Jogging is “Right Wing”?
President Sarkozy has fallen foul of intellectuals and critics who see his passion for jogging as un-French, right-wing and even a ploy to brainwash his citizens.
Attacks on Mr Sarkozy’s pastime, which he has made a symbol of his presidency, began on the internet as soon as he bounded up the steps of the Elysée Palace in shorts when he took office in May. That moment has become the icon of his hyperenergetic administration. The grumbling has now moved to television and the press.
“Is jogging right wing?” wondered Libération, the left-wing newspaper. Alain Finkelkraut, a celebrated philosopher, begged Mr Sarkozy on France 2, the main state television channel, to abandon his “undignified” pursuit. He should take up walking, like Socrates, Arthur Rimbaud, the poet, and other great men, said Mr Finkelkraut… (Times Online)
My, my how quickly “tolerance” and “diversity” get tossed out the window for political expediency by some leftist elites. We are told by many of these same people just how much the West is the source of all evil in this world, that we need to sympathize with and understand those who try and kill us (these poor dears provoked into such behavior solely because we are so eeeeevil of course), etc., etc., etc. God The Entity Who Shall Not Be Named forbid that someone like Sakorksy actually enjoy some cardio exercise and a healthy – dare I say it? – lifestyle. No, rather than accepting such a benign alternative lifestyle we are informed that jogging is “undignified”, selfish “individualism” that cares nothing about the welfare of others, an “hypnotic” form of “media manipulation”, blah blah blah. If this tripe is the best they can sling at Sakorksy or anyone else who disagrees with their views, they’d best be prepared for a long season of being out of power. That jogging, of all things, makes these elitists go crazy speaks volumes about the vapidity of leftist ideology, or at least the intellectual bankruptcy of many of those who keep trying to pass off coprolite as being something other than pure crap.
– John (Average Gay Joe)
30 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I agree that the idea that jogging is right wing is just silly. But it’s no sillier than the latest right wing meme that universal healthcare causes terrorism.
Comment by Ian S — July 6, 2007 @ 5:45 pm - July 6, 2007
Didn’t Bill Clinton jog? I guess in those days that was a positive healthy thing to do. Of course that was probably the one thing about him that the French really did not like.
Comment by Leah — July 6, 2007 @ 6:27 pm - July 6, 2007
Doesn’t President Bush also jog?
I mean, that whole story just sort of baffles the mind. Maybe the french journalists have been drinking too much of their wine.
Comment by Mike — July 6, 2007 @ 7:06 pm - July 6, 2007
It’s only a “meme” if someone reproduces it, Ian.
So think about it. Here you are, being the guy who spreads what you call “right-wing” “memes”. Man, you must be desperate.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 6, 2007 @ 7:24 pm - July 6, 2007
#4:
Well, so far, it’s been on FauxNews, MSNBC and now in the NY Sun so I don’t think that by commenting about it here, I’m doing much to spread it.
Comment by Ian S — July 6, 2007 @ 8:21 pm - July 6, 2007
Actually, socialized medicine has probably killed more people than terrorism… despite Michael Moore’s propaganda.
Comment by V the K — July 6, 2007 @ 10:37 pm - July 6, 2007
lol. just one cliche after another.
Comment by Will — July 7, 2007 @ 3:58 am - July 7, 2007
I think, if you bothered to pay attention rather than come up with convuluted BS, you would have found that neither in the interview stated or intimated that universal healthcare causes terrorism. I’d wager that you didn’t even watch the video in the post you linked to.
Your link, btw, just reinforces the point of the post here which is that there’s no limit to the level of absolute absurdity and asininity liberals will stoop to. In other words, you don’t care how much of a dumbass you make yourself look like as long as you push some sort of ridiculous BS.
But, what the hell do you care, eh Ian?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 7, 2007 @ 5:42 am - July 7, 2007
I thought if it’s on PMSNBC-BS, that makes it so. Both viewers would have to believe that it’s true and it is therefore not “faux” news.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 7, 2007 @ 5:44 am - July 7, 2007
Nice catch. I just blogged this and H/T’d (and blogrolled) you. Please give my best to DBanB. We used to run together at a certain small college in the Berkshires in the early ’80s–back when I was a rabid leftist.
Comment by Kobayashi Maru — July 7, 2007 @ 9:10 am - July 7, 2007
HE JOGS! HE JOGS! I am completely disgusted by this neo-fascist. How dare he try to be healthy and fit and not sit in arm chair, sipping wine and telling the world whats wrong with it, while actually doing nothing to better it.
Comment by ousslander — July 7, 2007 @ 10:27 am - July 7, 2007
#8: The wacky linking of universal healthcare and terrorism spreads further. I assume from your comments that you believe this attempt to link universal healthcare with terrorism is an absurdity.
Comment by Ian S — July 7, 2007 @ 10:34 am - July 7, 2007
No more absurd than linking port security or illegal immigration with terrorism. The fact is, terrorists will seek out any vulnerability to infiltrate the west and spread death. The only people who find this linkage absurd are left-wing partisan idiots, who babble vapidly that “Terrorism” is just a bumper-sticker, and that the Global Islamist Jihad against the west never existed before GW Bush became president.
Comment by V the K — July 7, 2007 @ 11:36 am - July 7, 2007
And once more, we see that Ian either doesn’t “read” his own sources or references, or more importantly, Ian misrepresents them.
If I may summarize the Cavuto clip on Marshall’s (a liberal blogger’s) page that Ian chose to link, as briefly as I can:
Does the interview, in fact, bear any resemblance to Ian’s weird claim that “right wingers” now claim “universal healthcare causes terrorism”? I can’t find the resemblance.
Ian, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Dealing with you is truly a waste. Your comments combine “banal” and “intentionally misleading and deceptive” as no one else’s. Each time I have decided to give you a chance and check into something you’ve claimed or a reference you’ve offered, it hasn’t checked out. That is why, in fact, I often don’t bother with you.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 7, 2007 @ 12:28 pm - July 7, 2007
P.S. It could fairly be said that Cavuto is peddling the notion that importation of Muslim doctors is yet another opening for terrorists to ply their trade. And that we should fear (or at least be suspicious of) importing Muslim doctors.
And that might be just cheap emotionalism or prejudice… might be… were it not true that British terrorism plots have, in fact, involved Muslim doctors.
End of story. John, I apologize for participating in the digression, and back (I shall hope!) to your topic.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 7, 2007 @ 12:39 pm - July 7, 2007
Thanks ILC, I didn’t have the energy to post a response to Ian yesterday. I watched the video he provided a link to and found the comparison to be quite absurd. No doubt there are instances of some conservatives saying looney things that would make such a comparison valid, but this wasn’t one of them.
Comment by John — July 7, 2007 @ 1:42 pm - July 7, 2007
My, how non-existent is ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ among righties. Know why there aren’t any conservative ‘elites’? Because they are all dumbasses.
Comment by Elais — July 7, 2007 @ 5:07 pm - July 7, 2007
You know, Elais, I’ve noticed a great deal over the past few days of leftists coming here and trying to make provocative and insulting statements.
Which conservatives, as ILC did above, calmly break down and show to be exactly what they are — provocative and insulting statements.
What we need to realize here is that someone like yourself who categorically claims anyone of a certain political affiliation is a “dumbass” is practicing stereotyping and prejudice — both of which are not based on actual facts, and in fact, are quite often contradicted by facts, but on, if you will, what a person WANTS to believe for their own purposes.
Therefore, since conservatives like myself are not threatened by what another person believes, you may go right ahead and say what you want. In our opinion, the consequences of you spouting something that you cannot back up with facts are more of a problem for you than they are for us.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 7, 2007 @ 6:07 pm - July 7, 2007
#14: I notice you’ve avoided the link to the National Review comment:
It’s pretty clear to me that they’re linking terrorism to nationalized healthcare. As for going back to John’s topic, it seems to me both are examples of preposterous linkages. I’m sure that if someone had brought up another example of a silly leftist idea, you and John would be applauding it. But heaven forbid that someone should show that the right is as capable of silly concepts as the left: “no, no no, you’re straying off topic!”
Comment by Ian S — July 7, 2007 @ 10:27 pm - July 7, 2007
It’s pretty clear to me that they’re linking terrorism to nationalized healthcare. As for going back to John’s topic, it seems to me both are examples of preposterous linkages.
You still don’t get it. You asserted that the story is that nationalized healthcare *creates* terrorists when it does nothing of the sort.
When you have nationalized healthcare as in Europe and Canada, there’s very little incentive to become a doctor. Given that there are fewer people becoming doctors, you have to import them from elsewhere. If you’re importing folks from the ME, isn’t it reasonable to conclude that at least one might have sympathies?
If not, what’s your rationale for these particular UK doctors engaging in these failed attacks? Was it just a hobby? They sure weren’t the young, poor sand-eaters with no options that liberals want us to believe they all are. What say you?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 8, 2007 @ 1:01 am - July 8, 2007
Trying to impress us with your superior intelligence, I see, although you’re probably no stupider than Ian, who apparently can’t parse basic English, or the other leftists who are spreading this nonsense that neither Cavuto nor his interviewee ever said.
Comment by rightwingprof — July 8, 2007 @ 9:32 am - July 8, 2007
#20:
What liberal says that? In fact we know that the 9/11 terrorists were for the most part were well educated and not dirt-poor.
BTW, I never said “creates terrorists.” I referred to the “right wing meme that universal healthcare causes terrorism.” And that’s exactly the implication of the comment in National Review and the others.
Comment by Ian S — July 8, 2007 @ 10:31 am - July 8, 2007
I think the question is, is Ian pretending to be so stupid that he can’t tell the difference between “creating a vulnerable conduit for terrorist infiltration” and “causing terrorism” … or is he really that stupid?
My moneys on really.
Comment by V the K — July 8, 2007 @ 1:53 pm - July 8, 2007
#23 – V, I’ll take odds that you are correct.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 8, 2007 @ 3:20 pm - July 8, 2007
#23: According to this right wing meme, Policy X makes it possible for Terrorist Y to enter the country and commit an act of terrorism. Logically it follows that Policy X caused terrorism. Substitute the British universal healthcare system for Policy X and you’ve got universal healthcare causing terrorism. QED. It may not be the only cause but it is a cause.
BTW, the lead LTE in today’s Arizona Republic explains how the British medical system “is a failure – from mediacl care to the security of England.” The looney right meme spreads!
Comment by Ian S — July 9, 2007 @ 12:16 am - July 9, 2007
Policy X makes it possible for Terrorist Y to enter the country and commit an act of terrorism. Logically it follows that Policy X caused terrorism. Substitute the British universal healthcare system for Policy X and you’ve got universal healthcare causing terrorism.
C’mon Ian. Nobody’s saying that it caused, created etc. terrorism. What they ARE saying is that it allows for the importation of terrorists that already exists and you DAMN well know it!
But you have to have something to spin. You’d be damned if you agreed with anybody who doesn’t cheerlead for AQ. What a useless idiot.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 9, 2007 @ 1:28 am - July 9, 2007
And Ian answers my question: Yes, he really is that stupid.
I guess this means the idea that doctors from countries at high risk of terrorism should not be subject to strict screening and background check, because only a nut would believe there’s any link between such docs and terrorism. And the Glasgow and London terror plots never happened, they were just a Karl Rove conspiracy to discredit socialized medicine.
So now we know who’s wearing that Wonder Woman costume, it’s Rosie O’Donnell.
Comment by V the K — July 9, 2007 @ 5:14 am - July 9, 2007
#27 – “So now we know who’s wearing that Wonder Woman costume, it’s Rosie O’Donnell.”
Well, V, if it is the Big R wearing Lynda Carter’s old outfit, you can bet they had get extra material from Barnum & Bailey to make it fit.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 9, 2007 @ 11:00 am - July 9, 2007
#27: Obviously, we should be careful who we let into the country but it’s absurd to limit the careful checking to doctors as implied by the linking of terrorism to national healthcare.
Comment by Ian S — July 9, 2007 @ 2:35 pm - July 9, 2007
#29 – “Obviously, we should be careful who we let into the country…”
It didn’t stop you, now did it?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 10, 2007 @ 10:29 am - July 10, 2007