Jump to content


Laura Igraham's Brother Says “I Think She’s a Monster”


3 replies to this topic

#1 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 24675 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 12 September 2018 - 03:18 PM

Political division in families has heated up in the Trump era. Ingraham's brother is now estranged from her over her lies and heartlessness and he's not hesitant to speak up about it.

Quote

Curtis Ingraham uses Twitter to vent his political frustrations—like many left-leaning users in the Trump era.

To an audience of just a few hundred followers, the Northern California-based teacher expresses outrage at new White House policies, engages with popular #resistance figures like former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum and the Krassenstein brothers, and bashes Trump’s right-wing media cheerleaders on Fox News.

While most of his tweets go largely unnoticed, a few people have taken notice because of what he has to say about one media personality in particular: his sister, Fox News primetime host Laura Ingraham.

“I think she’s a monster,” Curtis repeatedly said in an interview with The Daily Beast.

Quote

In a telephone interview with The Daily Beast, the soft-spoken older brother criticized Laura’s show, described her personality as “destructive,” and characterized her as generally “extremely angry.”

“She’s very smart, she’s well spoken, but her emotional heart is just kind of dead,” he said. “And you see it in her face when you see her on TV. She’s ready to destroy. She does not listen to understand—she listens to respond. And her response is always an attack.”

The point of the Twitter account, Curtis said, is not to air out his sibling rivalry or resentments. Rather, he uses it to point out how she has disappointed her older brother.

“The reason I’m sharing these details is because of what is happening in our country,” Curtis said. “I feel like a bit of a whistle-blower in trying to unveil hypocrisy.”

He added: “Our country has been thrown into this divisive state. So now I feel like I have got to speak out, I’ve got to speak out for my own sanity.”


A big personal driver is surely that Curtis Ingraham is gay and she seems to have gone back to her gay bashing college days because she's becoming more "religious".

Quote

As a student at Dartmouth in the 1980s, Ingraham ran the school’s right-wing newspaper, The Dartmouth Review, which had been known for its controversial statements about race. She infamously assigned a reporter to attend and secretly record a gay students’ association meeting in which some closeted students shared their experiences. The paper published excerpts and quotes from the meeting, which ended up outing at least one student, and labeled gay students with offensive slurs.

In a 1997 op-ed apologizing for her actions, she attributed her changing opinions about issues including same-sex marriage to her experience witnessing her brother’s loving relationship with his longtime partner, who died of AIDS.

Curtis told The Daily Beast that, at the time, he was moved by the piece.

But he said Laura became more religious in subsequent years, and began to waver in her newly empathetic positions on LGBT rights. In private conversations with her brother about issues like same-sex marriage, she said she would have to “agree to disagree” with him.

He told The Daily Beast that, to him, Laura’s change of heart on LGBT issues and gay marriage at the time constituted a betrayal.

“That goes against my ethics,” he recalled thinking. “You’re destroying me. It’s hideous, it’s hideous behavior.” He added: “That’s what I’m trying to unveil here, the hypocrisy. ‘Family’s first, I know about gay rights, my brother is gay.’ It’s all a sham.”

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#2 golden_valley

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5089 posts
  • LocationNorthern California

Posted 13 September 2018 - 04:42 PM

I'm guessing they won't be together for Thanksgiving dinner this year.

#3 AnBr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12153 posts

Posted 13 September 2018 - 07:47 PM

View Postgolden_valley, on 13 September 2018 - 04:42 PM, said:

I'm guessing they won't be together for Thanksgiving dinner this year.

Would you break bread with a monster?
"Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time - when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers arc in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.

— Carl Sagan
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
1995


“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

— H.L. Mencken
On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe


“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

— Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Second inaugural address January, 1937

#4 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 24675 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 19 September 2018 - 11:41 AM

Another right-wing (formerly left-wing) concern troll warns us that boycotting Laura Ingraham will only empower her by making her a martyr of the right. He's also trying to equate boycotting somebody for their public, on air, white nationalist hate speech to the 1950s Hollywood blacklists which invaded people's private lives and demanded that even those who were innocent of anything "name names" to stay out of trouble. WTF is WRONG with this guy?

Quote

Like Apatow and Leguizamo, I have contempt for Ingraham’s views, and for her being a dutiful part of the Fox News prime time Trump TV lineup. But I find it strange and disheartening that the cultural Hollywood left is calling for viewers to boycott her sponsors, and thus force her off the air.

There was a time, indeed, when that left made blacklists a term of opprobrium and dishonor. On the blacklist’s anniversary in 2001, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences hosted a major museum exhibit in Los Angeles, called “Reds and Blacklists: Political Struggles in the Movie Industry,” for the purpose of documenting “the complicity of various studios, guilds and unions” in perpetrating the odious blacklist.

For decades, Hollywood has celebrated the supposed integrity and bravery of those celebrities who refused to name names in the 1950s. They focused on the Hollywood Ten, the group of directors and screenwriters who were the first to refuse to answer HUAC’s question of whether they were Communists. They cited the First Amendment and were found guilty of contempt of court and sent to prison.

The call to boycott the sponsors of TV shows is not original and has been tried before. In the 1950s, as the late journalist David Everitt showed in an important book, the blacklist also was deployed against radio and television back then. It was propagated by a group of four people, led by an upstate New York grocer named Laurence Johnson, who did precisely what Apatow and Leguizamo suggest today: They browbeat sponsors and demanded that someone whose views they found repugnant be fired, lest they would institute a boycott of said sponsors’ products.

Along with a former naval officer named Vincent Hartnett, they at first published a small magazine called Counterattack, and soon changed it to one that was sent out to the owners of every radio and TV station, called Red Channels. They gave notice to the media industry to be careful about whom they employed.

The blacklist that ensued was far more damaging than the one in Hollywood. The medium of broadcasting employed far more people than the movie industry, and scores of the actors and writers were Communists or fellow-travelers. The result was staggering. Radio and television personalities—many of them genuine stars—began to lose their jobs.


He goes on with various examples and how blacklisting ended up being broken. The issue then was, of course, that one did not have to say anything publicly to be blacklisted. They didn't even have to say anthing privately. It was pure "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality, actually more comparable to the rooting out of "heretics" by the various religions of the world. You didn't have to attack the religion in power, just not sufficiently believe in it.

Finally he finished up with these thoughts and advice that nobody should ever go after any public figure in any meaningful way no matter what venom they spout. Your only real choice is to ignore them. Well f*** that. Ingraham has a national platform and I do not so I'll vote with my dollars, thank you very much.

Quote

Nevertheless, the blacklist was wrong then, and calls for it against Ingraham are wrong now. There is a way to oppose Ingraham’s views. Do not watch her. Turn on the other cable news channels during her time slot. Eventually, the business side of Fox News will feel she is no longer popular, and her prime-time spot could come to an end.

If you don’t do this, blacklisting her will increase her audience and help make her a martyr to the right… who might then come after Rachel Maddow and demand a boycott of her sponsors. The past clearly shows that taking this tack never ends well for people on the left, since they are setting up a standard for how the right will hit them in the future.


My closing thought is that somebody clearly hasn't followed the fact that the right-wingers have tried, multiple times, to boycott various companies for political reasons the most recent of which is Nike. They haven't been very effective because only a small minority of Americans find what they're whining about to be offensive. Ingraham's comments, OTOH, are deemed to be offensive and horrific by many more Americans.
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users