Taking It To The Extreme

Howard Kurtz looks back on Amnesty’s idiotic publicity stunt comparing Gitmo to the Gulag (a statement that Amnesty’s William Schultz admitted was nothing more than a publicity stunt) and asks how much lower can they go?

Excuse me, but did Schulz say that it’s okay to unleash words like “gulag,” even if it’s not an “exact or literal analogy,” because it gets him booked on Fox News? Is that the new standard? Yes, Chris, I called the president a war criminal because it was the only way I could get on Hardball?

Well, hell, two can play at that game…

Therefore, I would like to state that several members of the mainstream media, including at least one nightly news anchor, are al-Qaeda sleeper agents. It’s not an “exact or literal analogy”, but hey, it should drive some traffic, right?

I would also like to note that Howard Dean is a space alien who consumes the flesh of infants and toddlers. Granted, I have no proof of this, but shouldn’t we investigate to find out?

As long as we’ve reduced the standards of public discourse down to the level where anyone can make the most asinine attacks without proferring one bit of evidence, I might as well just go with the flow…

4 thoughts on “Taking It To The Extreme

  1. Jay,

    Spell check isn’t foolproof…

    Consumers is a valid word but in the context perhaps “consumes” would be better…


  2. Another Old Navy Chief:


    And besides, I live on the edge – I don’t use spellcheck. That’s what I have readers for… 🙂

  3. I find it amazing that an organization like this can be so irresponsible. They take a mission that everyone should be able to get behind – human rights – and regularly make it political, via grandstanding, or having different standards for different countries. In this case, this is an issue that appears to be coming increasingly common. People take something they don’t like, sometimes even a legitimate issue, and compare it to the worst possible example in history. suppose it is designed to get attention, but in my case, it makes me simply dismiss the individul/group/organization, in that it tells me they aren’t really serious about the issue. People in coffee shops talking, openly, about how the US is “just like” Nazi Germany now, milon dollar athletes comparing themselves to slaves, and now a prison which provides food, water, health care, and ven religious items, is a “gulag.” I’d love to support an agency like Amnesty Int’l, but not until they decide that they will be a serious, responsible organization.

  4. Some years ago I sent several financial contributions to Amnesty International because what they proclaimed they were trying to do was humane and necessary, i.e., putting pressure on governments on behalf of political prisoners who were being maltreated or tortured. The newsletters they sent me seemed to support this.

    I began to have doubts about their ethics when AI sent me a bill for membership dues — irritating because I had never joined the organization. When I didn’t respond, they sent me further demanding letters, trying to shame me for not meeting my obligations!

    As I continued to receive newsletters from AI, I noticed that while some of their causes looked to be valid, the definition of political prisoners seemed to be stretching and the focus was expanding to include oppressed groups. Oppressed meaning, in some cases, underrepresented or underserved according to the organization’s political leanings.

    The world needs an honest equivalent of Amnesty International now that the original has been taken over by hard-left anti-American head cases.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.