battle of wits is to say "Bush lied!" in front of adoring college audiences and be wildly applauded for their courage. They're like hack road comics who coax a cheap round of applause out of audiences by declaring, "I just quit smoking!" or "My wife just had a baby!" Without a Roman Coliseum-style audience to give them standing ovations for every idiotic utterance, you get the liberal disappearing act. At a loss whenever anyone argues back, liberals have a number of stratagems to prevent conservatives from talking. They shout conservatives down; unplug reporters' microphones; edit conservatives' answers in pre-taped TV shows (Hardball) to make the conservative look like a monkey; burn student newspapers; and heckle conservative speakers. When John Stossel went to Brown University for a report on "date rape," he was mobbed by angry protesters chanting, "Rape is not TV hype!" - and then his microphone cord was unplugged by an angry student. College dropout Michael Moore put a microphone in Republican Congressman Mark Kennedy's face and asked for his help in getting more members of Congress to send their own family members to fight the war on terror. Kennedy replied that he would love to and that he already had two nephews in the military, one on his way to Afghanistan. Moore's documentary shows Kennedy's image - but cuts his answer from the film. There is probably no conservative student newspaper in the country that has not been trashed or burned by liberals. Meanwhile, there is no known instance of College Republicans burning or trashing liberal student newspapers. To the contrary, conservatives get a kick out of watching liberals try to thrash their way to a coherent argument ("BUSH LIED, KIDS DIED!"). In fact, if it weren't for conservatives with a taste for schadenfreude, literally no one would be listening to Air America - assuming it's still on the air by the time this book hits the stores. Life was much better for liberals when there were only three TV stations airing precious little news. Back in the pre-cable news days, public political debate consisted exclusively of liberal Democrats debating radical Democrats. Now that conservatives are physically present on cable news, liberals are terrified they might have to respond to a conservative point, so liberals filibuster and interrupt, hoping to never hear it. Turn on your TV right now and you'll see a liberal - probably Julian Epstein - trying to filibuster his way out of having to respond to a conservative. If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you said - unless you were, in fact, talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It's like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder. Inasmuch as liberals can only win arguments when no one is allowed to argue back, they enjoy creating fictional worlds in movies and on TV where liberals finally get to win. Remember the Andy Hardy movies? Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland would be headed for disaster - until Andy shouted out, "I tell you what! Let's put on a play!" With liberals, it's "We're losing on the facts! Let's make a movie!" In movies, liberals are invariably morally and intellectually superior. They are also good-looking, witty, compassionate, and always right - basically Bob Byrd, Jerry Nadler, Al Franken, and Hillary Clinton rolled into one adorable bunch. Only in Hollywood is Robert Redford considered a dead ringer for Bob Woodward, Emma Thompson for Hillary Clinton, Dustin Hoffman for Carl Bernstein, and Andy Garcia for Al Franken. Typically, Republicans are played by hard-boiled B-list types whose only other roles are as cruel high school football coaches or rogue army drill instructors. Reflect on the fact that Anthony Hopkins played both Nixon and Hannibal Lecter. The only policemen in the universe who are not aware that "cop-killer bullets" have never killed a cop are the ones on Law & Order. Only in liberal fantasy movies like Coming Home is a patriotic hawk the impotent klutz who shoots himself in the foot, and the liberal dove the sexually potent one. Only in Hollywood could a sitcom that parodies a U.S. president and is titled There's My Bush be about George Bush rather than Bill Clinton. (The show was unceremoniously and quietly canceled because of low ratings.) In movies, we always learn that there is NO REASON, EVER, to fight a war. Unless the Earth is invaded by aliens from outer space with huge scary spaceships and death rays and men of all races and nationalities can unite against a common enemy - like in Independence Day. So if the Earth is ever invaded by hostile aliens from outer space, you won't have to ask liberals twice to take up arms in defense of Planet Earth. It was inevitable, given what liberals value, that on the popular sitcom Friends beautiful actresses would be depicted hyperventilating over George Stephanopoulos's fictional manhood when he drops his fictional towel. Only in the bizarro world of Hollywood can such a harmless little chap as George exude massive sexual potency. On HGTV, the female host of What Not to Wear leeringly jokes about seeing Bill Clinton in a Speedo. In real life, Monica Lewinsky can be heard on tape describing Clinton's executive branch thus: "Think of a thumb." No wonder liberals prefer the world of make- believe. In addition to all Oliver Stone movies and all Michael Moore documentaries (Oliver Stone Without the Talent!), an extremely abbreviated list of liberal fantasy movies includes: The Day After Tomorrow (not to be confused with Next Friday, starring Ice Cube) - message: LIBERALS ARE RIGHT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING! The hyper-silly disaster epic is based on a book coauthored by UFO/ black-helicopter/the-CIA-is-beaming-microwaves-into-my-teeth-fillings guru and late-night AM radio maven Art Bell. The Cider House Rules - message: LIBERALS ARE RIGHT ABOUT ABORTION! Kindly small-town abortionist (Michael Caine) just wants to help unwed pregnant girls. Disaster strikes when it turns out the young lad taking over Caine s practice (Tobey Maguire) is opposed to abortion because it's "wrong." The lad soon learns the error of his ways after a black teenaged girl from a family of apple pickers is raped and impregnated by her own father and needs an abortion. (You can't remind people too often that most women having abortions were raped by their own fathers.) This film was a veritable ode to moral relativism and the hideous notion that there are no rules save the ones we make up ourselves as we go along. Shockingly, it only won a single Oscar. The American President - message: DEMOCRATS WILL VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCES EVEN IF IT HURTS THEM POLITICALLY AND ALL REPUBLICANS EVER DO is CALL PEOPLE NAMES. In this movie, Michael Douglas plays Bill Clinton as Clinton would like to be - handsome, thin, courageous, liberal, and widowed. The president's top Republican adversary goes on national TV and calls the president's girlfriend a "whore." So it's a plausible story. Dave - message: LIBERALS ARE RIGHT ABOUT FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE HOMELESS! Only the president can put an end to homelessness, and he's got to cut 1500 million in pork from the discretionary budget to do so. He finds the money by poring over the entire federal budget (during an "all-nighter") with the help of his tax guy, played by Charles Grodin. (Of course, to do that, the president would need a line-item veto. Now which party, do you suppose, supports a line-item veto and which opposes it?) Of the dozens and dozens of nonfiction books to come out about the Clinton presidency, only one was made into a movie: The Hunting of the President, by fanatical Clinton apologists Joe Conason and Gene Lyons.
Recommended publications
  • Was Ann Coulter Right? Some Realism About “Minimalism”

    Was Ann Coulter Right? Some Realism About “Minimalism”

    AMLR.V5I1.PRESSER.POSTPROOFLAYOUT.0511 9/16/2008 3:21:27 PM Copyright © 2007 Ave Maria Law Review WAS ANN COULTER RIGHT? SOME REALISM ABOUT “MINIMALISM” Stephen B. Presser † INTRODUCTION Ever since the Warren Court rewrote much of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, there has been a debate within legal academia about the legitimacy of this judicial law making.1 Very little popular attention was paid, at least in the last several decades, to this problem. More recently, however, the issue of the legitimacy of judicial law making has begun to enter the realm of partisan popular debate. This is due to the fact that Republicans controlled the White House for six years and a majority in the Senate for almost all of that time, that they have announced, as it were, a program of picking judges committed to adjudication rather than legislation, and finally, that the Democrats have, just as vigorously, resisted Republican efforts. Cass Sunstein, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School,2 and now a visiting professor at Harvard Law School,3 has written a provocative book purporting to be a popular, yet scholarly critique of the sort of judges President George W. Bush has announced that he would like to appoint. Is Sunstein’s effort an objective undertaking, or is it partisan politics with a thin academic veneer? If Sunstein’s work (and that of others on the Left in the † Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History, Northwestern University School of Law; Professor of Business Law, J. L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University; Legal Affairs Editor, Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.
  • Ed 382 185 Title Institution Pub Date Note Available From

    Ed 382 185 Title Institution Pub Date Note Available From

    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 382 185 IR 017 126 TITLE CNN Newsroom Classroom Guirles. May 1-31, 1995. INSTITUTION Cable News Network, Atlanta, GA.; Turner Educational Services, Inc., Atlanta, GA. PUB DATE 95 NOTE 90p.; Videos of the broadcasts can be ordered from CNN. AVAILABLE FROMAvailable electronically through gopher at: [email protected]. PUB TYPE Guides Classroom Use Teaching Guides (For Teacher) (052) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC04 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Cable Television; *Class Activities; *Current Events; Discussion (Teaching Technique); *Educational Television; Elementary Secondary Education; *News Media; Programming (Broadcast); *Social Studies IDENTIFIERS Cable News Network; *CNN Newsroom ABSTRACT These classroom guides for the daily CNN (Cable News Network) Newsroom broadcasts for the month of May provide program rundowns, suggestions for class activities and discussion, student handouts, and a list of related news terms. Topics covered by the guide include:(1) security systems and security at the Olympics, drawing to scale, civil war in Algeria, Sri Lankan tea and tea tasting, heart disease/heart health, kinds of news stories, and create-a-headline (May 1-5);(2) blue screen technology and virtual reality, 50th anniversary of V-E Day, Nazi Germany,Clinton/Yeltsin meeting, African-American summit, a "Marshall Plan" for Africa's economic recovery, trapping termites, parenthood, and perspectives on V-E Day (May 8-12); (3) experimental/future transportation, human diseases, new Zulu wars, first year of the Mandela administration, pet ownership,
  • Not a Question of If, but When

    Not a Question of If, but When

    PROLOGUE NOT A QUESTION OF IF, BUT WHEN IN THE INFORMATION AGE, THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF PEOPLE, TWO KINDS OF INSTITUTIONS, two kinds of organizations: those who have been hit with a crisis and those who haven’t been around very long. Whether you are a multinational corporation such as BP responding to oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico or the neighborhood restaurant dealing with a bad Yelp review, confronting a crisis is not a question of if but of when. And of those who have looked a great crisis squarely in the eye, there are similarly two kinds of people, two kinds of institutions, two kinds of organizations: Those who were able to be masters of their disasters, and those who failed. The landscape is dotted with a few winners but crowded with many losers who simply did not have what it took to survive the crisis. For every Bill Clinton—who left office with the highest presidential job approval rating in history despite having been impeached—there are dis- graced former politicians like Gary Hart and John Edwards. For every Goldman Sachs—which, despite being widely portrayed in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown as a pack of real-life Gordon Gekkos sav- agely trouncing all in their path in the service of the bottom line, has contin- ued to have great success—there are companies like Lehman Brothers, Enron, and Arthur Andersen, consigned to the ash heap of Wall Street. For every franchise athlete like Yankee’s star Alex Rodriguez—who in 2009 went from being the spring training goat of ridicule over revelations about his use of performance-enhancing drugs to being the 2009 World Se- ries hero—there are disgraced former superstars like Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire.
  • Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty's Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism

    Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty's Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism

    Ash Center Occasional Papers Tony Saich, Series Editor Something Has Cracked: Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty’s Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism Joshua Forstenzer University of Sheffield (UK) July 2018 Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center Occasional Papers Series Series Editor Tony Saich Deputy Editor Jessica Engelman The Roy and Lila Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation advances excellence and innovation in governance and public policy through research, education, and public discussion. By training the very best leaders, developing powerful new ideas, and disseminating innovative solutions and institutional reforms, the Center’s goal is to meet the profound challenges facing the world’s citizens. The Ford Foundation is a founding donor of the Center. Additional information about the Ash Center is available at ash.harvard.edu. This research paper is one in a series funded by the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. The views expressed in the Ash Center Occasional Papers Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or of Harvard University. The papers in this series are intended to elicit feedback and to encourage debate on important public policy challenges. This paper is copyrighted by the author(s). It cannot be reproduced or reused without permission. Ash Center Occasional Papers Tony Saich, Series Editor Something Has Cracked: Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty’s Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism Joshua Forstenzer University of Sheffield (UK) July 2018 Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation Harvard Kennedy School Letter from the Editor The Roy and Lila Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation advances excellence and innovation in governance and public policy through research, education, and public discussion.
  • Trumpism on College Campuses

    Trumpism on College Campuses

    UC San Diego UC San Diego Previously Published Works Title Trumpism on College Campuses Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1d51s5hk Journal QUALITATIVE SOCIOLOGY, 43(2) ISSN 0162-0436 Authors Kidder, Jeffrey L Binder, Amy J Publication Date 2020-06-01 DOI 10.1007/s11133-020-09446-z Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Qualitative Sociology (2020) 43:145–163 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-020-09446-z Trumpism on College Campuses Jeffrey L. Kidder1 & Amy J. Binder 2 Published online: 1 February 2020 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020 Abstract In this paper, we report data from interviews with members of conservative political clubs at four flagship public universities. First, we categorize these students into three analytically distinct orientations regarding Donald Trump and his presidency (or what we call Trumpism). There are principled rejecters, true believers, and satisficed partisans. We argue that Trumpism is a disunifying symbol in our respondents’ self- narratives. Specifically, right-leaning collegians use Trumpism to draw distinctions over the appropriate meaning of conservatism. Second, we show how political clubs sort and shape orientations to Trumpism. As such, our work reveals how student-led groups can play a significant role in making different political discourses available on campuses and shaping the types of activism pursued by club members—both of which have potentially serious implications for the content and character of American democracy moving forward. Keywords Americanpolitics.Conservatism.Culture.Highereducation.Identity.Organizations Introduction Donald Trump, first as a candidate and now as the president, has been an exceptionally divisive force in American politics, even among conservatives who typically vote Republican.
  • 9/11 Report”), July 2, 2004, Pp

    9/11 Report”), July 2, 2004, Pp

    Final FM.1pp 7/17/04 5:25 PM Page i THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT Final FM.1pp 7/17/04 5:25 PM Page v CONTENTS List of Illustrations and Tables ix Member List xi Staff List xiii–xiv Preface xv 1. “WE HAVE SOME PLANES” 1 1.1 Inside the Four Flights 1 1.2 Improvising a Homeland Defense 14 1.3 National Crisis Management 35 2. THE FOUNDATION OF THE NEW TERRORISM 47 2.1 A Declaration of War 47 2.2 Bin Ladin’s Appeal in the Islamic World 48 2.3 The Rise of Bin Ladin and al Qaeda (1988–1992) 55 2.4 Building an Organization, Declaring War on the United States (1992–1996) 59 2.5 Al Qaeda’s Renewal in Afghanistan (1996–1998) 63 3. COUNTERTERRORISM EVOLVES 71 3.1 From the Old Terrorism to the New: The First World Trade Center Bombing 71 3.2 Adaptation—and Nonadaptation— ...in the Law Enforcement Community 73 3.3 . and in the Federal Aviation Administration 82 3.4 . and in the Intelligence Community 86 v Final FM.1pp 7/17/04 5:25 PM Page vi 3.5 . and in the State Department and the Defense Department 93 3.6 . and in the White House 98 3.7 . and in the Congress 102 4. RESPONSES TO AL QAEDA’S INITIAL ASSAULTS 108 4.1 Before the Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania 108 4.2 Crisis:August 1998 115 4.3 Diplomacy 121 4.4 Covert Action 126 4.5 Searching for Fresh Options 134 5.
  • Connection Is Greater Now Than Ever

    Connection Is Greater Now Than Ever

    THE NEED FOR CONNECTION IS GREATER NOW THAN EVER ANNUAL REPORT 2020 BOLD WITNESSES OF HOPE Dear Friends in Christ, This past year, I was honored to be chosen to 3 Being a Missionary During a Pandemic chair the USCCB Committee on Evangelization and Catechesis. This committee of bishops seeks to address the most pressing needs of 5 Farewell to SPO’s National Chaplain our time, most especially how do we share the life-transforming message of Jesus Christ with 7 Our Charisms the people of today, in particular our youth who are disaffiliating from religion in large numbers. St. Paul VI reminded us that "evangelization is 13 ASCEND Conference the church’s deepest identity." She "exists to evangelize." If there was ever a time to respond to this call with great urgency, it is now. 15 Our Mission Model SPO is one of the organizations making an incredible contribution to evangelizing university students. The present pandemic has intensified the experience of 19 Lives Impacted loneliness, anxiety, isolation, and the search for identity and purpose that afflicts so many of our young people. The Missionaries of SPO are the "first responders" on the front lines of the Church’s mission on campus. Even in the midst of the 24 A New Face in the Mission challenges of COVID shutdowns and restrictions, SPO Missionaries continue to reach students and draw them into relationships with a community of brothers and sisters and — most importantly — with Jesus Christ. They are making the 25 Mission Update Church present where you and I cannot. They are reaching college students who are often far from God, yet are still searching for truth that satisfies the deepest 27 The Faith Alive Campaign desires of their hearts.
  • America Under the Gun a 50-State Analysis of Gun Violence and Its Link to Weak State Gun Laws

    America Under the Gun a 50-State Analysis of Gun Violence and Its Link to Weak State Gun Laws

    CAP ILLUSTRATION/ISTOCK PHOTO ILLUSTRATION/ISTOCK CAP America Under the Gun A 50-State Analysis of Gun Violence and Its Link to Weak State Gun Laws Arkadi Gerney, Chelsea Parsons, and Charles Posner April 2013 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG America Under the Gun A 50-State Analysis of Gun Violence and Its Link to Weak State Gun Laws Arkadi Gerney, Chelsea Parsons, and Charles Posner April 2013 Contents 1 Introduction and summary 3 10 indicators of gun violence 27 The link between high levels of gun violence and weak state gun laws 35 Conclusion 37 About the authors 39 Methodology 42 Endnotes 45 Appendix: Fact sheets on the 10 states with the highest levels of gun violence 45 Alaska 47 Alabama 49 Arkansas 51 Arizona 53 Georgia 55 Louisiana 57 Missouri 59 Mississippi 61 New Mexico 63 South Carolina Introduction and summary In the aftermath of mass shootings and other gun-related tragedies, there is often a surge of interest on the part of community leaders, social-science researchers, and elected officials to root out the causes of gun violence in an effort to prevent such tragedies from occurring again. Any study into the causes of gun violence is necessarily complicated, however, as there are innumerable factors that contribute to the nature and prevalence of gun-related violence in any community. Despite this complex web of factors that influence the rate of gun violence, this report finds a clear link between high levels of gun violence and weak state gun laws. Across the key indicators of gun violence that we analyzed, the 10 states with the weakest gun laws collectively have an aggregate level of gun violence that is more than twice as high—104 percent higher, in fact—than the 10 states with the strongest gun laws.
  • Patrick Joseph Buchanan, “Culture War Speech: Address to the Republican National Convention” (17 August 1992)

    Patrick Joseph Buchanan, “Culture War Speech: Address to the Republican National Convention” (17 August 1992)

    Voices of Democracy 7 (2012): 47‐59 Miller 47 PATRICK JOSEPH BUCHANAN, “CULTURE WAR SPEECH: ADDRESS TO THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION” (17 AUGUST 1992) Eric C. Miller Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania Abstract: Patrick Buchanan's speech from the 1992 Republican National Convention is frequently cited as a definitive artifact of the culture wars of the late twentieth century. After challenging President George H.W. Bush in the Republican Primary, Buchanan agreed to endorse Bush in exchange for a primetime speaking slot at the RNC in Houston. Having attacked Bush over tax policy, Buchanan drew on social issues to stir passions and unite the GOP behind Bush's candidacy. Keywords: Buchanan, Bush, culture war, family values, Republican National Convention On August 17, 1992, conservative commentator Patrick J. Buchanan addressed the Republican National Convention, delivering a speech that would long be remembered as the definitive statement of the American "culture war." Diagnosing the national condition as one of spiritual decline, Buchanan neatly divided the American populace into two competing camps— one that was traditional, patriotic, and conservative, and another that was radical, deviant, and fiercely liberal. A vote for George H. W. Bush, Buchanan declared, was a vote for the former; a vote for William Jefferson Clinton was a vote for the latter. If Americans were to emerge from their spiritual descent and return to the "Judeo‐Christian" values upon which the nation was founded, it was vital that they support of the Republican ticket. Couched in the language of warfare, the stakes of Buchanan's vision were unmistakably high. But in order to understand Buchanan's argument—indeed, to understand why he was afforded a speaking slot at the RNC in the first place—one must first understand a few things about his life, career, politics, and the context in which these events unfolded.
  • The Ground Zero Mosque Controversy: Implications for American Islam

    The Ground Zero Mosque Controversy: Implications for American Islam

    Religions 2011, 2, 132-144; doi:10.3390/rel2020132 OPEN ACCESS religions ISSN 2077-1444 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions Article The Ground Zero Mosque Controversy: Implications for American Islam Liyakat Takim Sharjah Chair in Global Islam, McMaster University, University Hall, 116, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1, Canada; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +1 (647) 865 7863 Received: 29 March 2011; in revised form: 22 May 2011 / Accepted: 31 May 2011 / Published: 7 June 2011 Abstract: The controversy surrounding the “ground zero mosque” is part of a larger debate about the place of Islam in U.S. public space. The controversy also reveals the ways in which the boundaries of American identity continue to be debated, often through struggles over who counts as a “real” American. It further demonstrates the extent to which Islam is figured as un-American and militant, and also the extent to which all Muslims are required to account for the actions of those who commit violence under the rubric of Islam. This paper will discuss how, due to the events of September 11, 2001, Muslims have engaged in a process of indigenizing American Islam. It will argue that the Park51 Islamic Community Center (or Ground Zero mosque) is a reflection of this indigenization process. It will go on to argue that projects such as the Ground Zero mosque which try to establish Islam as an important part of the American religious landscape and insist on the freedom of worship as stated in the U.S. constitution, illustrate the ideological battlefield over the place of Islam in the U.S.
  • A Content Analysis of Russia's Coverage in Cnn News Programs, 1993 - 1997

    A Content Analysis of Russia's Coverage in Cnn News Programs, 1993 - 1997

    A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF RUSSIA'S COVERAGE IN CNN NEWS PROGRAMS, 1993 - 1997 By ELENA M. SHALABANOVA Diploma ofHigher Education in Journalism St. Petersburg State University St. Petersburg, Russia 1996 Submitted to the Faculty ofthe Graduate College ofthe Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE May, 1998 A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF RUSSIA'S COVERAGE IN CNN NEWS PROGRAMS, 1993 - 1997 Thesis Approved: ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Maureen Nemecek, for her inspiration and trust in me. Dr. Nemecek has been very caring and supportive aU the way through my studies at Oklahoma State University. I greatly appreciate her extraordinary personality, intellectual curiosity and positive attitude. Her help, encouragement and insights cannot be overestimated. I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to Dr. Charles Fleming, who has been a perfect example ofself-discipline and scholarship. I am also grateful to Dr. Steven. Smethers for his invaluable comments, encouragement and constructive criticism.. I wish to thank Aleksandra Gorokhova and Bettina Roensberg for their dedication, selfless help and support throughout my work on this thesis and life in Stillwater, OK. Thank you for being my friends! I am grateful to all my classmates, who shared the adventures and surprises of graduate school with me. I appreciate the support ofall Muskie fellows, especially of those who walked this way before me and helped me to adjust. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX) for the financial support that brought me to Oklahoma State University.
  • 10 Years Later: the Second Amendment and Public Safety After Heller Bradycenter.Org Executive Summary

    10 Years Later: the Second Amendment and Public Safety After Heller Bradycenter.Org Executive Summary

    10 THE SECOND AMENDMENT YEARS AND PUBLIC SAFETY L ATER AFTER HELLER CONTENTS 01 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 03 THE HELLER DECISION – A SEISMIC SHIFT IN SECOND AMENDMENT INTERPRETATION 06 GREAT STAKES – WHAT GUN REGULATION IS PERMISSIBLE IN THE AFTERMATH OF HELLER 07 BATTLE IN THE COURTS – THE FIRST TEN YEARS 13 THE NEXT TEN YEARS 14 ENDNOTES Acknowledgments This report was a collaborative effort. Contributing authors include Joshua Scharff from the Brady Center, Anna M. Kelly and Madeleine Bech from Hogan Lovells, and Suzan Charlton and Joseph DuChane from Covington & Burling, LLP. Zayden Tethong, Caitlin Nelson, and Jenna Casolo from the Brady Center provided research assistance. II 10 YEARS LATER: THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY AFTER HELLER BRADYCENTER.ORG EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For two hundred years, almost all judges in In the decade since Heller, two narratives have America agreed that the Second Amendment emerged regarding the decision’s application was intended, as the Framers stated in its text, and scope. These two narratives have drawn to protect the “well-regulated militia” that the battle lines over what laws and policies can be Framers saw as “necessary to a free state” and implemented to prevent gun violence, and they nothing more. will continue to define the battle over the Second Amendment into the foreseeable future. But ten years ago, all of that changed. On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court issued One vision is represented by the Brady Center a 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, to Prevent Gun Violence, which has been which held for the first time that “law-abiding, the leading legal voice of the gun violence responsible Americans” have a right to possess prevention movement for over 30 years, as well guns in the home – even if they have nothing to as other gun violence prevention groups.