The Left, Online and Outraged

[True_Blue]

SHERMAN OAKS, Calif. -- In the angry life of Maryscott O'Connor, the rage begins as soon as she opens her eyes and realizes that her president is still George W. Bush. The sun has yet to rise and her family is asleep, but no matter; as soon as the realization kicks in, O'Connor, 37, is out of bed and heading toward her computer.

Out there, awaiting her building fury: the Angry Left, where O'Connor's reputation is as one of the angriest of all. "One long, sustained scream" is how she describes the writing she does for various Web logs, as she wonders what she should scream about this day.

She smokes a cigarette. Should it be about Bush, whom she considers "malevolent," a "sociopath" and "the Antichrist"? She smokes another cigarette. Should it be about Vice President Cheney, whom she thinks of as "Satan," or about Karl Rove, "the devil"? Should it be about the "evil" Republican Party, or the "weaselly, capitulating, self-aggrandizing, self-serving" Democrats, or the Catholic Church, for which she says "I have a special place in my heart . . . a burning, sizzling, putrescent place where the guilty suffer the tortures of the damned"?

More....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401648.html?sub=AR

[EFerrari]

1. I haven't read this yet but have to say, considering that the Right

Wing invented hate radio -- a vehicle they're using right now to engender hatred of Mexican nationals -- this claim of the "angry left" is bullshit. It's a projection.

Sure, people on the left are angry and, concerned and thoughtful and many other things.

The Right Wing has whole industries that depend upon hatred of their fellow men.

We don't.

[Fridays Child]

2. "Not that long ago, it was the right that was angry...

...and the left that was, at least comparatively, polite. But after years of being the targets of inflammatory rhetoric, not only from fringe groups but also from such mainstream conservative politicians as Newt Gingrich, the left has gone on the attack. And with Republicans in control of Washington, they have much more to be angry about."

Well said.

[ShortnFiery]

3. And let's hear from the TARGET of his project english paper --->

http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7464

David Finkel not only comes across as a gratuitous gut puncher and all around nasty piece of work. Methinks he flunked the "Ethics for Journalists" class. :thumbsdown:

[DIKB]

4. We have been abandoned.

By the middle-of-the-road-wusses in the Democratic Party, by the ass-kissing media, by the rational repukes (who USED to keep the fringe-right under control), etc. Where do they expect us to turn? The internet has made it so that we can share information, and network with others of the same disposition. It is a bastion of criticism and free speech, whereas the media is too busy trying "not to appear liberal, the TRUTH be damned!!!"

If you make people helpless, they are going to become angry. Keep doing it, and keep stepping on their rights, and they may start becoming violent. Either the media or government needs to start being representative of the people, or BOTH need to go.

[ShortnFiery]

5. Wow, I'm amazed ...

There are people who think that the article is "a plus" ... well, any port in a storm full of media whores?

No, I remember in the 70s how the Republicans would call Liberal Democrats *angry* to make the rest of The American Sheeple ... well afraid of Liberal Democrats.

When one labels you as "angry" it gives the rest of the observing public permission to ignore you. The same goes with labeling you nuts. IMO, focusing on one's ANGER ... um ... it's not ever meant as a complement. :(

[DIKB]

7. I never said it was positive

but people's anger is justified. People should be FURIOUS after 6 years of these asshats. Anger is itself not necessarily a bad thing, righteous indignation has been the foundation for a lot of change in this country.

The end of slavery, Women's suffrage, Civil rights, etc. Would these have happened had people not been "angry"?

[CoffeeCat]

8. Yes, they've tried to use our "anger" as an insult in the past...

However, that line really isn't working anymore, because it's not just Dems who are angry.

Many in Junior's own party are openly unhappy with him. Look at the generals who just came out against Rumsfeld. Many Congressional Republicans are running from Bush. The national polls reflect total disapproval of his handling of Iraq. His approval numbers are in the toilet.

He's royally screwed up on so many issues that affect many people.

Many people are angry.

If anything--this article will help to validate those angry feelings and it may serve to further galvanize the anti-Bush sentiment out there.

[CoffeeCat]

6. I think this was a great article...

Yes, the right has attacked us for being "angry" as if having any feelings about Fascism and this evil administration is wrong. HA!

However, I think that tired argument is wearing really thin. It doesn't' work anymore. Many people are angry. This administration is a colossal fuck up. It really doesn't fit anymore to suggest that anyone angry about this administration is nuts.

Most people understand that the anger is justified--because most of the country has had it with Junior.

What I found compelling about this article--is that it really disrespects Bush. The hilarious lines about him having ADD--and all of the other insults--really weakens him. I mean...this is the Washington Post--and they printed an article that showcases the absolute lack of respect and utter contempt that many in this country feel for their pResident.

The article didn't just illustrate the anger for Bush, it demonstrated what a national joke he is--and that so many people have absolutely no respect or regard for him.

By printing many of these hilarious, demeaning and sarcastic remarks--it further erodes Bush's standing. He's becoming a national joke.

I really liked the article.

[dweller]

9. on that note and your synopsis

i'll recommend it.

:kick:

dp

[Old and In the Way]

10. Given the grief the WP has taken from the Maryscott O'Connor's over

the past few months, might this piece be a little payback? Seems that they might have an axe to grind with us....

[ShortnFiery]

12. IMO, since before the Invasion of Iraq, the WP is part of The Machine n/t

[Dogmudgeon]

11. Dave Finkel's cigarette fetishism

She smokes a cigarette.

She smokes another cigarette.

There's a pack of cigarettes. And a dirty ashtray.

Not "full", but "dirty".

"Angry, compulsive Maryscott's addiction resulted in a dirty, wicked, wanton, slatternly ashtray," writes the New Journalist.

That's not "New Journalism". That's cigarette fetishism.

--p!

[RelativelyJones]

13. Finkel chalks up the anger to pathology

rather than politics. Typical WP, Kurtz-like, bullshit when it comes to covering the left.

[zippy890]

14. This is a great article!

my favorite part of the article

"What's notable about this isn't only the level of anger but the direction from which it is coming. Not that long ago, it was the right that was angry and the left that was, at least comparatively, polite. But after years of being the targets of inflammatory rhetoric, not only from fringe groups but also from such mainstream conservative politicians as Newt Gingrich, the left has gone on the attack. And with Republicans in control of Washington, they have much more to be angry about."

Damn right we're fucking angry!!

K & R



:dem:

[bemildred]

15. Finkel is a propagandist.

He wants to get the idea that we are "mad" out there, rather than talk about why we are angry, or admit that we are not half as "mad" as our friends on the Christian right.

If he were just discussing the activities of some online activist, it would be OK, but he goes for the propaganda points by babbling about the "angry left" and painting her attitude as both exaggerated and representative.
:puke:

[depakid]

16. Of course he is- and so is the Post

People might as well be watching Fox "news."

[Post]

17. More Jack Abramoff HiJinks

Blatant greed, corruption, no apologies! These guys are shameful. Here: http://postanapology.blogspot.com/2006/04/jack-abramoff-oy-vey-wherewhen-should.html#links

[grasswire]

18. Isn't this what they did to black folks?

Wasn't Jesse Jackson continually demonized for being "angry"?

Looks like the same kind of propaganda to me.

[grasswire]

19. has Finkel never been to freerepublic.com?

He apparently missed the Clinton years over there.