would be 5 good reasons that would persuade my audience to buy the Magic bullet? Or how would the magic bullet would make there lives better? I only got 3-5min for the presentation.
How is the Audience Kept Interested During Act 3 Scene 1 of William Shakespeare’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’
William Shakespeare’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’ is doubtlessly one of the most easily recognisable and well known pieces in all the Shakespearean works, if not the whole of English literature. "Romeo and Juliet" is a tale of two young ‘star-cross’d lovers’ who, amidst the turmoil of their feuding families, manage to sustain a relationship of true love which, ultimately, is destined for destruction. This play still has modern appeal because it is the ultimate love story and adaptations of the play still exist all over the world in many different formats. The themes which are explored in this play are violence, forbidden love and fate.
Act 3 Scene 1 opens with Benvolio and Mercutio speculating the chances of a conflict because the ‘capels’ were around. Tybalt approaches them and issues a challenge with Romeo. Romeo enters and refuses Tybalts challenge. Disgusted at his friends effeminate nature, Mercutio affronts Tybalt. Tybalt slays Mercutio and enraged Romeo slays Tybalt. The scene ends with Romeo being banished from Verona.
The Elizabethan audience could have related with this scene because it was commonplace for the Upper class nobility to pull their swords out to settle disputes. To further add to my point, skill in fencing was a requirement for all Upper class nobility, so it was usually a contest of skill , not so much strength.
Also there are several aspects that make this scene interesting for an audience; dramatic tension, dramatic irony, its relation to the rest of the play and the portrayal of the characters and their language.
Act 3 Scene 1 greatly contrasts with the scene before it, because in that scene Romeo and Juliet had just got married. Here there is a prevalent feeling of love, positivity and romance. Also, when the Friar married them both he hoped the two families could be ‘Two in one,’ suggesting the two families would unite over their marriage. This is ironic because instead of the two families uniting over their marriage, unbeknownst to them they would eventually unite over their deaths. In Act 3 Scene 1 though, there is a powerful mood of hatred, violence and bloodshed. This scene is a pivotal point in the play, because it sets off a tragic chain of events, making it crucial to the whole play itself.
So far the audience may have perceived this play as a comedy because of Mercutio’s never ending wit and humour. Mercutios death and the build up to his death could have changed the play to a tragedy. As Mercutio is the jester of the play , when he dies all the humour and jokes die with him. In the build-up to Mercutio’s death , he goads Tybalt by calling him a ‘rat-catcher,’ because in folklore, Tybalts name means king of cats, so Mercutio says this to mock Tybalt . Mercutio knows by doing this, would aggravate Tybalt, adding to his already violent nature.
Even whilst dying Mercutio lives up to his humorous reputation when he says ‘You shall find me a grave man.’ Here Mercutio uses double entendre because the quotation has two meanings, one of them being that tomorrow he will die and be buried in a grave. The second meaning to this is that Mercutio states he will be serious, because grave means serious. We the audience know that Mercutio is the epitome of wit and humour, but he implies that if he gets wounded that badly and survives his personality will change. Furthermore he tries to play down his injuries when he says ‘Ay, ay, a scratch, a scratch,’ by saying this he is making his injuries seem a lot less serious than they actually are. This show us a lot about Mercutio’s personality, in that he is so proud and egotistical that even when he is drawing his last breath , he cannot accept or even acknowledge that another man has overpowered him, especially someone like Tybalt who he loathes. We the audience, may only assume that if Mercutio admits his weakness, he may feel robbed of his masculinity.
The audience would be in absolute awe as all this was happening , because all these events are crammed into one scene. This heightens the audiences anticipation, making them immensely interested.
When Romeo kills Tybalt he realises the misfortune that this will cause when he say ‘O, I am Fortune’s fool.’ Romeo is cogitating how his actions have been those that fate, or fortune wanted and he has now fulfilled fate’s desire by killing Tybalt. In that respect fate has made a fool of Romeo.
In Shakespearean England cosmology and astronomy were heavily believed in. This could have influenced Shakespeare greatly in writing this play. In addition, fate and destiny play a crucial part in how this play turns out, because it is the result of fate that inevitably kills Romeo and Juliet.
Many instances in the play reveal that the love of Romeo and Juliet would end in death, even from the very beginning it is evident that they were destin
cAN ANYONE TELL ME HOW I CAN IMPROVE THIS ESSAY TO GET AN A-A*
Related Information:
I know it’s not that good, but who cares.
Doesn’t have to be perfect.
I just want some ideas to add (about clowns)
Y!A YOU MOST LIKELY WONT READ THIS BUT.. WHATEVER.
Clowns are comical performers. They are artists who pretend to be foolish and entertain their audience. Known for their outrageous costumes and makeup, clowns are normally criticized by their appearance. Clowns entertain folks by performing in odd or hilarious ways. Also, by doing many tricks, some even magic. Clowns can be seen at circuses, fairs, on the street, and on stages.
Types of clowns include European Whiteface, Straight Whiteface, Grotesque Whiteface, Auguste, Tramp/Hobo, and Character Clowns. The Whiteface clowns are oldest types of clowns in existence. They wore white make-up, and wore elegant costumes. They were also known for all of their physical stunts, like springing from one platform to another, or tumbling, etc. Auguste clowns became popular in around the 19th century. Their costumes consisted of colorful mismatched clothing, big red noses, and colorful wigs. These types of clowns use gags like the pie in the face, and using seltzer bottles. Also, these clowns tumble in their performance, and they tend, in their acts, be more physical. A tramp or a hobo clown wear dark make-up and usually impersonate fireman, policeman, and cowboys. These types of clowns were created by Otto Grielberg in the United States. Their performance includes miming, juggling, magic tricks, and acrobats.
Many people have an intense fear of clowns. This fear is called coulrophobia. This phobia is mostly common around children. Some reasons people mostly fear clowns is because of how the media portrays them- as evil. For example, the movie made in 1990 called ‘It,’ or when clowns, in their acts, perform violence, like hurting another clown, (of course it’s fake.)
How do you become a clown? You can become a clown by always being filled with joy, and maintaining you cool. You’ve got to know where you do your clowning acts, and the type of entertainment you want to show. You’ve also got to be enthusiastic, outgoing, and to not really care what people say about you. You’ve got to study the origins of clowns, and learn to apply make-up. You’ve got to learn the three main types of clowns, and learn each one’s performance, outfits, and personalities. You need to know the type of clown you are perspiring to be and the type of business you’d want to run. Clowns love being around people, they are humorous, but also professional. You need to know how much make-up is too much, and what kind of make-up you’ll be using. To learn to be a clown, you can go to clown school. You can read books about clowns. You can have a clown mentor, who will help you with developing your personality, or help choose which type of clown would suit you. They will develop new skits, jokes, etc. Clown mentors can also teach you about balloons, face painting, new skits, jokes, fun gags, and more. To start a clown business, you can start small and then rise gradually. Like, showing up at birthday parties or on the street, then
performing at fairs, or joining the circus. When you become a clown, you need to buy props. Possibly a Stage, balloons, cards, outfits, make-up, wigs, shoes, bikes, unicycles, juggling tools, and more. Becoming a clown is hard work.
Personalities of a clown can include, evil clowns, sad clowns, clumsy clowns, and tricksters. Evil clowns started in American pop culture. The Joker, from Batman was one of the first evil clowns in the media. Sad clowns usually paint a frown on their face, and a tear coming from their eyes. These clowns look depressed. Clumsy clowns might trip and fall, stumble around on purpose. They also might put themselves in painful situations. Tricksters are tricky clowns. They can pull pranks on you, perform magic tricks, and do crazy things.
Related Information:
I broke up with him around this time last year. We had been going out for 2 in a half years and I spontaneously decided to end it all because at that point in my life I didn’t want to be attached. I was 18 years old and starting college, a new job, and viewed my ex as un ambitious. All he would ever do is want to stay home and be with me, never really going out to hang with friends, and feeling down on himself for having the job he had. He was a wonderful artist and I tried to be a supportive and encouraging girlfriend by telling him to pursue a career in the field. Yet lack of funds was the reason he said he couldn’t live out his dream. I tried accepting this but found that I might be growing out of him. I also wanted to experience other relationships since he had been my first, and though I loved him I found myself growing more detached. Spending less and less time with him even though he kept reaching out. I broke his heart and he eventually gave me back everything that was ours to cope with the break up, cutting me out completely. At that time this didn’t faze me. He came to my door step with the box and I could care less. I felt relieved, or so I thought. We didn’t talk much for 8 months, maybe passing one another since my little brother and he were such great pals and didn’t let our break up end their friendship. Eventually after working and going to school nonstop, boys being the last thing on my mind the summer hits. I find myself infatuated like I once was with my ex on a new guy. He’s a graphic designer and aspiring filmmaker, extremely driven and confident. All I can do is think about him. He seems to me to be the next best thing. Eventually we hang out (not an official date I had no idea what his intentions were, he was very hard to read) with a few of his friends and I find him to be the most obnoxious individual. He practically ignored me the whole time while being an entertainer to his audience; he thrived off of the attention I could tell. One of two questions I can remember being:
"What do you want to do with your life?"
This was such a turn off; a mutual feeling I later find out. He thought I was too quiet and smelled of tuna! I hate tuna. We go on to not talk for two months, and yet even then I didn’t think of my ex. Eventually The new guy starts to talk to me again and even though I was so disgusted by his previous behavior I still find myself immensely sexually attracted to him. That’s all I wanted from him. Funny thing is he was looking for a girlfriend and found a way of convincing me to be with him otherwise. I figured ok I like this guy why not give it a shot? From then on it has been a rollercoaster. Nothing like when I was with my ex. One day this blokes happy with me the next he’s unsure about our relationship. So eventually I end up feeling lonely within my own relationship because I don’t feel good about it. Where did all my confidence go? Sure I may have felt inhibited because he’d ask me "why are you so shy?" "I wish you’d contribute more to the conversation." I have never felt so much pressure in a relationship. Like if I don’t please, I can be dropped at any given time. So for the time being I had been unhappy, yet the messing around was great. What a trade off, not worth it at all when I look at it, but within the moment it’s a whole other game. All I could think about was how to sort the issues in my head over this relationship in a mature manner. Work out all the small things and focused on what we have that’s great. All I could think of was our similar tastes in music, movies, and fooling around. Sure we had conversations but for the most part they were short and the fooling around was to the point not long after. Than he’d tell me I got to get back to story boarding birdbrain. I’d be there reading a book instead of getting to know anything about him. My excuse was that he’s really trying to get this short film done before Sundance, don’t worry about it. And eventually things did turn around with a few hiccups, but on a trip back from Ohio I found out that my ex was going out with a new girl and the last thing that has been on my mind for the past month isn’t my new boyfriend. My brother disclosed to me some information that my ex was going out with a girl that we formerly couldn’t stand. When we were together we would actually make fun of her amongst ourselves. She was just such a typical high school girl. Going out to parties all the time, drinking, taking in controlled substances, bisexual one minute, straight the next. She was a total nut. Now he is with her. I really needed someone to talk too when hearing all this. So I wrote an email to a mutual friend of ours who still hung out with him. And I explained everything to her. It than finally hit me that he had moved on. Though I was in my own relationship (not much of one actually) I still had this terrible pain in my stomach thinking that he’s with her of all people. I didn’t care if she told anybody (we we
Related Information:
An Evening with Ann Coulter – Al Franken eviscerates the hate-spewer – MVP, 4/4/06
This is what Al wrote about the debate afterwards:
Last May, as I left the stage after debating Ann Coulter in Hartford, my wife Franni took me aside and whispered: "The poor thing."
Last Monday, after my debate with Coulter at the Universal Amphitheatre in L.A., there was no sympathy from Franni. Just a strong sense of disgust. Because Coulter had chosen a strange strategy.
Offend the audience and then act the victim.
The event was part of a lecture series sponsored by the University of Judaism. The previous debate had featured Newt Gingrich and John Edwards before a crowd of about 5000 subscribers. About 5500 had gathered for me and Ann. The extra five hundred presumably were fans of mine and of Ann’s.
Before the debate, there was a dinner for about 75 sponsors – mainly middle-aged-to- older Jewish couples. Between dinner and dessert Ann and I were to each make three minutes of remarks. I had planned to open with my usual at such Jewish events: "I’m going to start by answering the question I’ve been asked most tonight – Yes, I’ve had enough to eat."
But Ann went first, and set her tone for the entire evening. "It was fascinating being here for the demonstrations this weekend," she said with a snotty Darien sneer. "I guess that’s why I didn’t get clean towels in my hotel room this morning."
There was an audible gasp from the Jews. Ann continued: "I haven’t seen so many agitated Mexicans since the World Cup Soccer Games were in L.A." As offended as the diners were, the waiters were pissed. Ann was actually dumb enough to drink her coffee afterwards.
I answered by saying that I hadn’t seen so many agitated Mexicans since 1846 when James K. Polk invaded Mexico because he thought Santa Ana had weapons of mass destruction. I wasn’t sure of the year, but I thought the different approaches to our "agitated Mexican" jokes might give everyone an idea of what to expect.
Fortunately, the debate had something of a formal structure to it. I led off with a twenty minute speech in which I eviscerated Ann, followed by her twenty minutes in which she defended herself by saying she was a flawed person and then proceeded to accuse Democrats of being traitors.
Then there was about an hour with the president of the university leading a discussion during which she lost everyone but her most dedicated fans, of which there were maybe fifty by the end of the evening. At one point, when I was talking about making sure our returning veterans got proper medical care, one of her nutcase followers yelled, "Boring!"
Anyway, I’m kind of proud of my opening statement. I put it on the website of my new political action committee, Midwest Values PAC. Drop by and check it out.
So I did, and here is Al’s opening remarks…absolutely priceless:
COULTER DEBATE OPENING STATEMENT – UNIVERSITY OF JUDAISM
Thank you. First of all, I know I join Ann in thanking the University of Judaism for hosting this event. We’ve had an opportunity to spend some time with President Wexler and have dinner with many folks from the University community.
And I’d like to answer the question that I actually get asked the most when I do an event for a Jewish organization. Yes, I had enough to eat.
You know, in these kinds of debate forums, someone has to go first. It’s always preferable to go second, because you can react to what’s been said, giving you something of a tactical advantage. More importantly, it pretty much spares you the chore of writing out pre-prepared remarks.
Both Ann and I said we preferred going second, but I didn’t insist on it, because I understood somebody had to go first. And being a liberal, I just wasn’t tough-minded enough to insist on a coin toss.
So, I’ll try to use my time to define the terms of the debate – if you will. “Whence Judaism?”
No. I think we should talk about the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress and what it has accomplished over the past five years. I’m talking, of course, about well over two trillion dollars added to the national debt, the increase in poverty in our country and the added millions of Americans, including children, without health insurance. I’m talking about the sale of our democracy to corporate interests that pollute our water and our air. I’m talking about the widening gap between the haves and the have nots in this country. And I’m talking about the war in Iraq.
I’m talking about an increasingly corrupt, secretive, and incompetent federal government that rewards cronies, a Republican majority in Congress that’s acted as a rubber stamp, that has performed virtually no oversight and which excludes the minority party from the legislative process in a way unprecedented in our recent history.
I also want to discuss with Ann the coarsening of dialogue in this country. I want to discuss values with Ann. Values like love, of family, of your fellow man, of country. Ann has said repeatedly that liberals hate America. I disagree.
Last year I had the honor of speaking at West Point. It was an audience not so very different from this one. Except that instead of you, the audience was made up of about twelve hundred cadets. Many of whom will be going to Iraq in the next year or so.
The occasion was the Sol Feinstone Lecture on the Meaning of Freedom endowed by philanthropist Sol Feinstone. It’s an annual event and Sol Feinstein’s granddaughter, who is about my age, attended.
After telling a number jokes and getting the cadets on my side. I told them that we had been lied into the war in Iraq. I had just published a book entitled The Truth (with jokes), and I told the cadets that you can’t have freedom without the truth. You can have freedom without jokes, as has been proven by the Dutch and the Swiss.
I proceeded to prove that we had been lied into war, citing example after example of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice, who had been National Security Advisor in the lead-up to the war, telling the public information that they knew not to be true.
At the end of the speech I received a standing ovation from the cadets. Sol Feinstone’s granddaughter told me she had gone to every lecture for the last thirty or so years, and that I received only the second standing ovation. The other was for Max Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam.
By the way, Ann has written that Max Cleland was lucky to have lost his legs and his arm in Vietnam. I disagree. More importantly, I know Max, and he disagrees.
I believe I received the standing ovation because the cadets knew that I was speaking from the heart, and that the information I had given them was all true. And as I said, you can’t have freedom without the truth.
You can’t have good government without the truth. During the crafting and passage of the Medicare prescription drug bill, the chief actuary of Medicare was told to withhold from Congress the true cost of the bill. He’d be fired if he told the truth.
The bill costs so much, in large part, because the bill prohibits Medicare from negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies on the price of drugs. As a result, seniors now pay on average 44% more than veterans getting the same drugs through the VA which is allowed to use its size to negotiate with the drug companies. To get the bill passed, the vote was held open for three hours. Tom DeLay was later admonished by Republicans on the ethics committee for attempting to bribe, and then extort, Republican Nick Smith of Michigan to get him to change his vote. The chairman of the Commerce Committee Billy Tauzin who ushered the legislation through, soon left Congress for a two million dollar a year job as the chief lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry. Obviously, a complete coincidence.
During the 2000 campaign George Bush ran for president by saying repeatedly, and I quote, “by far the vast majority of my tax cut goes to those at the bottom.” Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, the president continues to ask for and sign tax cuts that go primarily to those at the top. By the way, until George W. Bush, our country had never cut taxes during a time of war.
As a result, our deficits grow and the cuts – in Medicaid, Pell Grants, food stamps, low-income housing subsidies, community block grants – are targeted at the poorest in our society.
George W. Bush famously said that Jesus was his favorite political philosopher. Frankly, I don’t get it.
I’m Jewish. Thank you. I’m not an expert on the New Testament. But I know that if you cut out all the passages where Jesus talks about helping the poor, helping the least among us, if you literally took a pair of scissors and cut out all those passages, you’d have the perfect box to smuggle Rush Limbaugh’s drugs in.
I don’t understand when the Christian right says that equal rights in marriage threatens marriage. I’ve been married 30 years, many of them happy. I don’t think that if my wife and I were walking around in Boston, where we met, if we saw two men holding hands with wedding bands… I don’t think I’d say “Hey, that looks good. Y’know, honey, you don’t like watching football on Sundays. Maybe I could marry a guy, watch football with him, and then if I wanted to have sex, I could come over and have sex with you.”
I was just talking to Newt Gingrich the other day. And I said to him, “Don’t you want for a gay couple what you had with your first wife? Don’t you want that bond that comes with the pledge of fidelity that you had with your second wife? Don’t you want what comes with that lifelong bond that you may or may not have with your third wife – I have no idea what’s going on there.”
You know, Bill O’Reilly always talks about his “traditional values” – as opposed to “the far left’s secular humanist values.” I didn’t realize phone sex was a traditional value. I didn’t think the phone had been around long enough. Maybe telegraph sex.
In her book Slander, Ann referred to Democrats and our “Marquis de Sade lifestyle.” I’ve been married for thirty years. Ann, you’re an attractive woman. And I know you support the president’s abstinence-only sex education. I want to congratulate you for saving yourself for your one true love.
When my daughter was six years old, her teacher asked all her students to write about how their parents had met. We told Thomasin that we met at a mixer freshman year of college. I saw Franni across the room, gathering up some friends to leave. I liked the way she was taking control and I thought she was beautiful. So I asked her to dance, and then got her a ginger ale, then escorted her to her dorm and asked for a date.
My daughter wrote, “My dad asked my mom to dance, bought her a drink, and then took her home.” Now all the facts were accurate, but what my daughter wrote was extremely misleading. Now my daughter wasn’t lying. She didn’t realize that what she wrote made her mom seem like a slut.
Ann, however, is not six years old. And she has developed her own techniques for misleading, by leaving out important facts. Let me give you an example of Ann lying by omission.
Also in her book Slander, Ann tells her readers that Al Gore had a leg up on George W. Bush when applying to their respective colleges. Harvard and Yale. Ann writes:
“Oddly, it was Bush who was routinely accused of having sailed through life on his father’s name. But the truth was the reverse. The media was manipulating the fact that – many years later – Bush’s father became president. When Bush was admitted to Yale, his father was a little-known congressman on the verge of losing his first Senate race. His father was a Yale alumnus, but so were a lot of other boys’ parents. It was Gore, not Bush, who had a famous father likely to impress college admissions committees.”
What does Ann omit? Well, that Bush’s grandfather Prescott Bush was also a Yale alum and had been Senator from Connecticut, the home state of Yale University. That Prescott Bush had been a trustee of Yale. That Prescott Bush had been the first chair of Yale’s Development Board – the folks who raise the money. That Prescott Bush sat on the Yale Corporation for twelve years. That Prescott Bush, like George W. Bush’s father, George H. W, Bush, had been a member of Skull and Bones. That the first Bush to go to Yale was Bush’s great great grandfather James Bush, who graduated in 1844. That in addition to his father, grandfather, and greatgreatgrandfather, Bush was the legacy of no less than twenty-seven other relatives who preceded him at Yale, including five great great uncles. Seven great uncles. Five uncles, and a number of first cousins.
Now why did Ann leave out these somewhat relevant facts? Ann grew up in Connecticut. Ann, did you really not know that Prescott Bush had been your senator when you were born?
Ann, is it possible that when Prescott’s son George H. W. Bush became president, it totally escaped your notice that his father had represented your state in the United States Senate? Did neither of your parents mention it in passing at the dinner table? Did no one at home in Darien make any comments about the new president’s lineage?
Understand. This isn’t sloppiness. This is deliberate. For Ann’s purposes – to claim that the media that was manipulating facts here – Ann herself had to manipulate facts – in such a shameless way. This is what she does.
And she does it over and over and over again.
Let me give you another example.
On page 265 of her book Treason, Ann writes of Tom Friedman, the New York Times columnist. “He blamed twenty years of relentless attacks by Muslim extremists on- I quote – ‘religious fundamentalists of any stripe.’”
This didn’t sound like Tom Friedman to me, so I found the one Friedman column that contained that phrase – “religious fundamentalists of any stripe.” It was from a December 26, 2001 column called “Naked Air,” about an airline where everyone would fly naked. “Think about it,” Friedman writes, tongue firmly planted in cheek, “If everybody flew naked, not only would you never have to worry about the passenger next to you carrying box cutters or exploding shoes, but no religious fundamentalists of any stripe would ever be caught dead flying nude.”
Let me repeat. Ann wrote of Tom Friedman, Jewish by the way, that “he blamed twenty years of relentless attacks by Muslim extremists on – I quote – ‘religious fundamentalists of any stripe.’” She bothered to put “I quote” in there for emphasis.
Friedman actually wrote “no religious fundamentalists of any stripe would ever be caught dead flying nude” in service of a conceit that illustrated our dilemma of either becoming less open as a society or learning to live with much higher risks than we’ve ever been used to before.
Friedman was not blaming 9/11 on the Lubavichers, as Ann suggests.
Now this sort of deliberate misrepresentation contributes to a coarsening of our nation’s dialogue. Ann recently told an audience:
“We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee,” Coulter said. “That’s just a joke, for you in the media.”
Here’s my question. What’s the joke? Maybe it’s a prejudice from my days as a comedy writer, but I always thought the joke had to have an operative funny idea. I’ll give you an example of a joke.
Like they do every Saturday night, two elderly Jewish couples are going out to dinner. The guys are in front, the girls riding in back. Irv says to Sid, “Where should we go tonight?”
Sid says, “How about that place we went about a month ago. The Italian place with the great lasagna.”
Irv says, “I don’t remember it.”
Sid says, “The place with the great lasagna.”
Irv says, “I don’t remember. What’s the name of the place?”
Sid thinks. But can’t remember. “A flower. Gimme a flower.”
“Tulip?” Irv says.
“No, no. A different flower.”
“Magnolia?”
“No, no. A basic flower.”
“Orchid?”
“No! Basic.”
“Rose?”
That’s it! Sid turns to the back seat. “Rose. What was the name of that restaurant…?”
That’s a joke. What exactly is the joke in “We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee?” Is it the crème brulee? Is that it? Because Stevens is some kind of Francophile or elitist? Is it the rat poison? See, I would have gone with Drano. I’m really trying here, Ann. Please, when you come up, explain the joke about murdering an associate justice of the Supreme Court. One who by the way, was appointed to the Supreme Court by Gerald Ford, and who, also, by the way, won a Bronze Star serving in the Navy in World War II. What is the joke? ‘Cause I don’t get it.
Now in Ann’s defense, she doesn’t always make horribly offensive remarks or knowingly craft lies. Very often Ann is just wrong out of ignorance or pure laziness. Take this from the MSNBC Show – Saturday Final – on August 30, 2003 – MSNBC. She is talking about how well the war in Iraq is going.
COULTER: I think the rebuilding is going extremely well. Douglas MacArthur was in Japan five years after V.J. Day. There were enormous casualties in Germany after World War II. The rebuilding is actually going quite well compared to past efforts. And really, all we’re getting from Democrats is constant carping.
Ann, do you know how many combat fatalities the American military had in Germany after V-E day? Zero. You know how many in Japan after V-J day? Zero.
Ann and I have debated once before. In May of 2004, and Ann still felt the war was going amazingly well. Let me quote her from that debate:
“…. This war is going amazingly well… the casualty rate is incredibly small for the rebuilding. It is going better than can be expected. You cannot read about how well things are going against Al Sadr, where you have Iraqis protesting against Al Sadr; all these stories about how Al Sadr had (this) vast support among the Iraquis… oh no no no. They recently held a protest march saying, ‘Al Sadr, get out.’”
As you know, Ann, Moktadr al Sadr, recently picked the Shiite choice for prime minister for the new government, Mohamed al Jafaari. Sadr has thirty-two seats in the Iraqi assembly compared to Ahmed Chalabi’s zero. And remember, it was Chalabi to whom we were going to turn over the Iraqi government.
Things are not going amazingly well in Iraq. And they haven’t been going amazingly well since we allowed the looting of Baghdad. A week ago, former prime minister Ayad Allawi said that Iraq was already in a civil war. And as George Bush said in September of 2004, we should listen to Allawi because – and I quote – “he understands what’s going on there – after all, he lives there.”
The first thing this Administration needs to do in Iraq is to start acknowledging the truth and level with the American people.
I think the one lesson we can all agree on from Vietnam is that we cannot blame the troops. By and large, the vast, vast majority of our troops have performed heroically. And they deserve our gratitude and support. And that means supporting them after they’ve come home.
Two thirds of the wounded in Iraq now have brain injuries. That’s because so many of the casualties are from IED’s, and the injuries are concussive and not ballistic. Each one of those brain injuries is going to cost a million dollars over the course of that veteran’s life. And we need to fund programs for those who come back with post traumatic stress disorder – a higher percentage than in any previous war.
Now another value I believe in is love of country. For some reason it rankles Ann that I’ve done six USO tours and have had the nerve to talk about it. I do so because I want people to be aware of the work that the USO does. I want anyone here today who is a Hollywood celebrity to think about giving up a couple weeks of your life to entertain our men and women in uniform. I think it rankles Ann that I’ve talked about going on the USO tours because she can’t conceive that anyone would actually do something for anyone else. I didn’t go to Iraq to prove that Democrats are patriotic, Ann. I did my first USO tour in 1999, when Clinton was president. We went to Kosovo, a war that was vehemently and vocally opposed by many Republicans. Even so, we didn’t call them traitors. I was invited by the USO to go to Iraq because they know I do a good job and that it means a lot to the troops when anyone comes over to show them we care.
My daughter is 25. She teaches inner city kids in the Bronx. And that makes me proud. She hates when I say it, and that makes me even more proud.
My son is an engineering student. He wants to build fuel efficient cars. He’s a junior in college and got a job at Ford this summer working on a new manufacturing process for power trans. I don’t know what that means either. But he got there because he works his butt off.
But my son doesn’t feel that he got where he is because he is some kind of rugged individual. That he did it all himself. He knows that he stands on the shoulders of those who stood on the shoulders of those who stood on the shoulders of those who stood on the shoulders of those who stood on the necks of Indians.
My wife and I tried to instill certain values in our kids. But we don’t love them because they’re perfect. We love them because they’re decent, loving kids. Kids who care about others and care, by the way, about the truth.
One last thing. Speaking of the truth. A few months after my last debate with Ann, the following appeared in a New York Observer story about Ann. From the September 13, 2004 issue..
The writer asks Ann in the article:
“She debated Al Franken recently?
“’Yes,’ she said. ‘It’s not an interesting debate, because liberals can’t argue. So it’s never like point-counterpoint; all we do is hear about his fucking U.S.O. tours for three hours. Excuse my French.’”
Ann, let’s see if we can have a point-counterpoint, and an interesting debate. And by the way, Ann, I have here a DVD of that entire three hour debate – And I’ll bet you my speaking fee tonight that I spoke about my USO tours for less than a grand total of three minutes. How about it Ann? My speaking fee against your speaking fee?
I mean we care about the truth, don’t we?
Related Information:
> > > > > > HIGHLY RECOMMENDED
> > > > > > HIGHLY RECOMMENDED
> > > > > > HIGHLY RECOMMENDED
