Via Wonkette:
I know even most conservatives consider her a hack, but at a certain point the entire species really needs to distance itself from this freak. On Ann Coulter’s website:
To The People Of Islam:
Just think: If we’d invaded your countries, killed your leaders and converted you to Christianity YOU’D ALL BE OPENING CHRISTMAS PRESENTS RIGHT ABOUT NOW!
Merry Christmas
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Ann Coulter,
Just Think: If morons like you stopped perpetuating the notion that Christians are hell-bent on converting Muslims, perhaps a lot fewer of them could be convinced to fly planes into buildings.
Frickin’ idjit.
I know even most conservatives consider her a hack,
How do you know this, Edward?
Seems she’s tight with the GOP Party Leadership
How do you know this, Edward?
Perhaps I should have qualified that better. Often when citing her as a voice of the Right, commenters on blogs insist they don’t value her rantings. As you point out though, Jadegold, that is a distinction they don’t share with the GOP leadership.
If morons like you stopped perpetuating the notion that Christians are hell-bent on converting Muslims, perhaps a lot fewer of them could be convinced to fly planes into buildings.
Oh, please! Surely it’s because of Ann Coulter that an article in a Saudi government daily accused the U.S. Army of harvesting the organs of Iraqis and selling them.
Has to be! Why else would they hate us?
Which do you think is more likely to convince an otherwise rational young Saudi that the West represents a threat to him and his family, Stan? An article in a newspaper he knows is run by the very oppressive regime he hates (really, you think he trusts that paper?) or the words of an American author who appears regularly on the bestsellers list and he knows is protected by the First Amendment (i.e., she can speak her true mind and is not merely a mouthpiece for the government).
Really, who is more likely to convince a thinking young Saudi that the West is a danger to him?
I think Coulter’s voice is a fine display of democracy/freedom of speech at work.
Do you really want to play that game with that question Edward? Should we then be convinced by the hero like
status of Osama that arabs are terrorist sympathizers? Should the palestinian support for the suicide bombers tell us something about them? What about the arab silence regarding Darfur? Is it all Coulter’s doing? Is it likely to convince a “thinking young” American to reach a certain conclusion regarding Islam?
I think Coulter’s voice is a fine display of democracy/freedom of speech at work.
Change “People of Islam” to “People of Israel” Stan and tell if you’d still think that.
Is it likely to convince a “thinking young” American to reach a certain conclusion regarding Islam?
I’d hope a thinking young American could see that any smaller nation whose population truly believes that a popular American author wants to convert them via the barrel of a gun to Christianity considers their very way of life at risk.
Clearly Coulter is not singly responsible for the conditions that have led many Muslims to violence, but her cavalier attitude toward how serious a threat many Muslims consider Crusader-esque rhetoric reveals a degree of idiocy I thought beneath even her.
Change “People of Islam” to “People of Israel” Stan and tell if you’d still think that.
No biggie. She made a bad joke, and as a non Christian I don’t feel threatened by it. Nor do I feel threatened by public displays of the nativity scene or people wishing me a merry Xmas, for that matter.
I’d hope a thinking young American could see that any smaller nation whose population truly believes that a popular American author
Sure. But that’s all she is. An author. Nor does she work for a gov’t controlled media.
No biggie. She made a bad joke, and as a non Christian I don’t feel threatened by it.
I’d like to take your word for that, but based on past comments feel I need to ask one more time what your response would be to anyone who wrote that Israel should be invaded, have its leaders killed, and its population forcibly converted to Christianity. Even if they insisted it was all in good fun.
ask one more time what your response would be to anyone who wrote that Israel should be invaded, have its leaders killed, and its population forcibly converted to Christianity.
Let’s make the analogy accurate then. If Israelis were guilty of attacking US interests abroad, its leaders were constantly issuing threats, fatwas, finance jihads abroad, etc, and then finally 19 Israeli hijackers crashed planes on 9/11 killing over 3,000 americans in the process… Well, yea, I could understand her anger. Maybe even in the same way you are attempting to “understand” the “rational young Saudi” – Which do you think is more likely to convince an otherwise rational young Saudi that the West represents a threat to him and his family, Stan?
Why is it so easy for you to rationalize/relate to a “young rational Saudi” and not a young (or not so young) rational American? And if her statement makes her irrational in your eyes, then why does the “young rational Saudi” is still rational if his response is based on some quote by an American author?
. . . her cavalier attitude toward how serious a threat many Muslims consider Crusader-esque rhetoric reveals a degree of idiocy I thought beneath even her.
That was your first mistake. There is no statement so stupid that Coulter would hesitate to make it. (And just so I make sure I’m not lambasted by The Usual Suspects for partisanism, the same is true for . . . whatsisname . . . the cartoonist . . . Rall! Ted Rall.)
Stan, you know well that there is a huge difference between what someone has a right to say under the first amendment and what speech should be funded by major networks and major political organizations. For example, I think Michael Moore is a jerk and I don’t like the way this fairweather friend is insinuating himself in the political process, but the common argument made that he is the ideological equivalent of Coulter, who routinely makes statements like this and terrorists-are-awesome-as-long-as-they’re-white-and-kill-liberals, seems calculatedly moronic.
And no, I’m not attributing that argument to you, just noting one way that she’s relevant to political debate in ways that have nothing to do with the first amendment.
Yes, Rall is probably a fair equivalent. I haven’t read about him cheering on people to kill conservatives, but I’d buy that he would. It pisses me off every time he’s on national television, were that to ever happen.
Stan, Stan, Stan… You might want to go back and look at what she actually said before conjuring up a moral equivalence argument. “To the people of Islam:” she ranted… The analogy should have read “To the people of Jewery etc…”
Now, last time I checked, it wasn’t Islam that attacked the US, it was some nutbars from Egypt and SA. In fact, how do you think her little tirade plays with allies like, oh I don’t know, Turkey? Pakistan?
No biggie. She made a bad joke
this was no one time thing; her entire career is based on such statements.
Last time I checked… the U.S. has not been attacked by Israel. Last time I checked Jews nor Christians have been hacking people heads off…
heet,
Muslim’s all over the world cheered after 9/11.
Her comments are appropriate. If the Islamic world from Indonesia to Egypt would pull it’s collective head out of its butt and clean house we would all be better off.
Those Islamic nutballs you classify so neatly unfortunately have killed Russian school kids, Americans, Spanish, Austalians… the list goes on. And your innocent little Muslims that are getting picked on have plotted to kill more, but have been foiled.
Now, last time I checked, it wasn’t Islam that attacked the US, it was some nutbars from Egypt and SA.
Who made you spokesman for Islam?
In fact, how do you think her little tirade plays with allies like, oh I don’t know, Turkey? Pakistan?
You want our country to become Ashkkkroft’s Amerikkka and suppress free speech?
Jadegold’s encounters with the famous and near-famous: Ten years ago, Ann Coulter hit on me at the bar on the Capitol Grille. She is a good deal more attractive on TV than in person.
Stan and smlook —
How is it you can lump the 9/11 whackos with all of Islam? It is simple-minded and dumb, plain and simple. You can spin your points all you like but when you condemn a whole religion b/c of the radicals, you piss on all religion. McVeigh was a radical religious nut but I don’t want to convert all Christians to atheism. How’s that for an analogy? Without a doubt there is a problem with Islam and the ME but Ann’s comments (and your half-hearted defenses) miss the point completely and are counter-productive.
Ann is playing to the mouth-breathing freakos who hate everything and everyone. Sure, she can say what she wants but that doesn’t mean I have to respect her opinion. Furthermore, I suppose her comments are useful because I can identify people to steer clear of by noting who agrees with her.
Last time I checked… the U.S. has not been attacked by Israel.
USS LIBERTY? Jonathan Pollard? Rachel Corrie?
You should check more thoroughly, Smlook.
Stan, if you’re willing to lump the terrorists who attacked the US on September 11 with all of Islam, and thus accuse all of Islam of attacking the US, are you willing to lump the torturers who assaulted Afghans, Iraqis, and suspects of other nationalitieis with all of Christianity? It’s the same logic. Shall we then say that all Christians are torturers of Muslims? That’s your logic.
Jadegold,
What an absurd claim! But, I will play your little game.
When Bin Laden and the other Islamic fascists release any kind of official apology for all their terrorists acts, then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion. When they claim that it was a case of mistaken identity and the 9/11 hijackers mistook the Twin towers for something else and the Cole and the embassies and so on then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion. When Bin Laden holds 3 official investigations about how these terrorists acts were all mistaken… oh why bother…
When you can prove that Corrie was held down in front of the bulldozer by the IDF, then maybe you will have a point. And France spies on us as much as anyone. Should we bomb ’em? Please say yes.
What a nice imaginary world you have created for yourself? Ha Ha!
Jesurgislac,
Were are the videos of Christians dancing in the streets at the torture. Were are the Christian heads of states making racist comments? The moderate moslem is not completely silent. I’ve heard some, but other than the brave Iraqis and Afghanis who are subject to suicide attacks they ain’t really fightin’ for the right to be heard either.
Let’s not be ridiculous here. Modern day terrorism is associated with Moslems because they commit terrorist acts. Moslems who don’t like that need to work hard to change it like they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just like we need to work hard to kill Islamic terrorists. If moderate moslems were working as hard at ridding the world of Islamic terrorists as the U.S. this problem would be just a page in the history books.
Modern day terrorism is associated with Moslems because they commit terrorist acts.
If by “terrorism” you exclude state-sponsored actions, your statement isn’t completely inaccurate. Although to be clear: first, you mean that the people committing terrorist acts are Muslims, not — as you have in fact said — that Muslims are terrorists; and second, the inventors of suicide bombing (the Tamil Tigers) might have something to say about that.
However, if not…
heet,
How is it you can lump the 9/11 whackos with all of Islam? It is simple-minded and dumb, plain and simple
This is a respond to what? Quote me.
Sure, she can say what she wants but that doesn’t mean I have to respect her opinion.
Very good. You’ve managed to miss the whole point of this thread. Carry on.
Jadegold,
USS LIBERTY? Jonathan Pollard? Rachel Corrie?
Liberty was an accident. Jonathan Pollard was a spy (you going to name a country which doesn’t have spies?), Rachel Corrie was an accident. Funny how you try to imply that her death was an “attack” on U.S. Do I really need to pull out the photo of her ripping up a US flag to a crowd of Palestinians? Very, very lame of you to attempt to use her like that.
Stan, if you’re willing to lump the terrorists who attacked the US on September 11 with all of Islam, and thus accuse all of Islam of attacking the US, are you willing to lump the torturers who assaulted Afghans, Iraqis, and suspects of other nationalitieis with all of Christianity?
I suggest you re read my posts. You’ve missed the point of my conversation with Edward. Nice knee jerking, though.
I suggest you re read my posts
I suggest you re read your posts also.
Coulter is a frenetic nutbar whom no one would pay attention to if she weren’t a leggy blonde. How someone with all the capacity for rational thought of an Afghan hound on crack managed to get a law degree is a mystery – but then, Phyllis Schlafly (the Ann Coulter of the early ’60s) has one, too.
Trying to parse her blather into something meaningful is a waste of time. She’s like an 8 year old who just discovered dirty words.
If you must defend the bigoted vaporings of a dumb blonde, stick with David Duke. At least he’s sincere, not an attention-whore.
Oh, and smlook? What branch of Islam did Timothy McVeigh belong to? Or Eric Rudolph? Or the Aryan Nation?
Stan LS: I suggest you re read my posts. You’ve missed the point of my conversation with Edward.
I did. And I haven’t. I got the point you’re making. It may not be what you meant, but it’s certainly what you said.
Smlook: I don’t think I’m going to respond to this any more.
Who made you spokesman for Islam?
Well, now, that leads to an important question, doesn’t it? Who is the spokesman for Islam? Who’s the Islamic, you know, Pope, or equivalent? Answer that question and you get an idea of why you’re making the wrong arguments.
felixray, jesu,
Re read my exchange with Edward at the top and tell me what you think its about?
Jesu,
Stan, if you’re willing to lump the terrorists who attacked the US on September 11 with all of Islam, and thus accuse all of Islam of attacking the US
Ofcourse that’s an interesting question. Big “if”, though. Will you quote the posts you are referring to in the leading question above?
Why won’t you address the Timothy McVeigh comparisons?
Liberty was an accident.
Impossible. Please research the issue before issuing erroneous excuses.
Jonathan Pollard was a spy (you going to name a country which doesn’t have spies?)
A spy who irreparably damaged US national security. Again, please do some research before asserting ‘everyone does it.’
Rachel Corrie was an accident. Funny how you try to imply that her death was an “attack” on U.S. Do I really need to pull out the photo of her ripping up a US flag to a crowd of Palestinians?
So…you’re saying she deserved to be killed?
Phil,
Who is the spokesman for Islam?
It’s most likely not the person I was replying to.
Nikki,
Why won’t you address the Timothy McVeigh comparisons?
I am assuming you are asking me, but I’ll point out that the question was posed to “smlook”.
Impossible. Please research the issue before issuing erroneous excuses.
There has been a number of congressional investigations, no? But I’ll bite. What was the motive, then?
A spy who irreparably damaged US national security. Again, please do some research before asserting ‘everyone does it.’
I see that you haven’t named a country that does not have spies. By the way, what was the information that he provided to Israelis about? I am curious.
jade,
Sorry for replying with 3 posts to your 1. I am still before my first cup of coffee.
So…you’re saying she deserved to be killed?
Am I? Quote me or apologize for your vile allegations.
There has been a number of congressional investigations, no? But I’ll bite. What was the motive, then?
Motive is unimportant. What is important is that a US Naval vessel was attacked–in daylight and in clear weather–by an erstwhile ally. As for your claims of Congressional inquiries, I can furnish you with the assertions of CNOs, assorted Navy leaders, at least 1 CIA director, at least 1 SECDEF, assorted underSECDEFs, at least 1 NSA director, etc. who state the attack on the LIBERTY was no accident. There are also assertions from former Israeli military and intelligence officers who claim it was no accident.
Also, could you point me to a Congressional investigation of the LIBERTY, please?
You are likely unfamiliar with the facts of the attack. Israeli MTBs approached within 50 feet of the LIBERTY; from that range one could easily read the name of the vessel and see her ensign. Israeli aircraft made at least 3 low speed strafing runs over the ship.
I feel it’s safe to say that I haven’t read more than a few words by Ann Coulter since she left/was ejected from NR. I don’t exactly equate her to Rall, because he only wishes he was that smart. I do think she’s roughly equivalent to James Carville, although (perhaps deliberately) less socially acceptable. But finding a counterpart on the Left doesn’t exactly get us anywhere, does it? What Ms. Coulter engages in is roughly the opposite of what we’re attempting to engage in here at OW, so close examination of it only makes it necessary that we all go take a bath.
My wife got me her latest book for Christmas; can’t recall the title right off but it features the author in what appears to be a leather vest a few sizes too large. It’s right after the Baroque Cycle on the reading list, so it’ll be a while. I don’t expect to like it, but maybe I’ll attempt to review it if anyone’s interested. I’m not sure how much good that’d do, because it’s not exactly a serious attempt at…well, at anything other than Setting Up Mighty Strawmen And Giving Them A Good Thwacking. From what I’ve heard, anyway.
OT: So far, Quicksilver is better than I had any right to expect. The Baroque Cycle, too, was a Christmas present, and much more highly appreciated than the Coulter book. The wife is going through roughly the same phase I was in a few years ago, and she thinks I’m right there with her.
StanLS—
How is it you can lump the 9/11 whackos with all of Islam? It is simple-minded and dumb, plain and simple
This is a respond to what? Quote me.
—
You are correct, you did not specifically say that. Just what are you arguing upthread? If you are defending Ann it is being done in the most elliptical way possible.
StanLS–
Sure, she can say what she wants but that doesn’t mean I have to respect her opinion.
Very good. You’ve managed to miss the whole point of this thread. Carry on.
—
Well, you mentioned you can “understand her anger” and I am saying “I don’t respect her depraved ramblings.” That was my point, what’s yours?
By the way, what was the information that he provided to Israelis about? I am curious.
What the general public knows is that Pollard furnished US contingency plans in the event of a nuclear exchange. Pollard also passed on the names of various Eastern bloc agents we had (remember this was during the Cold War) as well as`evidence we had tapped into Soviet electronic communications.
Now, there is a whole bill of particulars the public doesn’t know of because of its national security sensitivity.
Am I? Quote me or apologize for your vile allegations
Here’s your quote again: Rachel Corrie was an accident. Funny how you try to imply that her death was an “attack” on U.S. Do I really need to pull out the photo of her ripping up a US flag to a crowd of Palestinians? Very, very lame of you to attempt to use her like that.
Rachel Corrie was run over by a bulldozer. Bulldozers are relatively slow-moving pieces of heavy machinery. In addition, the operator of the bulldozer knew there were protestors in his immediate vicinity. At the very least, there was a reckless and callous disregard for her safety.
Regardless of her politics or views, Ms. Corrie was an American citizen. By alluding to some story about ripping up a US flag (in front of those pesky Palestinians), you’re implying somehow Ms. Corrie deserved her fate.
Motive is unimportant.
It’s not? I thought motives were used to establish things like… You know… Future threats, maybe? How did USS liberty come up anyway? By the way:
On June 8, 1967, Navy Lt. Maurice Bennett was part of the National Security Agency’s contingent aboard the Liberty, just 12 miles off the Egyptian-Sinai coast, near where the Israeli air force had just wiped out Nasser’s air force the following morning.
Lt. Bennett devoted himself to saving lives and to help keep the ship from sinking, for which he was awarded a Purple Heart and the Silver Star.
Bennett is now a retired Navy commander. Last June 3, 2003, he wrote to Judge Cristol, author of perhaps the definitive book on this issue, “The Liberty Incident.”
Cmdr. Bennett wrote:
“From the viewpoint of one who was on board the Liberty at the time of the attack, your account leaves little doubt that the attack was the result of a series of confused decisions, made in a war setting. Error seems to compound error both on the part of the Israelis and the U.S. Perhaps your account will lay to rest the many conspiracy theories which have plagued us all these last 30 off years.”
heet,
Re read the whole exchange and what I was responding to.
Jade,
What the general public knows is that Pollard furnished US contingency plans in the event of a nuclear exchange. Pollard also passed on the names of various Eastern bloc agents we had
Cite?
Rachel Corrie was run over by a bulldozer. Bulldozers are relatively slow-moving pieces of heavy machinery.
They are? So you are telling me that an ultra quiet bulldozer didn’t chase her down and run her over?
At the very least, there was a reckless and callous disregard for her safety.
On her part. When I go to my mechanic, there’s a big sign telling me that I can’t go beyond a certain point due to insurance reasons. Now, the bulldozers that Israelis use are more like tanks – they are huge, have armor all around and limited visibility.
Regardless of her politics or views, Ms. Corrie was an American citizen. By alluding to some story about ripping up a US flag (in front of those pesky Palestinians), you’re implying somehow Ms. Corrie deserved her fate.
Weak. You classified her death as an attack by Israel on US. Did you not? You still haven’t shown me implying that she deserved her fate (by the way, it’s not “some story”, there’s a photo. Nice try). I just found it ironic that you decided to use her as an example of an attack on US, that’s all.
Yikes.
OK, my bad for not setting a clearer discussion point here. I think Stan is right to ask that we return to the original conversation (and a few folks here should know my partner is Muslim and a few of you are really close to getting banned…carelessly qualified statements like “Those Islamic nutballs” will get you banned, so please stop generalizing so thoughtlessly).
The question as Stan and I began to explore it is: is Coulter right to even joke about converting Muslims to Christianity, given how much she hates (apparently all) Muslims for what some of them did on 9/11? I say she’s not. Stans feels it’s her 1st Amendment right (but I think that’s more because he’s not threatened by her statements). I think she’s stepped over the line, and her statement is inflammatory…purposely, irresponsibly prodding Muslims on an issue where many of them are very sensitive (the Crusades being much clearer in many of their memories than ours).
The question of whether all Muslims are responsible for 9/11 has been debated to death…anyone wishing to still argue that point should go elsewhere.
WorldNetDaily? How special.
Here’s an account from a LIBERTY survivor:
What do you mean by “right”, Edward? Are you asking whether she really means it? Or if she’s accurately representing public opinion? Or if she’s got the right to say that? Or something else?
I’d hope she doesn’t mean it, and this is just more polemicism from the nonstop polemic mill. I’d also hope she’s accurately representing the views of an extremely tiny minority. But I’m going to add that she’s got every bit as much right to say what she says as Michael Moore and Ted Rall do. And the rest of us have the right to verbally excoriate her if we disagree.
What do you mean by “right”, Edward?
In the court of public opinion, has she stepped over the line? I’m not asking that she be arrested, dragged behind the police station, tied to a chair, have her eyeballs propped open, and forced to watch video of Michael Moore taking a shower for 36 hours nonstop…
What I’m really asking is are there folks who will defend her statement.
Edward,
Thank you!
Stans feels it’s her 1st Amendment right (but I think that’s more because he’s not threatened by her statements).
But there are plenty people I don’t agree with and I am not saying they should be suppressed. In any case, my main point was to point out the ease with which you gave consideration to a “thinking young Saudi” and not her.
Maybe she likes them…is husky the correct term?
Edward,
What I’m really asking is are there folks who will defend her statement.
Coulter has always been provacative. Everybody knows it. I highly doubt there’s any actual threat in her statement.
Of course. Stepping over the line is job one. Lots of people a very good living from this. Of course, when such people step so far over the line that no one will employ them any longer, justice is then served.
Coulter’s taken at least one step in that direction, as has Rall.
In any case, my main point was to point out the ease with which you gave consideration to a “thinking young Saudi” and not her.
Chronology is important here. I’m giving consideration to the thinking young Saudi BEFORE he’s willing to consider imposing his way of life onto others. Terrorists are not born, they are made. Coulter has crossed that line, in my opinion. She’s making a joke (supposedly) about something that many Muslims fear is really behind our efforts.
No matter how you look at it, her efforts are not helping, and they are highly insulting.
Re Coulter and Rall: I’ve yet to see Rall do or say anything as offensive as Coulter. And–one must remember–Rall is a cartoonist; his business is about satire. OTOH, Coulter is considered to be a journalist, pundit, and legal scholar. Moreover, as I noted earlier, Coulter seems to enjoy close relationships with the GOP’s senior leadership, including Dick Cheney.
Stan LS: Re Jonathan Pollard. BBC Thumbnail. You also might wish to familiarize yourself with the RASIN manuals.
I agree with Jadegold on the difference between Rall and Coulter being important. Cartoonists are given more license for hyperbole. Coulter passes her drivel off as journalism.
I’m giving consideration to the thinking young Saudi BEFORE he’s willing to consider imposing his way of life onto others.
Didn’t her infamous line about converting muslims come right< b>after 9/11?
She’s making a joke (supposedly) about something that many Muslims fear is really behind our efforts.
Oh, come on. Supposedly? You think she actually plans to head (or be a part of) a some kind of crusader movement? And why do you treat muslims like idiots? We didn’t keep Kuwait after we kick Saddam out, did we? What about Kosovo? Why would you expect any rational muslim to view us as crusaders?
By whom? Certainly not by journalists. Pundit, yes, but pundit != journalist.
I highly doubt there’s any actual threat in her statement.
Mindreading?
I suspect the actual threat comes from those who look at her and read her books and are possibly influenced by her.
In a similar vein, Timmy McVeigh was influenced by the NRA and other gun nuts. Given enough inflammatory rhetoric, it’s inevitable the weak-minded zealot will act out. Chanting “babykiller” enough will surely lead to someone taking a shot at a doctor or trying to bomb a clinic.
Jade,
I suspect the actual threat comes from those who look at her and read her books and are possibly influenced by her.
Mindreading?
In a similar vein, Timmy McVeigh was influenced by the NRA and other gun nuts
By the NRA? Go on.
Oh, please. So were millions of other people, almost all of which didn’t bomb buildings full of people.
On the other hand, Islamic rhetoric incited some folks to strap explosives to themselves and bomb complete strangers, so you’re making an argument for Islam=evil rather nicely. I don’t agree with that POV either, just to be clear.
Slarti,
I don’t agree with that POV either, just to be clear.
Yea, good luck with using analogies. I tried one at the top of the thread and look what happened.
Gee, I must have hallucinated all of those Ted Rall columns. Time to lay off the cough syrup.
Chanting “babykiller” enough will surely lead to someone taking a shot at a doctor or trying to bomb a clinic.
Er . . . by that logic, chanting “jihad” enough will surely lead to someone flying a 747 into a plane full of innocent civilians. That’s not really the argument you want to make, is it? Or are only Americans susceptible to this syndrome? (I don’t think you want to make that one, either.)
Re: Rall, see, for example, this recent entry, one in a contintuing series of cheap shots at Pat Tillman, not to mention an accidental exercise in arguing that a) the insurgents, the terrorists, and those who just want the Americans out are all the same, morally, and b) that’s OK with Rall.
Busted link, Phil.
Well, Phil, given that the term ‘jihad’ is one that has been hijacked and misused by extremists, I think your concern is misplaced.
Whoops
Jade,
Can you point to some text were “jihad” is used correctly and not “misused”?
Well, Jadegold, given that the NRA’s views on gun ownership have been hijacked and misused by extremists, I think your concern is misplaced.
We can play this game all day, if you’d like, or you can concede that your argument works as easily for those concerned about inflammatory Islamic rhetoric as it does for whatever your pet shibboleths are, and actually makes their point better than it does yours. Then we can jettison the whole stupid line of inquiry and get back to discussing whether Coulter is an irresponsible and inflammatory bint.
Or not. Up to you.
Phil: Personally, I think Rall’s satire is ham-handed. Having said that, though, your linked column does point up an unpleasant truth: the fact we glorified a pro athlete who made the ultimate scarifice–while we tend to ignore the sacrifices of those who aren’t well-known outside of their families and small towns.
It’s satire; it might not be good satire, but it is what it is.
OTOH, you have a lawyer who believes all liberals are traitors, thinks Joe McCarthy was a hero, and is sad McVeigh didn’t target the NYTimes building.
Why would you expect any rational muslim to view us as crusaders?
Two words: General Boykin.
jade,
Hmmm
In 1995, when the VENONA transcripts were declassified, it was learned that regardless of the specific number, McCarthy consistently underestimated the extent of Soviet espionage. VENONA specifically references at least 349 people in the United States–including citizens, immigrants, and permanent residents–who cooperated in various ways with Soviet intelligence agencies.
It is generally believed that McCarthy had no access to VENONA intelligence. VENONA does confirm that some individuals investigated by McCarthy were indeed Soviet agents. For example, Mary Jane Keeney was identified by McCarthy simply as “a communist”; in fact she and her husband were both Soviet agents. Another individual named by McCarthy was Lauchlin Currie, a special assistant to President Roosevelt. He was confirmed by VENONA to be a Soviet Agent.
Maybe not good beliefs, Jade, but they are what they are.
Edward,
Ok. Let me get this straight. You are against americans judging the whole Muslim world by the actions of the few, but its ok for the Muslim world to judge us by the words of the few?
Once again, a “young thinking Saudi” is getting far more consideration then a young thinking American.
Stan,
You realize that Boykin is a general right? He’s not just a citizen. He’s not just some criminal, like bin Laden. He’s a freakin’ US General, a leader, a MILITARY leader, supposedly in charge of carrying out (some portion) of the military desires of the nation, with the ear of the SecDef and the respect of the nation. You can’t compare him to a shadowy terrorist living in a cave.
Edward,
Should I go dig up a quote by a Saudi prince or a Pakistani general? Or anything from any Muslim gov’t controlled media?
Well, Jadegold, given that the NRA’s views on gun ownership have been hijacked and misused by extremists, I think your concern is misplaced
Phil, are you aware where McVeigh got the idea for the design of the bomb used in OK City? Are you aware the head of the NRA called BATF agents “jack-booted thugs” even as workers were removing bodies from the rubble of the Murrah Federal Building?
WRT Jihad; I’m given to understand the term ‘jihad’ means a personal struggle or journey to come to some greater fulfillment of God’s wishes. IOW, one could embark on a jihad to better understand the Koran or to be a better husband or father. There is a term (‘qital’) that hads a more militant or martial meaning.
Should I go dig up a quote by a Saudi prince or a Pakistani general? Or anything from any Muslim gov’t controlled media?
Only if you want to imply that we need not hold our generals to a higher standard than that.
I think the rest of us are acquainted with Google too, Jade. The more…martial of the Muslim world should note your correction, though, and henceforth use more appropriate terminology.
As a Muslim living and wokring in USA, I totally agree with Edward.
I thought if I said that, it’d probably not go over well. But since you did it first, Edward, allow me to lend support to the idea.
Stan LS: Do you wish to defend Joe McCarthy? Seriously?
Are you asserting he was right?
Jade,
Phil, are you aware where McVeigh got the idea for the design of the bomb used in OK City?
According to this:
McVeigh and Nichols’ truck bomb was superficially similar to a design outlined in a white supremacist tract known as The Turner Diaries, but the explosive power had been souped up fairly substantially by tinkering with the chemical components. In fact, the design was strongly reminiscent of Yousef’s work, which may or may not have been a coincidence.
Are you aware the head of the NRA called BATF agents “jack-booted thugs” I’m given to understand the term ‘jihad’ means a personal struggle or journey to come to some greater fulfillment of God’s wishes.
Can you point us to an example where the term is being used in that way?
Off, damned italics.
Jade,
Hey, man. I just posted a link. You are not denying the facts as described and yet you got all fired up. Why?
Thanks Murat.
Slight change of direction: I think the bullying, lying, and faux victimization of right wing commentators really degrades democracy and is deliberately calculated to stiffle civic discourse. Yes I know the left isn’t perfect but even Micheal Moore doesn’t stoop to the name-calling, outright lies and slander that is standard for Coulter, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity etc. And the right has a much bigger share of the airwaves.
So this is how I fight back: whenever I go into a bookstore I check to see if Coutler is present. If so I present the manager with a polite request to remove he books on the grounds that they are hate literature, not real coservative thought. I have a copy of her quote about killing liberals. I point out that at least half of the customers, if not more, are liberals. The most frequent response I get is that the publishing houses send the books and everything sent is considered maninstream. I respond that that reinforces my point. Our definition of mainstream political commentary and civil discourse shouldn’t include expressions of religious bigotry, slander, and death threats. (I have written to the publisher, too.) I am carrying out a parallel campaign with a local news paper that publishes her column.
This isn’t a free speach issue. She can say what she likes. Bookstores ad newspapers are under no obligation to carry her stuff. To do so is to give her an implied endorsement of respectabiity or mainstream status which contributes to the dumbing-down of our political debate.
Stan LS: I want to be clear: are you asserting Joe McCarthy has been vindicated by history?
Wasn’t he referring to Waco? Nice of you to omit the context.
Does it improve LaPierre’s comments? Does it excuse McVeigh bombing a building?
Slight change of direction: I think the bullying, lying, and faux victimization of right wing commentators really degrades democracy and is deliberately calculated to stiffle civic discourse. Yes I know the left isn’t perfect but even Micheal Moore doesn’t stoop to the name-calling, outright lies and slander that is standard for Coulter, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity etc.
Still got that “Buck Fush” sticker on your car?
Stan LS: I want to be clear: are you asserting Joe McCarthy has been vindicated by history?
The link I posted seems to indicate that he was right.
Does it improve LaPierre’s comments? Does it excuse McVeigh bombing a building?
Who’s trying to excuse the Oklahoma bombing? Weak, Jade. Seriously weak.
murat,
Which part? That you think that US is trying to conquer and convert Muslims?
If so I present the manager with a polite request to remove he books on the grounds that they are hate literature, not real coservative thought.
I love that lily. Personally, when I’m in a book store, I just turn her books around or upside down or place a Michael Moore book in front of them.
In the end though, both of them (Coulter and Moore) are in the entertainment business. Just like most blogs. 😉
PS. Joe McCarthy is a blight on American history. Regardless of whether he had a point or two, his methods were so utterly shameless and destructive that calling him a “hero” tarnishes the word.
Edward,
I just turn her books around or upside down or place a Michael Moore book in front of them.
I’ld never stoop that low. Even if I was to see Michael Moore’s books.
If you haven’t already been warned, Stan, here’s your warning. As much as I disagree with lily, I will do so politely, or not at all. As will you, per the posting rules.
I’ld never stoop that low.
You’re a better man than I am Stan!
Mind you, I’ve only done that twice…but it felt good. It’s the petty pleasures in life…
The link I posted seems to indicate that he was right.
Actually, it doesn’t.
Nobody denies the Soviets were conducting espionage against us and had infiltrated parts of our Govt. However, McCarthy cast his net wide–for political gain and to punish his political foes–and ruined the lives and reputations of many loyal and innocent Americans.
Who’s trying to excuse the Oklahoma bombing?
Wayne LaPierre. After all, the wreckage of the Murrah building is still smoldering and the NRA is sending out a fundraising appeal calling BATF agents “jack-booted thugs.”
I love that lily. Personally, when I’m in a book store, I just turn her books around or upside down or place a Michael Moore book in front of them.
Hey, I cop to doing this. I also admit to taking the rightwing whackjob books (usually the Regnery published ones) in the library and relocating them to the tops of the high shelves.
I suppose I should feel bad about this. But I can’t find it in my conscience.
I’ve never had a Buck Fush sticker on my car. I have a “Boycott Veal” sticker.
I’ve never had a Buck Fush sticker on my car.
My old Volvo had a ‘Nuck Fewt’ sticker on it. I’d have a ‘Boycott Veal’ bumpersticker were it not for my weakness for the veal saltimbucco at Geranio’s.
Wayne LaPierre. After all, the wreckage of the Murrah building is still smoldering and the NRA is sending out a fundraising appeal calling BATF agents “jack-booted thugs.”
He was talking about Waco. Nice of you to attempt to connect the two, though.
It’s the petty pleasures in life…
Nothing like suppressing free speech. Welcome to Ashkkkkkkkkkkkkkkroft’s Amerikkkkkkkkkka. Heh.
Slartibartfast,
Looks like you overreacted 🙂
Maybe not so much of a one-and-only-warning, Phil, but more of a you-might-want-to-tone-that-down. We’re all about civil disagreement, here.
Phil?
Nothing like suppressing free speech.
Turning a book around is another form of free speech, Stan. The bestsellers list suggest my efforts are doing very little to impact Ms. Coulter’s sales or her rights, but keep focusing on that point…it covers well your support this nutjob.
Uh…Stan, rather. We’re all about accuracy, here, or so we’d like to think.
Edward,
Turning a book around is another form of free speech, Stan.
So if I am jamming Air America that’s free speech?
Now, Edward. You’re sabotaging the notion that one can support Moore’s right to speech without supporting Moore.
Slarti,
I was pretty accurate in my guess, though. Look at Jade’s post.
Which one, Stan? There are many to choose from.
My old Volvo had a ‘Nuck Fewt’ sticker on it.
😛
Oh. That’s a statement of fact, instead of a supposition. One is just a fact, the other is based on your prejudices.
But, what one may see as insulting, another might wear as a badge of honor. Standards vary. Hence the retraction of the formal warning (retracted for other reasons, too, but my fingers are getting tired).
So if I am jamming Air America that’s free speech?
D’you have two bowls of Frosted Hyperbole Flakes for breakfast Stan?
Let’s compare. On two occassions while in a book store I turned around a copy of Ann Coulter or placed a Michael Moore book in front of hers. The total impact of this act was at most to momentarily confuse the person seeking out her book (although there were in both instances other stacks of her ware right next to the stack I, er, improved upon). This admittedly petty act of vandalism was done in good humor and affected next to no one.
Now, jamming the airwave’s of Air America…do I really need to draw out the comparison here or will you just concede?
where is this conversation with Phil taking place? I can’t follow it.
But, getting back to somewhere in the same universe as the subject:
No. Besides doing nothing to them that they aren’t already doing themselves, you’re in violation of one or more FCC regulations.
Slarti,
No biggie. I just found her post to be a bit too shrill, so I thought my reply was warranted. I’ll make another guess. Lily supported Dean.
Heh.
Honestly, neither can I (reference: my 12:16 post).
Edward,
Let’s compare. On two occassions while in a book store I turned around a copy of Ann Coulter or placed a Michael Moore book in front of hers. The total impact of this act was at most to momentarily confuse the person seeking out her book
That depends. There’s a reason why time and money go into the cover design. Books want to be noticed. If I am on my lunch break and I pop into the store, if I don’t see what I want I might just leave.
This admittedly petty act of vandalism was done in good humor and affected next to no one.
I would agree with the above characterization only if you were turning books around at random.
Now, jamming the airwave’s of Air America…
Both actions are intended to prevent the flow of information.
Is Coulter a “best-selling author”? Her sales figures always have that little asterisk thingie, which means someone’s buying in bulk, at greatly-reduced prices. For all we know, there’s a band of survivalists in North Dakota who snap up Coulter’s tomes by the truckload for use as firewood.
I think that in both cases it would depend on how far one was willing to distort the meaning of “information”.
Honestly, neither can I (reference: my 12:16 post).
Got it. You’re in mixed company here Stan…unlike Washington, the liberals here have as much power as the conservatives…we don’t presume supporting Dean is worthy of derision like they do on other more conservative sites…snark nicely please.
That depends. There’s a reason why time and money go into the cover design. Books want to be noticed. If I am on my lunch break and I pop into the store, if I don’t see what I want I might just leave.
Er…I wrote that there were stacks of the same title right next to the one I changed.
Molehill…mountain…misdirection attempt…
As you repeated earlier, back to the point please…
Edward,
snark nicely please.
Ahem. Off Italics!
Out italics…
Not like I said “Kucinich” 😉
LOL…grrrrrr-owl
I don’t visit democratunderground.com…is it comparable to LGF?
By whom? Certainly not by journalists. Pundit, yes, but pundit != journalist.
Guess who was the Media Research Center’s “Conservative Journalist of the Year” in 2000?
Court TV
Google can be your friend.
Doh! Sorry about the italics thing.
LGF has a nice collection of articles, photos, etc. democratunderground is all conspiracy theories. Check it out sometime.
what happened…they’re back
OUT PESKY ITALICS!
I blame jadegold!
OK. so this calls for the industrial strength italics remover.
did that work?
MRC is journalists? Where do they publish?
LGF has a nice collection of articles, photos, etc
Nice? Like a Rottweiler’s nice…
Wait, Edward. Journalistic acclaim is yours to be had, just as soon as I proclaim myself a journalist. Or maybe someone else has to call me a journalist…maybe you could do it?
With a wave of my magic keyboard….Ding!
You’re a journalist!
That’s the good news…the bad news is you’re now part of the So-Called Liberal Media.
Be careful what you wish for!!!
If any one cares, I was a Clark supprter.
It’s weird how the right wing demonized Dean as a shrill nut case, based mostly on one speech, while embracing or tolerating people like O’Reilly. It is also weird how easlily Democrats seem to internalize rightwing criticisms. If I was a Republican I would be turning Coulter’s books around out of embarassment. Well not literally turning them around. Objecting to them. I hope I would, any way.
MRC is journalists? Where do they publish?
Anywhere they can.
BTW, Human Events considers her a journalist. As did National Review.
Of course, if you admit these aren’t credible groups…who am I to argue?
Cool. I find myself unburdened of the obligation to deal in fact.
That aside, I hereby dub thee, Edward Underscore, a “noted journalist”, and foreward references thereto to Google.com, c/o the pigeons.
There. Now everything you say gains the greenish patina of legitimacy. So saith the Oz, the Gweat and Tewwible.
It is also weird how easlily Democrats seem to internalize rightwing criticisms.
Comes with the territory: dedication to tolerance, considering all POVs, being open to criticism, dedication to progressive ideals and working well with others…all adds up to internalizing rightwing criticism. In the end, though, it’s worth it.
Watch the RNC national covention on video again…30 years ago you would have sworn it as a Democrat rally. Internalizing criticism cuts both ways.
I really wonder what kind of people buy books by Ann Coulter.
I mean, not just the bulk buying that conservative groups engage in–but the average Joe ixPack who walks into B&N and buys a Coulter book.
Wow…I’m stunned. Human Events? They’ve got to have nearly the circulation of The Elkhart Truth. NRO fired her, rather messily and publicly. Does that lend more credibility to Coulter, or NRO?
Anyway, now that we’ve got an actual journalist on staff, we ought to have some added prestige and sway over the American public, for good or ill. After all, Edward publishes pretty much wherever he can. As do I. Hey…could it be? Edward, am I a journalist, now?
Turning a book around is another form of free speech, Stan.
Not until you own either the book or the bookstore, I’m afraid. On the Great Scale of Wrongs, it’s somewhere between “leaving the toilet seat up” and “putting forks in the dishwasher the wrong way up,” but still. The merchandise is not yours to do with as you please, unless you’re OK with people browsing your gallery and messing with the artwork (not vandalizing, but moving/turning towards the wall/otherwise misdisplaying it).
Plus, I worked for three years in retail book sales between stints in college, and facing/shelving merchandise is a never-ending job and a constant pain in the rear. (Even today, when I go into a bookstore, I fix mis-shelved books while I browse. Old habits die hard.) Please, whatever your political persuasion, try to resist the temptation to make wage slaves’ jobs even an iota more difficult. Thanks.
As to Media Research Center . . . good lord, who cares what they think about, well, much of anything? They’re WorldNetDaily for television. They’re nuts.
Cool. I find myself unburdened of the obligation to deal in fact.
Gosh darn it Slarti…those are the magic words that undo the spell…You were a journalist, but you’re just a mere blogger again.
I, on the other hand, as a “noted journalist” will publish my collected posts under an inflammatory title, like How to Talk with Conservatives (If They’ll Ungag You Long Enough) and retire to a life of talk shows and booksignings.
8)
They’ve got to have nearly the circulation of The Elkhart Truth.
I was unaware there was a circulation standard for journalists. Could you provide the threshold number?
Human Events claims a weekly readership of 140K.
The Elkhart Truth claims a weekday readership of 27+K. (They proudly claim to rank #382 out of 1413 US newspapers.
unless you’re OK with people browsing your gallery and messing with the artwork (not vandalizing, but moving/turning towards the wall/otherwise misdisplaying it).
Good point Phil. OK. For my New Year’s resolution, I resolve to leave all of Coulter’s books the way I found them in the bookstore…riddled with lies, repugnant, and poorly written.
Slartibartfast: Of course, when such people step so far over the line that no one will employ them any longer, justice is then served.
I have to say that I find that to be utterly despicable… and that I find myself more or less in agreement. Despicable in that “justice” finds itself at the mercy of the whims of the majority* which, as we’ve found to our sorrow these past few centuries, need be neither just nor right; agreement because I can’t think of a cure that’s not worse than the disease.
Somehow, after all these years, “the least bad solution” doesn’t have the same ring to me; and yet, by definition, I can’t think of anything better. It’s incredibly frustrating, which is why I’m really only typing this in the hopes that two noted journalists such as yourselves will deign to notice poor li’l me. 🙂
* Actually, given the extent of media agglomeration nowadays, they only need be found palatable to a select few with enough money and/or influence. Which only makes me despise this construction even more.
There isn’t.
You haven’t been paying attention, have you? But we’re all journalists here. And what journalists can do, other journalists can undo. I hereby proclaim that Ann Coulter is no journalist, but is merely a columnist where she can get the space, a polemicist where she can find a bookbinder, and a pundit where anyone’s willing to put her face on the air.
So, all should be well, now. You’re welcome.
So, all should be well, now. You’re welcome.
Thank you!
Oh, please, Anarch.
Coulter has committed no crime, which both you and I know. Let’s not wax hysterical, ok? But if it bothers you, substitute some notion of karma.
Works for me, Edward. Take solace in this: The fact that there are such stacks of them means that nobody is buying them. 🙂
“Screwing around with the merchandise” is one of my pet peeves. My wife and I were the fine French boutique, Tarzhay, the day after Xmas, and what I saw in the discounted merchandise aisles made my blood boil. Animals!
Having reread Anarch‘s post, I find that I missed the point by as much as it’s possible to miss.
NRO fired her, rather messily and publicly. Does that lend more credibility to Coulter, or NRO?
There’s a third choice: neither. It reflects poorly on NRO and Coulter.
Let’s not forget NRO ran the column advocating the US “invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity,”
It was after the fact that NRO dropped her. After the negative publicity and threatened loss of sponsorship.
NRO has always suffered from questionable journalistic ethics and practices; to this day, John Derbyshire, who once advocated Chelsea Clinton be killed, still writes for them.
Heaven forbid that a publication might not heed its sponsors. Still, without some evidence to support the claim, I’ll take it with as big a pile of salt as I take anything else you say that’s unsupported.
As I recall, the big brouhaha wasn’t over the original column, but over a followup rant that she wanted to publish and that they refused to publish.
Heaven forbid that a publication might not heed its sponsors.
Still missing the point? How did Coulter’s bigotry make it past NRO editors? Your choices are few; either the editors at NRO are terribly sloppy and careless in their duties or they saw nothing amiss in Coulter’s column.
Still, without some evidence to support the claim,
Perhaps you’ve heard of Jonah Goldberg? I hear he has something to do with NRO. Here’s what he said: “We didn’t feel we wanted to be associated with the comments expressed in those two columns. We got a lot of complaints from sponsors and a lot of complaints from readers left, right and center. We’ve decided for editorial reasons we think are sound that we’re no longer going to run Ann Coulter’s syndicated column.”
As I recall, the big brouhaha wasn’t over the original column, but over a followup rant that she wanted to publish and that they refused to publish
Partly right. NRO published the column about killing the leaders and converting everyone to Christianity. This provoked much controversy. Coulter then wanted to publish a followup talking about singling out “swarthy males”–NRO refused, spawning a war of words about “girly men” and the like. That’s when NRO dropped her.
All of which, although interesting in a multicar-pileup sort of way, does nothing to reinstate Coulter as a journalist. And if you manage to do so, I’ll simply declare her a non-journalist again.
All of which, although interesting in a multicar-pileup sort of way, does nothing to reinstate Coulter as a journalist. And if you manage to do so, I’ll simply declare her a non-journalist again.
Of course, you’re free to do so; just as you’re free to believe the Pope’s mitre is really a Yankees’ rally cap.
BTW, I lifted the Goldberg quote from a WaPo column by Howie Kurtz titled, National Review Fires Columnist Ann Coulter . (Oct 2, 2001)
Yes, if I could just declare myself to be a majority of cardinals when he was elected, that might just be a possibility. The rules of journalism, though, seem to be quite a lot less restrictive.
I once had a horse named Lazarus, but that didn’t help my cause any more than it’s helping yours.
It’s amusing to see Stan LS both defend Gen. Boykin and complain about Waco in the same thread. He might try a Google search about the connection between the two . . . Reno’s big mistake at Waco was that she faled to reject Bopykin’s advice.
Jadegold,
It really seems that you are attacking Coulter because she is a woman with a strong opinion. The way you consistently demean her is quite startling. There are many people in the industry that hire her for her skills.
rea,
It’s amusing to see Stan LS both defend Gen. Boykin
Defend Boykin? Now that is amusing! Quote me where I am supposedly defending him.
Oh, brother. On a blog where Katherine’s work has approached nearly legendary status as some of the finest examples of online investigation and blogging, and where hilzoy has consistently shown a depth of thought that would evade Coulter at her best, that dog won’t hunt, smlook. Not even freakin’ close.
Coulter’s “skills” consist of throwing red meat to people inclined to eat it. Nothing more, nothing less. Same as any other bomb-tossing pundit of any political persuasion. Oh, it’s a talent, to be sure, but it isn’t very valuable in the long run.
—-It really seems that you are attacking Coulter because she is a woman with a strong opinion. The way you consistently demean her is quite startling. There are many people in the industry that hire her for her skills.—-
You owe me a new keyboard. Milk shot of my nose and ruined this one.
Since we are bashing ole Ann, let me chime in w/ my thoughts on lawyers… My buddy goes to a top 10 law school and I’ve met many of his classmates. Many of them are opportunistic blowhards. Go figure.
Having reread Anarch’s post, I find that I missed the point by as much as it’s possible to miss.
But, to be fair, I wrote the point almost as badly as it’s possible to write it. So the karmic equilibrium remains undisturbed 🙂
BTW:
Jadegold’s encounters with the famous and near-famous: Ten years ago, Ann Coulter hit on me at the bar on the Capitol Grille. She is a good deal more attractive on TV than in person.
Jadegold? You *so* owe us the full story here. Christmas is the season of giving, after all!
Anarch: Not a big story here; I was meeting my future brother-in-law for drinks before heading out to dinner (not at the Capitol Grille–kind of overrated). The Capitol Grille bar, at that time, was sort of a meat market for Congress, staffers, reporters, and folks like my future brother-in-law, etc.
Anyway, I’m sitting there nursing a Stoli (rocks, olives) watching CNN and I feel a hand on my arm. It’s Ann Coulter. She asks if I play for the Redskins. I’m a little taken aback (it’s Ann Coulter) and I’m half amused because she’s half in the bag. I tell her, yes, I play for the Redskins but could you excuse me; I’m in the middle of my workout. She laughs and asks if she could help with my (pause) workout. She hasn’t let go of my arm. She does a rather clumsy hair toss thing and leans in close and tells me her name is Ann.
Future BiL arrives at this point and I make quick introductions, quick farewells and we make a quick getaway, leaving Coulter to her Chardonnay.
She appears a good deal thinner in person than on TV; thin is generally good but on her it looked a bit unhealthy. She’s also a smoker (I could smell it on her) which is always unappealing to me; she also used a bit too much cologne. It was a very good cologne but too much. I also noticed her skin wasn’t great; not blemished but kind of dry and blotchy in places.
jadegold,
Yea, she’s not that good looking. I don’t know why some go ape over her.
Wow. 167 comments in the Ann Coulter thread. Now you see why gets the big bucks.
That’s it folks, get it all out of your system before the new year…
To be fair, Stan didn’t attempt to defend General Boykin, exactly: he simply doesn’t seem to have any idea who General Boykin is.
—
Wow. 167 comments in the Ann Coulter thread. Now you see why gets the big bucks.
—
Exactly
Discussing Ann “They Hire Her For Which Skills, Exactly?” Coulter springs from the same impulse that makes people slow down to gape at highway traffic accidents. You kind of hate yourself for doing it, but can’t quite resist the temptation.
Plus, we get to read remarks that are surreal in their absurdity, like when smlook suggests we don’t like Coulter because we don’t like women with strong opinions.
Jes,
I didn’t? Quote me.
That’s the second time you misrepresent me on this thread.
CaseyL,
Let me refine that statement… conservative women with strong opinions.
I can’t beleive that many on this thread have focused on what she looks like.
I guess if I start talking about how Hillary will win the lesbian vote in 2008 cause she looks like a dyke that will be okay with everyone.
Or maybe if I say that Katherine has squatty little legs and Hilzoy is ugly and they come on to guys in bars that would be okay? Everyone will think its funny, Right?
Somehow, I doubt it.
Stan, if you knew that General Boykin, the Assistant Secretary of Defense, said that Muslims were idolators, that America had a “Christian Army” (an insult, incidentally, to every Muslim, Jew, and other religionists, not to mention atheists and agnostics, serving in the US armed forces) then you would hardly have asserted that Bush’s action in appointing him to a senior role in his administration, and his action in retaining him as Assistant Sec’y of Defense after Boykin had made his anti-Muslim views public, was “mere words”. Actions count. Bush acted. Problem is – typically Bush – he acted the wrong way. If he wanted to persuade Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere that the Bush administration is not on some new Crusade against the Islamic faith, Boykin would have been gone by Monday lunchtime.
Smlook: Von, Slartibartfast, and Sebastian are all conservatives with strong opinions. I assure you I’d like them all just as much as I already do if it turned out that under their Internet handles they were all women.
Stranger secrets than that have been discovered on this blog. 😉
I suspect you are cruising for a banning if you don’t apologise and fast for those nasty comments about Hilzoy and Katherine, though.
I guess if I start talking about how Hillary will win the lesbian vote in 2008 cause she looks like a dyke that will be okay with everyone.
What’s a ‘dyke’ look like, Smlook?
Jes,
I wasn’t aware of any gov’t programs to forcibly convert muslims.
Jade,
uh, oh.
This thread is heading toward having its comments shut down…back on topic (and that’s not Coulter’s looks) please.
Edward,
Maybe we need some kind of an open thread so people can blow off some steam? :]
I’d rather they channel that steam into something interesting and constructive Stan.
Other times we’ve tried the “blow off some steam” open thread around here, it turned out disastrously.
There’s always LGF and DU for that. 😉
Edward,
Actually, I meant an open thread for something less intense then politics. Maybe discussing New Year’s Eve plans, or something light like that.
Jade,
When straight people use the word “dyke” they usually mean “butch”. From my observations, anyway.
good idea Stan…
When straight people use the word “dyke” they usually mean “butch”. From my observations, anyway.
Just stirring the pot, Stan. Every now and again it amuses me to have people like Smlook attempt to more fully explore their bigotry or have folks explain why they’d buy an Ann Coulter book.
Stan: I wasn’t aware of any gov’t programs to forcibly convert muslims.
Why are you changing the subject? Don’t you want to discuss Bush’s decision to keep General Boykin on as Deputy Sec’y of Defense?
Is General Boykin going against GWB’s orders?
Are you suggesting insubordination is the only determining factor for personnel decisions? That strikes me as silly.
sidereal,
You are against the diversity in the military?
*gasp*
Stan, Stan, Stan…going hyperglycemic again?
Nah, feeling kind of anemic, today. :]
Edward,
I feel kind of naughty. Here’s an idea to play with. How would Muslims view our army knowing that gays are accepted. Wouldn’t they be offended? Specially when searched?
Stan: Is General Boykin going against GWB’s orders?
Is a general who thinks that when he sees “strange black marks in the sky” in an aerial photo of Mogadishu, that those marks are “evidence of a demonic presence over the city” cite a fit person to be in charge of military intelligence?
Why do you think George W. Bush appointed a man with such gross anti-Islamic views to be deputy undersecretary of defense, and why do you think Bush decided Boykin should keep his job when those views became public? Bush’s actions speak even louder than Boykin’s words, don’t they?
Jes,
Metaphor, perhaps?
I feel kind of naughty. Here’s an idea to play with. How would Muslims view our army knowing that gays are accepted. Wouldn’t they be offended? Specially when searched?
No more so I suspect than they do being searched by women.
What’s your point?
Edward,
No more so I suspect than they do being searched by women.
I’ld imagine is a bit different. Anyway…
Here’s my train of thought. Boykin hasn’t set any policies to convert Muslims or anything of that nature. Sure, he made some statements that are bad PR, but… Let’s say he was gay… Naturally, his sexuality would have nothing to do with his performance as a general, though a Muslim population might be have strong feelings about being occupied by troops that are led by a homosexual. Our Arab allies might mind dealing with a homosexual… Would you be against Boykin’s involevment in the middle east, then?
Stan: Sure, he made some statements that are bad PR
He made some statements that were explicitly insulting.
First, to any non-Christian serving in the US army – about 1 in 5. You may feel that it’s only “bad PR” when a serving General insults serving soldiers, but I think it’s rather worse than that. (According to the CIA world factbook, Christians are about 78% of the population, so it’s a fair assumption that Boykin insulted 1 in 5 of the soldiers serving in the US army.)
Second, he was insulting to non-Christians in the US. This would be his privilege as a private citizen, but as a member of the administration, he’s not a private citizen.
Third, to Muslims worldwide. This is stupid. One of the problems “selling” the war on Iraq was and is the idea that it’s a new Christian crusade.
The argument that this doesn’t matter, that Iraqis (or Middle Eastern Muslims in general) will see that the US didn’t invade Iraq as a Christian country invading a Muslim country on a crusade against Islam, is really unrealistic. That’s not how things work: it is necessary to act, to show explicitly that you are not doing what people say you are doing.
Let me illustrate this.
Part of my job earlier in the year was to document violence and abuse against a certain group of people in a certain fairly large area. My employers distributed postcards and questionnaires for people to respond, and asked specifically, had they reported this to the police.
Not many people had. Of those who did, a relatively small proportion (about 15%) had received bad treatment when they did report what had happened to the police – dismissal of their complaint as not serious (even though they were reporting serious violence or damage to property), or, in a couple of cases, outright abuse.
But the reason why most people did not report what happened to the police was uniformly given as “We all know they don’t take these things seriously” (when it wasn’t – “They’re as bad as the people who do these things.”)
Now, as part of my job, I’m well acquainted with the procedures and policies of the police in that area, and I know that the way the police were reported to have behaved in those 15% of cases was flat against policy, and in a couple of cases went directly against specific regulations. The problem was not what the senior police had laid down as rules/guidelines to follow, it was less senior police who weren’t paying attention to the rules/guidelines.
But those are the end results: a wide proportion of people in that discriminated-against group believed that there was no use complaining to the police, because the police would ignore their complaint or be abusive, because a few police officers had done so (and more had done so in the past, when guidelines hadn’t been nearly as explicit).
To combat this, the police aren’t sitting back and going “We’re fair and just and they’ll see that”: they’re acting to make sure that they are publicly perceived as fair and just, not as discriminatory.
It’s necessary to act to be believed. Bush failed to act. How can he hope to be believed?
Let’s say he was gay…
Not relevant.
Not to answer for smlook, but in my experience they’re tall, broad, and keep the flood waters back.
Our Arab allies might mind dealing with a homosexual… Would you be against Boykin’s involevment in the middle east, then?
This is one of the least carefully considered arguments you’ve made Stan. No one is taking Boykin to task for being Christian. If Arabs have a problem with the fact that he’s a fundamentalist Christian, that’s too freakin’ bad.
It’s what he says and does, not who he is, that’s objectionable.