Saturday, July 21, 2007

The Wanda Watkins saga: The family members.


I just noticed that, deep in the comments section of the article that started all this, there are some recent comments from a "Monica" who claims to be a cousin of the aforementioned Ms. Watkins (and I have no reason not to believe her), and I'm going to address some of what she writes in two parts.

First, Monica accuses me of something I didn't do:

Additionally, your sarcastic apology and suggestion that my cousin is "enjoying the death of her son immensely" is disgusting.

I never said that, Monica. What I wrote was:

Yes, from the comments section back here, it would appear that, at long last, I have no sense of decency left at all and, upon reflection, the majority of commenters would seem to have a point.

It was, I admit, beyond the bounds of decorum to have told grieving mother and convenient neo-con propaganda mouthpiece Wanda Watkins to fuck right off. Instead, I should have suggested that she was merely enjoying the death of her son immensely, since that would have been the right wing thing to do.

As you noted, Monica, that was sarcasm, and was meant to highlight the difference between what I wrote, and what was written about the 9/11 widows. I was drawing a (perhaps badly-phrased) analogy to show that the same people who were climbing all over me for my alleged callousness had no problem whatsoever with the far worse, mocking cruelty of people like Ann Coulter. I was demonstrating the inherent hypocrisy, nothing more. But here's the second part.

Monica also writes:

I have a B.A. in "political science" and a Masters Degree in "gender and peacebuilding" from the United Nations mandated University for Peace.

It occurs to me that someone with those qualifications doesn't deserve to be buried 55 comments down in a days-old article here, so I'm inviting Monica to write an article which I'll post at this blog, verbatim. (I reserve the right to follow up with a comment to disagree with what I feel are simple inaccuracies but, other than that, I promise to post, front and centre, whatever she wants to write, unedited, in its entirety.)

And, as an added bonus, now that the Canadian shriek-o-sphere has agreed that they wouldn't touch this blog with Ann Coulter's dick, perhaps we can even have a reasoned, nuanced and thoughtful discussion for a change. If you're interested, Monica, drop me a note at the e-mail address to your right. I'm guessing my regular readers would also be interested in what you have to say.

19 comments:

Cherniak_WTF said...

That's a rather generous offer there CC. But do you really think Monica will have some intelligent to say?
She could not even get the context of your comments correctly, she just jumped on the BT bandwagon of outrage.

What not surprising is that none of the BT have debated. They just preferred to spew what they consider to be "witty" remarks.

JJ got her sycophant circle jerk "friends" to agree with her. Mr Erl was told many times that his ultimatum was childish and that he should have debated...
On the post where he was asked to debate (on his blog), he's been absent.
One gets the feeling that these clowns would prefer their fake outrage because they seem incapable of addressing issues (unless it comes in the form of talking points given to then)

CC said...

C_WTF writes:

"That's a rather generous offer there CC. But do you really think Monica will have some intelligent to say?
She could not even get the context of your comments correctly, she just jumped on the BT bandwagon of outrage.
"

I'll admit that it might have been easy to misread what I wrote there, so I'm not going to hold that against her.

And as for what I think she would say, I have no idea. But i'm certainly willing to find out. When someone has that kind of background, you'd be kind of silly not to at least give her a listen.

Shannon said...

Oh, please...

Nont a single one of these sanctimonious asses has the right to complain, considering their disgusting treatment of Cindy Sheehan.

One mother's loss is more valid because she agrees with conservative ideology?

Do conservative think they feel sorrow and grief more intensely, or is it that a person is only deserving of respect and human decency and simple courtesy if he or she has the correct political leanings?

Hypocrites and generally full of shit, the lot of them. Let them go on with their petty little boycott. It won't make one bit of difference here.

CC said...

Ease up a bit, Shannon -- this post is not about the idiot-sphere in general, it's about Monica, so let's stay on topic.

the rev. said...

Well, you can count me in as one regular reader and commenter who would be interested to hear what she has to say when the heat of the moment has passed and she reads what you wrote and not what the BT idiots told her you wrote. In fact, I'll offer to post it at my joint too.

Cherniak_WTF said...

One mother's loss is more valid because she agrees with conservative ideology?
That seems to be the message from the blithering idiots.

I wonder if Monica is up to the challenge? Here is her chance to slither away from the BT crowd and make her case.
Attacking my family does little to encourage intelligent dialog and I only hope that my cousin does not come across his hateful words.

CC is encouraging "intelligent" dialog - will she rise above the mediocrity and sanctum of Mr Erl's blog and attempt this?

CC said...

Um ... guys? Let's lay off Monica, shall we? I don't care what she wrote earlier. I'm inviting her to submit something for publication here, so let's not start taking potshots at her before this even has a chance to work, OK?

E said...

They do realize in their fevered delusions that boycotting means that you stop doing or buying what ever you're boycotting.


They're obviously NOT boycotting if they're continually posting snippets of this blog to debate.

Of course these are the same type of people who still think Iraq had something to do with 911 so who knows what's going in their heads.

Olaf said...

Seems reasonable enough to me, CC.

Mentarch said...

Ah, CC?

I tried to find a "Monica" from "Canada" in UPeace's Masters Degree in "gender and peacebuilding" program and could not find one (scroll down this page: http://www.upeace.org/academic/masters/GPB.cfm ) ...

I will leave it up to you CC and you good folks to make whatever you may of this (granted, perhaps such a simple seach is not enough - however ....).

;-)

Mentarch said...

Addendum - unless "Monica" is from the USA? There is one indeed there, in the class of 2005/2006.

Perhaps I may yet stand corrected ;-)

CC said...

It's possible that the blogger handle for "Monica"s real name had already been taken, so she had to pick another one.

Let's not read any more into this than we have to for now.

Red Tory said...

Let’s hope that “Monica” takes the opportunity you’ve provided to put her case forward. It would be nice to hear what she has to say about the matter in a direct fashion without her words or sentiments being mangled or distorted by others.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Red, the blogging whories don't care about debate, they rather whip themselves into a frenzy of indignation...

the rev. said...

yeah, but Monica might not be one of the BTs.

Monica said...

I apologize for the delay in my response to all of your comments...I haven't been online since I posted my response to your blog about Wanda and just now received your invitation to write an article of my own. You noted that it can be on any topic of my choosing but that's a bit broad, don't you think? Especially since my point of contention was the manner in which you expressed your political views and not the views themselves. I don't generally comment on the state of the world on blog sites...If you have a specific subject that is related to this discussion that you would like for me to comment on, let me know (CC, the Rev and Red Tory?) and I will do so.

Additionally, I did not mention my degrees in order to suggest that I am in anyway more "qualified" to be discussing these issues and am sorry that I gave that impression. My point was that I actually SHARE most of your views...the fact that I attended the University for Peace should suggest that...I haven't come across too many conservatives/right-wingers at UN institutions that advocate for peace. (FYI - I am the "Monica" from the U.S.A on UPeace's website....I am a dual citizen with the USA and Canada. And yes, Wanda is REALLY my cousin. However, it doesn't really matter whether or not you believe me).

For those of you who feel that telling others who disagree with your position on issues (Wanda, for example), to "fuck off" is an intelligent form of debate (Cherniak_WTF)then I am sure that there is very little that can say or do to that will make you think otherwise. Oh, an Cherniak_WTF, I love the your comment that "the blogging whories don't care about debate, they rather whip themselves into a frenzy of indignation..." yes...so unlike what I've seen from both "sides" at this point.....The Rev is right, I am not one of the BTs and I do not oppose CC's views (in fact, I took a bit of crap from my family for defending CC's MESSAGE), what I am contesting is the manner in which that message was delivered.

As for Ann Coultler Cindy Sheehan: CC, I happen to be a "liberal" (US politics) but live in a very "right-winger" small town....and even the majority of those right-wingers denounce the words of fanatics like Ann Coulter. You said that your sarcastic "analogy" (yes, it was badly-phrased and, I feel, in poor taste...but I understand your reasoning behind the statement) was "to show that the same people who were climbing all over me for my alleged callousness had no problem whatsoever with the far worse, mocking cruelty of people like Ann Coulter." I would be interested to know how many of those "people" who attacked you for your "alleged callousness" have defended Ann Coulter....I know that I, for one, have not. Same for Cindy Sheehan...Shannon notes that "not a single one of these
sanctimonious asses has the right to complain, considering their disgusting treatment of Cindy Sheehan." Again, you seem to be assuming that everyone who disagrees with the way CC expressed his outrage against Wanda is a "right-winger" and treated Cindy in negative manner...I have always been one of Cindy's biggest defenders...

Its interesting to see how "black and white" Canadian politics have become over the years....the apparent believe that everyone is either a liberal or a hard-core conservative is disturbing...you are staring to sound like the U.S.....and we all know where that leads.

Let me know if you have an actual topic that you would like me to write on and I'll see what I can do...

Ti-Guy said...

Its interesting to see how "black and white" Canadian politics have become over the years....the apparent believe that everyone is either a liberal or a hard-core conservative is disturbing...you are staring to sound like the U.S.....and we all know where that leads.

There's nothing the rest of us (who aren't just liberals, but socialists, Quebec sovereigntists and zero-growth free-marketers) can do about that until the hard core conservatives have been thoroughly discredited. In the meantime, we'll present a robust, stubborn, very often uncivil challenge to rightwing abuses and will do so until the conservatives change strategy or are removed from power.

Canadians know where the polarisation leads; we also witnessed the anemic response on the part of American liberals to a threat that started growing back in the 90's, and most of us aren't going down that path either.

E said...

you are staring to sound like the U.S.....and we all know where that leads.

By Monica, at 1:09 PM
- - - - - - -

Yeah it leads to a country arrogant and insecure enough to that it needs to throw a 'little country' against the wall every once in a while just to prove it means business.

For my part of what went on I will apologize for flying off the handle. I seem to be doing that a lot lately as my frustration with my government, the wars and the US version of the Blogging Torries grows.

I will not make any excuses for it. It's up to me to control my own temper, no one else. Someone cannot make you angry unless you let them. Either way I should not have taken that frustration out on your family directly. It's not your fault there are assholes in the world ( most of them seem to be in charge of my government ).

I will not apologize, however, for the ultimate content of my message which I still consider to be legitimate: It is not right to ask or demand other people to support the continued slaughter of innocents and soldiers alike just so one person's death 'has meaning'.

I support every person that dons the uniform of my nation (or in this case allied nation) but that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not I believe war is a moral choice to make, if I support a specific war, or if i condone the actions of my supposed leadership.

AWK said...

While I am not endorsing the comments made by Ann Coulter I think it's important to point out a very distinct difference between her comments and the comments of Canadian Cynic. Ann Coulter had the courage to express her views in a public forum using her real identity, thus subjecting herself to the consequences of her actions. Until CC understands this difference and is able to stand behind his or her words these comments can not be taken any more seriously than the graffiti found on bathroom walls.

It's likely also that CC does not appreciate that free speech is not only a right. With freedom comes the responsibility to account for your actions and like so much of what is written in the Blogosphere this demonstrates little more than cowardice and malice.