Idiot Ann Coulter
I really don't like Ann Coulter. Part of it is that she has a voice that reminds me of chalk squeeking on a chalkboard -- every time I hear her voice, shivers go up my spine.
The main reason that I don't like her is because she is so symbolic of what is wrong with political discourse today. She does not know how to argue, and generally resorts to ad hominem attacks.
This morning, she was interviewed on the "Today Show" about her new book "Godless" -- another screed attacking liberals. In the book, she makes a number of claims, but two stand out. First, liberals "celebrate" abortions. Second, about the widows of 9/11 victims -- who dared criticize the Bush administration -- she has never seen women "enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
I won't even waste my time trying to refute her outrageous comments -- that's self-evident. But, it is stark reminder of the times we live in that loony bombthrowers such as Coulter are paid attention to at all in the media, let alone given any type of credibility.
The main reason that I don't like her is because she is so symbolic of what is wrong with political discourse today. She does not know how to argue, and generally resorts to ad hominem attacks.
This morning, she was interviewed on the "Today Show" about her new book "Godless" -- another screed attacking liberals. In the book, she makes a number of claims, but two stand out. First, liberals "celebrate" abortions. Second, about the widows of 9/11 victims -- who dared criticize the Bush administration -- she has never seen women "enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
I won't even waste my time trying to refute her outrageous comments -- that's self-evident. But, it is stark reminder of the times we live in that loony bombthrowers such as Coulter are paid attention to at all in the media, let alone given any type of credibility.
posted by Rod Carveth at 9:58 AM
4 Comments:
ha, as i was going to your page, i was wondering, "i wonder if he's got anything to say about ann coulter!" i think she was a geek in high school.
dscar,
Ann Coulter was on the "Today Show" because she was trying to sell books. The motivation for Lauer and Co. was not just to talk to her about her comments about the "Jersey Girls", but about a range of political issues (given that the exchange over the "Jersey Girls" did not take place until about 4:30 into the interview).
Two major problems with Coulter. One is that she is intellectually dishonest. If she is going to criticize the "Jersey Girls", then why not criticize the Schiavo family, who was using their personal tragedy to advance their own personal agenda (which was not even about politics, but about money).
Second, the comments about the "Jersey Girls" go way beyond whatever point she was trying to make (which is way overstated anyway). Her insinuations that the "harpies" were going to be divorced by their husbands and that they should appear in Playboy before their window of fame was up were comments way, way out of bounds. In addition, on Hannity and Colmes, she stated that she did not think that they would give up the millions of dollars they recieved or the fame in order to get their husbands back. Those kinds of comments are beyond cruel.
She's going to have another bestseller with her cynical use of rhetorical bombs. But, someday, this alleged Christian is going to have to answer to a higher authority. Let's see if that authority is impressed with her "wit."
dscar,
Every American has the right to enter the political debate — for any reason. The "Jersey Girls" and the Schiavos have the same right as any American to join in the political debate. I will agree with you and Coulter that they do not possess a *special right* to do so. While their experiences may give them a unique (in the sense that no one else can possess that particular experience) understanding of the issues involved, they do not enjoy any more rights to influence the public than anyone else. And, once in the debate, their arguments are subject to the same scrutiny as any other in the public sphere.
Where I disagree with you is this. You state:
"There is absolutely nothing more sinister than to hide behind an inviolate cultural taboo in order to push a personal agenda."
I disagree. What is more sinister is for someone like Coulter, instead of arguing against the position that the "Jersey Girls" make, resorts to the following:
"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much. And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."
Coulter could easily criticize the ideas of the "Jersey Girls" without belittling their pain. She chooses not to. Rather, she
rants on about these women profited from their loss.
Yet, Coulter is attempting to do the same thing -- profit from the loss suffered by these women. The difference is that the "Jersey Girls" were motivated by their pain at losing their husbands. Coulter is merely motivated by greed.
That's sinister!
dscar,
Your argument is beginning to confuse two issues. The first has to do with Coulter's comments on the "Jersey Girls". I continue to maintain that Coulter was out of bounds for saying that. For one thing, the other side in the 9/11 debate also had individuals advocating for them whose "credibility" was established as being "victims" of 9/11 -- Debra Burlingame, whose brother died in 9/11, campaigned for the Bush-Cheney ticket, and Ashley Faulkner (10 years old!) who lost her father, was featured in a Bush-Cheney ad.
Secondly, Coulter could have made her argument without resorting to the ad hominem fallacy.
The second part of your argument has to do with whether commenting against the Bush administration policy prolongs the danger for our troops in Iraq -- those in harm's way. I get really nervous when people argue that dissent gives aid and comfort to the enemy, which has been a long time Administration refrain, starting with former Attorney General Ashcroft.
You and I disagree about our involvement in Iraq. Our "chicken hawk" administration failed to heed the advice of the one military man they had -- Colin Powell -- who warned them about the "you break it, you buy it" nature of invading Iraq. Now we have spent between a quarter and a half a trillion dollars, and suffered 2500 troop deaths and nearly 20,000 wounded. In return, there is an incredibly fragile Iraqi government whose weak infrastructure before our invasion is further damaged. We have no choice to but to stay in there because the alternative is worse.
But, I ask myself -- what if those resources that we have spent in Iraq had been devoted to rooting out Al Quaeda across the world -- all the while building up our human intelligence and not destroying our standing among our allies?
Maybe then your life would not have been so difficult.
Post a Comment
<< Home