Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

The Life And Times Of A Political Porn Star
How desperate do you have to be to be famous and sell books to say the stuff Ann Coulter does? I want to hear from Republicans and conservatives about why they have and do find this woman's bile stomachable. Anybody?

Come on, I know you're out there. I'm disgusted, for example, when KABC radio's Al Rantel has her on his show, as if she's about something other than disseminating sensationalistic hate and divisiveness in service of her own fame and fortune. What productive, constructive thoughts has Coulter ever had? Do tell.

Here's her latest, and probably her worst yet, from an Editor & Publisher story:

Syndicated columnist and author Ann Coulter appeared on the Today show on Tuesday, promoting a new book. Host Matt Lauer asked her to explain certain remarks in the book aimed at activist 9/11 widows, including her charge that they were nothing but "self obsessed" and celebrity-seeking "broads" who are "enjoying" their husbands' deaths "so much."

After she defended these statements, Lauer inexplicably closed by saying, "always fun to have you here."

Elsewhere in the book, Coulter refers to the widows as "witches" and asks, "how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies"?

...The Post interviewed one of the widows, Mindy Kleinberg of East Brunswick, N.J. -- part of a group Coulter dubbed "The Witches of East Brunswick." Kleinberg said, "We are trying to make sure that nobody else walks in our footsteps. And if she [Coulter] thinks that's wrong, so be it."

E&P reprinted the widows' statement from crooksandliars.com:

We did not choose to become widowed on September 11, 2001. The attack, which tore our families apart and destroyed our former lives, caused us to ask some serious questions regarding the systems that our country has in place to protect its citizens.

Through our constant research, we came to learn how the protocols were supposed to have worked. Thus, we asked for an independent commission to investigate the loopholes which obviously existed and allowed us to be so utterly vulnerable to terrorists. Our only motivation ever was to make our Nation safer. Could we learn from this tragedy so that it would not be repeated?

We are forced to respond to Ms. Coulter’s accusations to set the record straight because we have been slandered.

Contrary to Ms. Coulter’s statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day.

It is in their honor and memory, that we will once again refocus the Nation’s attention to the real issues at hand: our lack of security, leadership and progress in the five years since 9/11.

We are continuously reminded that we are still a nation at risk. Therefore, the following is a partial list of areas still desperately in need of attention and public outcry. We should continuously be holding the feet of our elected officials to the fire to fix these shortcomings.

1. Homeland Security Funding based on risk. Inattention to this area causes police officers, firefighters and other emergency/first responder personnel to be ill equipped in emergencies. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.

2. Intelligence Community Oversight. Without proper oversight, there exists no one joint, bicameral intelligence panel with power to both authorize and appropriate funding for intelligence activities. Without such funding we are unable to capitalize on all intelligence community resources and abilities to thwart potential terrorist attacks. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.

3. Transportation Security.
There has been no concerted effort to harden mass transportation security. Our planes, buses, subways, and railways remain under-protected and highly vulnerable. These are all identifiable soft targets of potential terrorist attack. The terror attacks in Spain and London attest to this fact. Fixing our transportation systems may save lives on the day of the next attack.

4. Information Sharing among Intelligence Agencies. Information sharing among intelligence agencies has not improved since 9/11. The attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented had information been shared among intelligence agencies. On the day of the next attack, more lives may be saved if our intelligence agencies work together.

5. Loose Nukes. A concerted effort has not been made to secure the thousands of loose nukes scattered around the world – particularly in the former Soviet Union. Securing these loose nukes could make it less likely for a terrorist group to use this method in an attack, thereby saving lives.

6. Security at Chemical Plants, Nuclear Plants, Ports.
We must, as a nation, secure these known and identifiable soft targets of Terrorism. Doing so will save many lives.

7. Border Security. We continue to have porous borders and INS and Customs systems in shambles. We need a concerted effort to integrate our border security into the larger national security apparatus.

8. Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Given the President’s NSA Surveillance Program and the re-instatement of the Patriot Act, this Nation is in dire need of a Civil Liberties Oversight Board to insure that a proper balance is found between national security versus the protection of our constitutional rights.

-- September 11th Advocates

Kristen Breitweiser
Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken

Posted by aalkon at June 8, 2006 11:22 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1406

Comments

I can't decide if this is all just schtick to her or if she actually believes half of the crap she spews. Either way, she's morally bankrupt.

Posted by: deja pseu at June 8, 2006 6:55 AM

It's time to get serious about ignoring Ann.

Posted by: Lena at June 8, 2006 6:57 AM

The funny thing is that there's been a banner promoting her book on the right side of your homepage for days. Somehow, I couldn't put the two of you together :-)
Coulter is the epitomy of the supposedly feminine (yet totally un-so) ball-busting, fustrated bitch.

Posted by: Frog in L.A. at June 8, 2006 8:35 AM

Coulter first stumbled into the limelight as one of the legal elves providing services to Paula Corbin Jones. She twarted Jones' attempts to settle by leaking attorney/client priviledged information to the media, forcing the case to go to court. Why the contemptuous disregard for Jones' objectives? Because they didn't jibe with her objectives, which was, in her words, to "get the President."

Failing this and failing her client, whom she didn't hesitate to dismiss as "trailer trash," she wrote a book, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," which became a bestseller. Her next book, Slander, opens with "Civil discourse in this country has become insufferable...At the risk of giving away the ending, it's all the liberals' fault."

My first thought was that her failures have left her terribly embittered.

Al Franken summed her up best, explaining that what she writes is "political pornography." She gives her readers affirmation of their basest beliefs and reaffirms what they think they know.

She will cross the line, if she hasn't already done so, and we will never hear from her again.

Posted by: Patrick at June 8, 2006 10:12 AM

I just roll my eyes and change the channel.

Posted by: Jim Treacher at June 8, 2006 12:11 PM

> why they have and do
> find this woman's
> bile stomachable.

Whose bile is stomachable?

Who, who, who pays attention to her? Where are these fans of hers? Kaus and Blair agree that she sometimes says neat things now and then, but she doesn't seem like the leader of anyone's thinking in particular... She's making a living off of being the conservative you love to hate, and you make it too easy for her.

The 9/11 families and widows are not someone I've paid much attention to either. But I know that they were paid well into 7 figures by the federal government for each death in an inexplicable sneak attack on our nation. I've always wondered why.

> Al Franken summed her up

Pots & kettles.

> and we will never hear from
> her again.

I just love it when you get all imperious and nose-in-the-airy!

Posted by: Crid at June 8, 2006 12:16 PM

What Crid said.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at June 8, 2006 12:27 PM

I'm disgusted, for example, when KABC radio's Al Rantel has her on his show

Al Rantel is a hardly a paragon of rationality. He's a self-loathing, whiny gay man who seems to have adopted extremist positions just to piss off people in his own community.

A better question would be to ask why Bill Maher considers Ann a friend. That, to me, implies that there's a shtick going on, since he embodies so much of what she professes to hate.

Posted by: LYT at June 8, 2006 3:26 PM

> He's a self-loathing,
> whiny gay man

Alright, listen, nothing deserves a moratorium like "self-loathing." We're not in 7th grade any more. These psychological insights from Parade magazine no longer delight and inform. Anybody who really knew enough about the human heart to use terms like that would be too busy for blogs and politics.

Posted by: Crid at June 8, 2006 3:49 PM

As a self-loathing whiny gay man, I would LOVE to see a moratorium of self-loathing. It gets exhausting after a while.

Posted by: Lena at June 8, 2006 8:09 PM

Interesting...LYT included "gay" in that list of negativisms about Al Rantel. Hmmmm...

Crid, go fuck yourself.

Posted by: Patrick at June 9, 2006 6:11 AM

Relax, Patrick. I don't think "gay" was included as a negativism. It was information, that's all. Doesn't it tell you something extra about Al's style? Replace "gay" with "Jewish" or "over-educated" or whatever -- each word adds a different flavor to the mental image of the guy.

FYI: Some gay men are annoying, and it has a lot to do with their gayness. (And despite it all, man-on-man sodomy is a beautiful thing.)

Posted by: Lena at June 9, 2006 7:00 AM

"(And despite it all, man-on-man sodomy is a beautiful thing.)"

When it's lit correctly! Er. So I hear.

Posted by: Jim Treacher at June 9, 2006 9:44 AM

"Crid, go fuck yourself."

And you're sounding more like Dick Cheney everyday, Patrick.

Posted by: Lena at June 9, 2006 10:03 AM

LYT writes:

He's a self-loathing, whiny gay man

Yeah? Well, so is mAnn Coulter!

Posted by: Patrick at June 9, 2006 12:05 PM

Jonah Goldberg wrote what is arguably the definitive conservative takedown of Ann back in October 2001: http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment100301.shtml

Some highlights:
"Apparently, in Ann's mind, she constitutes the thin blonde line between freedom and tyranny, and so any editorial decision she dislikes must be a travesty."

"It's true: Ann is fearless, in person and in her writing. But fearlessness isn't an excuse for crappy writing or crappier behavior."

"I have no desire to get any deeper into this because, like with a Fellini movie, the deeper you get, the less sense Ann makes."

After that, I'm not sure there's much left to say...

Posted by: marion at June 9, 2006 9:47 PM

> arguably the definitive conservative
> takedown

excellent

Posted by: Crid at June 9, 2006 10:30 PM

I really don't care for AC's style. But then I don't care for AF's style, or HR-C's style or MM's style. People can be mean spirited on both sides of the line. More conservatives are willing to knock AC than I have EVER read taking on the "hatred" of the left. Equal time: How about asking for an explanation from liberals about how they tolerate MM & Co.


My real question is about the NJ widows. From their statement, they want:


2. Intelligence Community Oversight. Without proper oversight, there exists no one joint, bicameral intelligence panel with power to both authorize and appropriate funding for intelligence activities.

4. Information Sharing among Intelligence Agencies. Information sharing among intelligence agencies has not improved since 9/11. The attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented had information been shared among intelligence agencies. {How does one spell "g-o-r-e-l-i-c-k & Co.?}

7. Border Security. We continue to have porous borders and INS and Customs systems in shambles. We need a concerted effort to integrate our border security into the larger national security apparatus. {See above and below}

8. Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Given the President’s NSA Surveillance Program and the re-instatement of the Patriot Act, this Nation is in dire need of a Civil Liberties Oversight Board to insure that a proper balance is found between national security versus the protection of our constitutional rights.

{NO surveillance plan that doesn't get discussed, or worse yet, blown on the front pages of the NYT and WP will make some folks happy. But I have yet to see a good plan put forth by the opposition. Oh wait ... I have yet to see any plan at ALL on how to do this put forth by the opposition.}


The NSA plan as I understand it was a mathematical evaluation of patterns leading to numbers that were significant. With huge volume of numbers, this is done by a computer program, not even a human. You know -- patterns like the guys on the Friday night NUMBERS math show on CBS look for.


I am absolutely sure that the intelligence used to get the guys in Canada and elsewhere recently would not past the muster of the ladies in this group, because I do not think they know how to do what they think they want done. They just don't seem to like anything that is being done.


We will all move on, ACs book will come off the Amazon list, but we need to get down to the real nitty gritty of how to keep fighting a war against people who live in a universe all their own where killing the people in NY and Washington is perfectly rational, and good.

Posted by: JAL at June 10, 2006 9:23 AM

I think the reason most conservatives put up with Coulter is the same reason that the left puts up with people like Maher, Franken, and the Kos Kids. She might be a nutter but at least she's a nutter from our* side.

* Not that she's on my side per se. I can't stand her stance on evolution and lots of other things. But she does stand for limiting the size of government and she's for the War on Terror. I held my nose when I voted for Bush and I hold my nose when I listen to Coulter. But I loose my lunch no matter how tightly I close my nose when I read something from DU or MoveOn.org...

Posted by: Michael Mealling at June 10, 2006 9:29 AM

If she was on the Left and not the Right, she'd be adored. Anyway, I've slowly come to the conclusion she's a 21st century Lenny Bruce.

Posted by: lindenen at June 10, 2006 12:24 PM

I doubt that. I'm a fiscal conservative and a libertarian, socially, and I think she's despicable.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 10, 2006 1:11 PM

Erm, settle down folks. The context of the comments the widows are embedded in a =chapter= about victimology, within a =book= discussing the pychographic profile of what the author calls "Democrats"..or "liberals". That's lots of context you are ignoring when getting all huffy about outtakes from a very short segment in a notoriously superficial medium...television talk show spots.

The widows Ann calls into question are NOT =all= of the widows, but a very small handful of them enjoying a status as sacred victims, unattackable in all that they might say, and elevated beyond reason in their ability to influence the rest of us. Ann is just illustrating for us a moonbat method of argument which says that such bereaved, i.e. secondary victims thereby gain "absolute moral authority", become unattackable even in what political positions they espouse, however loosely related those positions are to the specific circumstances of their bereavement. Cindy Sheehan anyone? She's well figured in that same chapter.

Context matters. TV talk shows are famously superficial. The reactions we're seeing now against Anns comments regarding a very small specific segment of the 9-11 bereaved..against a tiny very vocal and specific handful of women...are exactly the reactions that Ann's entire chapter on the subject bemoans. These women are quite obviously not particularly more useful experts on transportation security or border/immigration controls or foreign policy than you or me, by the mere fact that they are =indirect= victims of failures in these areas.

Yes, indirect. They didn't even die themselves. Their spouses did. Now what if their spouses, actual direct victims, could talk to us? Well, Duh folks. Even they would not have anything more pertinent to say about policy issues than you or me, by the mere fact of their having died from failures in these areas. Now, if it so happened that some indirect victim or other of these attacks were or had become a certifiable expert on these issues through hard work, direct experience, serious study, etc, then yeah we ought to listen to them on that basis. Direct or indirect victim status, however, should not in itself elevate the relevance of what they have to say beyond that of any other similarly experienced/qualified voice who is not a victim.

Posted by: grepon le texan at June 10, 2006 2:09 PM

Ann's comments when read in perspective are on the money.

Why is that these 9/11 women have the right to attack others with impunity? You are simply wrong. They have a political motivation that should be challenged. There loss is not a passs. It is sad to see that you will give them a pass.

Ann has the right to voice a different opinion and ask that they hold themselves accountable.

Posted by: berta at June 10, 2006 8:20 PM

Um...attack others? Where do you see these 9-11 widows attacking others with impunity? I see them making suggestions they think will lessen the chances this will happen again. You can think they're wrong, but I don't see any viciousness in their suggestions. Furthermore, a close friend of mine only didn't lose her husband that day because she had a business meeting and he had to take their daughter and sons to school, which she usually does. They are the most close-knit family I know and they've made me part of their family when I'm in New York. I can't imagine her being described, had things turned out differently, the way Coulter describes these 9-11 widows. And if you don't read my blog regularly, don't assume I'm a leftist. I'm a social libertarian and fiscal conservative who thinks people should pay for their own children to go to school and who thinks NPR should not be publicly funded. Oh yeah, and I'm godless, as all truly rational people are. I just sat next to Daniel Dennett at dinner at the Human Behavior & Evolution Society conference, and I'm newly inspired to spread godlessness and eradicate religious primitivism that causes the yahoos to go for the words of people like Ann. What kind of barbarian thinks this is acceptable?

And PS, I don't care if you're divorcing somebody -- do you really want another person to burn to death or jump to their death? Only a barbarian could imagine such barbarianism. And I say that having a pretty good imagination myself. Just not one that's that venal.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 10, 2006 10:44 PM

"I can't imagine her being described, had things turned out differently, the way Coulter describes these 9-11 widows. "

Good. Your friend would, in that alternate universe, be one of the great majority of 911-bereaved persons, whom Anne Coulter is currently NOT painting a horrible picture of. Anne is describing today just a few women, out of the thousands of bereaved persons, who've been expoited by and are exploiting an irrational mob who thinks victimhood conveys inattackability on all positions they may take remotely pertaining to their bereavement. That's the point. How do I know your friend would not be among those very few badly treated in Anne's new book? Well, I don't. I' just guessing that if you are a godless, socially libertarian, fiscally conservative person , and that this friend of yours loves to have you around, then she wouldn't behave shamefully in the wake of her bereavement. Just a guess though. BTW, godless, socially libertarian, fiscal conservative describes me rather well too. And to second some of what's been said elsewhere on Anne, I'm not anticipating taking much stock in her chapter on evolutionary theory. Evolutionary psychology also happens to be a subject area I find intriguing, having read some books on the subject to complement my little university degree on the subject. But being wrong in that area doesn't make Anne's arguments in other areas worthless by extension. Same comment goes for the one or two shocking phrases about the bgehavior of a tiny percentage of 9-11 bereaved she is deploring.

Posted by: Grepon le texan at June 10, 2006 11:23 PM

You're not serious...she actually pontificates on evolutionary theory? What does she have to say?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 10, 2006 11:45 PM

Reviewing your posts down to this one you have communicated a somewhat libertarian view. This post reveals you are just another progressive type hiding your real agenda in an attempt to attain a larger audience and pursuade others toward your real views.

"yawn", more crab people.

Either you can not see past Ann's schtick and see the real arguement in there, or you are showing faux outrage because she is of a different political pursuasion and you want to rail people against her. Probably a little of both.

You are very far from libertarian.

Posted by: Shorse at June 11, 2006 7:49 AM

Shorse, it must be wonderful to be able to go through life and decide the political persuasions of other people for them, or decide what they aren't allowed to be based upon a few posts.

Blessed with that much intuition, shouldn't you be buying lottery tickets? Or perhaps investing in the stock market?

Posted by: Patrick at June 11, 2006 12:13 PM

RE: What does Anne say about evolutionary theory?

Mmmmmwelll, I have not read the chapter yet. And the first time I leafed through the book at an LGA airport kiosk, I set it down after a diagonal read of the evolution stuff. I think the argument comes down to something like "evolution science is about gaps..the whole thing is one big gap" BTW I'm not quoting Anne here, but roughly she seems to be complaining that it is far from being hard science. As far as that goes, well OK. From Maxwell's equations, Schroedinger's equation, and a dose of Einstein's stuff, you can make stupidly accurate, stupidly weird predictions and ALWAYS be right... If don't get what's expected from those, despite having done your math right, you may be on your way to a Nobel..in the one area where the Nobel isn't ridiculuous these days. That is to say in hard science. Other areas of science are far less hard. Evolutionary theory in biology, at least for most of its history, before current capability levels in computing and genetics came to bear, has definitely looked like a handwaving exercise..because of the gaps..of the slowness of the process..the difficulty of catching it in the act. Keep in mind that the last few sentences was me talking. I am guessing that where Ann is talking from in her chapters on evolution is from a perspective of shoring up the larger theme of the book. "Godless" builds up the idea that liberals/Democrats(interchangeable in the text) DO have a complete religion..priests, martyrs(e.g. the handful of widows, or Sheehan, or Mumia/Tookie), articles of faith(evolution), sacred doctrine(e.g. on law enforcement), areas of guilt(environmentalism), and holy sacrements(abortion...). So my guess is that Ann tries too hard in that chapter to hammer paleo-conservative resistance to evolutionary theory into a proof that liberals have unshakable (and risible) articles of faith in their religion.

Note I have NOT read the evolution chapters yet, just scanned here and there within and at the conclusion.

For what it is worth, while living the last few months of a full decade in the Euroscerlotic Union, I did listen to Rush and Hannity, thanks to DSL. It was a kind of preparation for the move back, to help quash cognitive dissonance. Wellll, they and Coulter lost A LOT of capital with me over...the Schiavo thing. That type of thing, plus abortion absolutism, plus this fear of evolution theory, are where paleoconservatives lose traction. We'd be a lot closer to a libertarian paradise here if voices such as these would lay off of antiscientific posturing and stick with the pro-freedom stuff.

On Schiavo, neuroscience has something pertinent to say about what is human and what no longer(Schiavo), or is not yet(the abortion case), human. Personhood ought to (my opinion) require a functioning or recoverable cortex, everything else is ordinary property.

Evolution goes on under our noses every day, even with big animals such as humans. We can probably demonstrate this, now that we've got thousands of years of DNA to go look at..though it is far from PC to do so. Look at the theories about IQ and other measurable, apparently innate differences within human populations. E.G. European Jews' higher IQ and particular heritable disease patterns. Andean populations' adaption to high altitude. Sickle cells vs malaria. Black Plague resistance. Northern European adaption to lactose..or to alcohol!

All that said, Ann, Rush, and Hannity are way more on our side than they are on the other. All three parted violently with Bush and Cie over the government entitlement expanding nonsense. None of them are clamoring for the amnesty approach Bush seems dead-set on. They're pro-Minutemen, all for guarateeing sovereignty first, i.e. spending the small change needed to have an actual border at our borders.

Posted by: Grepon le Texan at June 11, 2006 12:52 PM

Reviewing your posts down to this one you have communicated a somewhat libertarian view. This post reveals you are just another progressive type hiding your real agenda in an attempt to attain a larger audience and pursuade others toward your real views.

You are very far from libertarian.

So sorry I'm not easily categorizable. I'm fiscally conservative and socially libertarian and I find Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity to be glaringly stupid, and just ugly rabble rousers a la Father Coughlin. I'm equally sickened by those who support Mumia, etc., and tend to thank the cops when I see them drive by for risking their lives to protect the rest of us. Sorry to not fit neatly into the little slot you're trying to jam me into.

Regarding the evolution post above, there's very good proof of evolution (please, somebody else explain, because I just got off a plane and I need to lie down), and anybody who believes in god without proof is...not thinking too hard, to put it politely.

I'm godless like all thinking people. Calling me that is a compliment, as it means I have a brain, which I use.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 11, 2006 7:17 PM

"I'm godless like all thinking people. Calling me that is a compliment, as it means I have a brain, which I use."

Amy. There's another possible explanation for your godlessness than "thinking". Maybe your brain, and mine BTW!, are among the small proportion of human brains that lack fairly easily mapped piece of cortex that lights up like an M'erF'er on fNMRi scans in situations of prayer, meditation, religious transcendance, etc. Maybe from an evolutionary standpoint, a tendancy to fear and respect such transcendant presences..gods, spirits, etc was =adaptive= to humans. Also, maybe it still is. The red states ...those religious states that are also closer to you politically than the blue states are...are reproducing voters. Maybe in a time where reproduction and sex have become uncoupled by technology, the believers will pass on their innate susceptibility to religious conversion. Just saying that neuroscience is telling us that a tendancy to faith(or lack thereof) is perhaps hardwired. It may also well be that Coulter, who does profess faith, can also out"think" YOU in a number of domains, all the while being =incapable= of denying what is almost a sensory experience of faith that she feels in a very real sense..coming from a bit of cortex that she's inherited.

As to your scorn for Hannity, Coulter, Rush etc, try to keep in mind that they are a lot closer aligned with your libertarian objectives than just about anyone on the left. Be mostly thankful also for the dittoheads. They vote in your direction much more often than not.

Posted by: Grepon le Texan at June 11, 2006 9:29 PM

Rush, who's a brilliant broadcaster, is much smarter than the other two. Hannity is a thug with a microphone. Ann Coulter is despicable for a living.

Furthermore, I work to think critically, and yes, there are evolutionary reasons for religion -- which is why atheism needs to be more than simply non-belief (see the Josephson Institute for secular ethics) and why atheists need groups just as much as the religious nitwits. However, these groups won't be for the purpose of worshipping the Easter Bunny, Zeus, or any other such bullshit. Everyone please insert your particular brand of primitive, unproven religious bullshit above -- if any.

We all have the power of critical thinking. I suggest we all start using that power. I'm too tired to properly dispute everything here, as I'm on deadline and just flew home. Please, others who can, take over for me.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 11, 2006 10:13 PM

From a letter about Ann Coulter by Matthew G. Saroff on Romenesko:

Simply put, there are things that should not be done or said by someone out of common human decency, and Ms. Coulter has crossed that line.

Conservative commentators Bill O'Reilly and Hugh Hewitt recognize this, describing her comments as, "vitriol because it is mean and counterproductive", and, "Beyond callous, beyond any notion of decency. It is disgusting."

link: http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=11498

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 12, 2006 4:39 PM

"beyond any notion of decency."

Let the grandstanding begin! Sounds like O'Reilly is more hurt by Coulter's blather than the 9/11 wives are. Such righteous delicacy...

I'm sure the original targets of her comments have picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and moved on. Perhaps we could do the same?

Posted by: Lena at June 12, 2006 4:49 PM

Well, Ann's point about public figures trying to exploit victimhood to make themselves unnattackable remains. I just came out of Gorebot's global warming film, where he inexplicably throws in how his son's near death nearly changed him etc. Edwards did a big shtick like that too, campaign stop by campaign stop, on the trail for 2004. The Sheehan phenomemon, and I'm not sorry to agree with Ann, the four 9-11 harpies fit that bill too. We dare not criticise their arguments or actions for fear being seen to attack the weak or somesuch. So much for rational debate right? And that is exactly what users of that tactic want, to silence, not to debate. It's anti-democratic and ought to be a shameful practice. Using an indirect personal loss, mere grief, as a bludgeon and bullhorn.

Posted by: Grepon le texan at June 12, 2006 10:34 PM

"Exploit victimhood"? They are victims.

Criticize whomever you want. This is a free speech blog.

But, if you're going to complain about exploiters, start with Ann Coulter. I mean, how ridiculous that you keep coming to her defense -- a woman whose livelihood depends upon exploitation.

"The four 9-11 harpies"? You sicko. Do you think that's admirable, ditto-heading the words she writes so she can get rich off other people's tragedies?

I love this contention that certain people are "unattackable." Hello? Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh, that pig Sean Hannity (Alan Colmes, you should be massively ashamed of yourself), Bill O'Reilly? Did they not attack Cindy Sheehan and the rest with wild abandon? Larry Elder, Al Rantel, I could go on and on...there's no dearth of attacking of any of these people. Ann is a lying scumbag of the worst order. It's pathetic that you return again and again to defend her, absent logic (see directly above).

You know, I heard David Sloan Wilson this week on the difference between right-wing and liberal religiosos. The irrationally religious liberals can stand alone. The irrationally religious right-wingers need to be in the company their group to feel comfortable. Don't tell me which one you are. We can see it from the Kool-Aid you're always drinking.

I criticize plenty of people. I'm not afraid to criticize anyone, and I get fired from papers pretty often for speaking my mind and telling the truth. What are you doing but acting as the marionette of a woman who, but for the blond hair and the long legs, and the Father Couglin-esque hate speech, would be known to nobody but whatever sick fucks must have raised her?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 12, 2006 10:44 PM

The point remains, that these =indirect= victims, i.e. grieving persons, do not have any special knowledge or point of view of relevance simply because of their bereavement! Not more than you or I. Obviously.

So why are their points of view inattackable now? Oh yeah, because they are victims, but, but, they're telling us to do specific things, like impeach Bush, or pull out of Iraq, or take this or that specific regulatory action. What they know about these things. Not much. They're being exploited by lefties for lefties political gain. It's pathetic.

Posted by: Grepon le texan at June 13, 2006 10:48 AM

The point remains, that these =indirect= victims, i.e. grieving persons, do not have any special knowledge or point of view of relevance simply because of their bereavement! Not more than you or I. Obviously.

So why are their points of view inattackable now? Oh yeah, because they are victims, but, but, they're telling us to do specific things, like impeach Bush, or pull out of Iraq, or take this or that specific regulatory action. What they know about these things. Not much. They're being exploited by lefties for lefties political gain. It's pathetic.

Posted by: Grepon le texan at June 13, 2006 12:02 PM

Clearly, they're not unattackable, since the blonde harpy and you are attacking them. Last I looked, although the government is spying on us without warrants and trying to remove every ounce of separation between church and state it can, we still have free speech.

There's exploitation left and right. Ann's is only good for you because you're a right-wing dittohead. You're no better than the left-wing dittoheads chanting for Mumia.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 14, 2006 2:31 AM

Leave a comment