I don't care how many people she brings to Christianity. That's not why I read her stuff.
I'm defending her because she's constantly misinterpreted. I know that's what she wants, but I'm a sucker for correcting people who go after her simply because she phrases something initially not so extreme in a fashion she knows people will perceive as inflammatory. Every outrageous thing she says is easily translated into wuss-speak (as I demonstrated earlier). It's not my/her fault if the Deutsch, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and HIV can't see past her jive. The fact that they're unable to means that she has effectively succeeded, many times, to put one over on them.
Phrasing something in an offensive manner does not make the implications of whatever's being said necessarily offensive.
And yet if Ray or I do it, even in jest, we're full of hate.
How many times also, do we have to hear that someone is being misinterpreted or misunderstood? Again, i hear that all the time from you guys. It's the defense that always comes AFTER the offensive and/or generalizing comment.
You wanted me to use WB's List format of quoting articles so I'll do so:
Clearly, Ann Coulter needs a wake-up call about the power of words to injure others and fuel hatred. She needs an education, too, about the roots of anti-Semitism."
Hatred. This is what this is all about. And only her last defenders and people who swallowed her bitter pills think it's anything but hatred. It's certainly not elevating the discourse.
Coulter's phenomenal success at marketing distasteful, mean-spirited books -- poorly written and spottily researched -- that otherwise would go all but unremarked upon by everyone except the rhetorical ghouls who haunt the political fringes.
This is clearly a matter of opinion. One I'm sure you'll disagree with. Still, one can make sport on a lot of her claims. And people do.
Now, no Coulter promotional campaign would be complete without a calculated outrage -- a call for the forcible conversion of all Muslims, for example, or a demand for revocation of women's suffrage, an insult hurled at gays or the grieving widows of Sept. 11 victims. As more than one political consultant has remarked, the American far right is a carnivorous constituency, and it needs to be regularly thrown red meat. Coulter's singular genius has been to ignite tightly focused and timely controversies, thereby getting her ideological opponents to toss the scraps to her fans.
THIS is what she does primarily. Stoke outrage and intolerance. There is no misunderstanding. Any more than if I would say "Conservatives are retards" or "southern right wingers sleep with their daughters" would be a misunderstanding. Although if I tried hard enough I'm sure I could produce data to bolster my inflammatory rhetoric. And as Rutten says, it's all just red meat for the base. A game. she throws red meat, the left responds, and her supporters are filled with glee over the outrage she caused them. I really don't see the humanity in all this though.
So if you know what's coming, why play ball and deliver the denunciation that validates the Coulter strategy?
Good question. In my case it's because some of the stuff she says is so outrageous and hate filled that to let it stand would be a silent endorsement of that kind of discourse. It does indeed play into her cynical game though.
The National Jewish Democratic Council weighed in with a petition asking other broadcast news organizations not to give Coulter a forum. "While Ann Coulter has freedom of speech, news outlets should exercise their freedom to use better judgment," said council Executive Director Ira N. Forman. "Just as media outlets don't invite those who believe that Martians walk the Earth to frequently comment on science stories, it's time they stop inviting Ann Coulter to comment on politics." (Sadly, too many Americans now believe the only way to confront offensive or dangerous speech is to silence it.)
I have no problem with her being given a forum. However, this is going to be pretty hard to defend.
I don't know why that reminded me of the Dixie Chicks. Remember when they made their comments about Bush a lifetime ago? And everyone on the right was so outraged? And then we heard about how free speech comes with responsibility and how they were free to say what they wanted but they should also be prepared for the consequences of that speech? which in essence sounded to me like veiled threats and intimidation to STFU.
I think she's free to say what she damn well pleases. But why is there a need for the media to give her a forum to call John Edwards a faggot, to attack the 9/11 widows? To call for the deaths of political opponents? All with a fey giggle and a disclaimer that she's just kidding.
In that case can I go on TV and use th N word and then laugh and say i was kidding? No. I'd be run out of town on a rail! Free speech or otherwise. Because there are standards of decency and taste when it comes to things like that. Standards that don't seem to apply to this woman.
It's a scandal that in this pluralist nation it falls to the voices of organized Jewry to make this case, because it is a case whose outcome is of the greatest consequence to us all. For too long we've pretended that the brutal political rhetoric that now characterizes our partisan politics can be quarantined, that it won't inevitably leach over into every other aspect of our lives. In fact, it's doing just that, and soon the coarse and vituperative language of the war between red and blue -- with it's instantaneous imputations of bad-faith and utter disrespect for minimal civility -- will begin to color aspects of our civil society where mutual respect is too crucial and hard won to tolerate this sort of risk.
Too late. Already you see this language abound as far up as the hallowed halls of Congress. I'll quote myself just to spare my fingers another workout:
I guess controversy and outrage invites ratings. It however doesn't invite consensus and commonality if you aern't part of Coulter's "us". If you happen to be the dreaded "other" , which in this case is a "liberal" , well then that poison seeps into people's minds to where they start thinking that you (liberals) hate America, you (liberals) do this and you do that. In no way do you end up resembling ,.... I dunoo... a human being? It's way past time to not be treating this woman as if she is actually providing reasoned political discourse and treating her like what she is. A cancer.
Here, for example, is what transpired on the airwaves Friday. Deutsch went onto NBC's "Today" show and called it "scary" that, in this instance, Coulter was not being deliberately provocative. "We're playing with dangerous words in our society -- there's no accountability, there's a glibness that we in the media kind of elevate."
Glib is the correct word. And as I said, that is what this woman does best. Look at her videos and she'll insult Jews with a toss of her hair and a giggle as if it's all very innocent, clever, and funny. And except for this instance where if not for Deutsh, offended Jews, offended people with common decency, and the liberal camp have responded in unison, she would have happily walked away to spread bile another day.
Meanwhile, Coulter was on the Kevin McCullough radio talk show, making the utterly absurd case that Deutsch somehow had ambushed her. On his blog later in the day, McCullough agreed. Deutsch, he said, "is an angry anti-Christian bigot, looking to make a name for himself by biting into Christian icons."
All par for the course. Turn your defensive stance into offense. Like I said before, it's not going to work this time. No reasonable person can see that video and think Deutsh was attacking a Christian spokesperson. So what does that make Coulter, a person who insulted Jews, (thru her allies) trying to turn the 1st offended person in all this (Deutsh) into the actual perpetrator of the religious hatred rather than her?? Besides an obvious asshole that is? I'd go with monster. A liar is a softer term but would also apply.
How many Americans really want to follow Ann Coulter into this sort of confrontation? Not many, one suspects. But are enough of them willing to give up, once and for all, the sort of dangerous fun she and her rhetorical fellow travelers provide?
Valid question. Good question. One that deserves a response from her supporters. Because as I said, she isn't a political commentator as much as she is a cancer. One that is spreading.
So I broke down and listed that entire essay and left no room about how I feel about most every point therein. So it's not just a cut & paste job.
