<< ONLY DEATH WILL BRING PEACE ~ MAIN ~ MAN HATES ICE HOCKEY >>
PREPOSTEROUS CLAIMS
Harry Hutton upbraids a wayward Wikipedia contributor:
The man who wrote this is a disgrace, bringing the internet into disrepute with his preposterous claims.
Quite right! In other disgrace news, Ann Coulter again reminds us why she is so rarely linked to by her (broadly speaking) ideological brethren. A pity, because she sometimes delivers brilliant lines.
Her identification with McCarthy seems to have led to a pathological need to reenact his fate. It seems our time for today is up. Got any blow?
Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 06 08 at 11:32 AM • permalinkThe man who wrote this is a disgrace, bringing the internet into disrepute with his preposterous claims.
Ok, let’s be honest. Who didn’t think the name “paco” or “Stoop Davy Dave” when they first read that that sentence?
Posted by wronwright on 2006 06 08 at 11:47 AM • permalinkCoulter’s just telling them not to expect her sympathy when they trade on sympathy.
Tough love.
There’s a strong PC component on the right as well as the left, however.
Can’t say nasty things about widows no matter how self-serving they are.
Coulter doesn’t get linked to because she carries on the same joke too long ; a failing that most parody has as well.
As Thurber said, it resembles a trombone solo.
#3: Ok, let’s be honest. Who didn’t think the name “paco” or “Stoop Davy Dave” when they first read that that sentence?
Well, I know I started to have an anxiety attack there, for a minute.
Say, where is Stoop Davy, anyway? If he thinks maintaining radio silence is gonna help him with his humility cred, I think he’ll find himself greatly disappointed.
Vaguely on topic, may I recommend Liberal Larry’s in depth book review of Coulter’s latest publication?
Coulter is often harsh, heavy-handed and strident, but she also often is right. WRT the so-called Jersey Girls, she was harsh, heavy-handed, strident and...right. I’m not a fan, but the Ted Rall of the Right? Not hardly.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 06 08 at 12:17 PM • permalinkWRT the so-called Jersey Girls, she was harsh, heavy-handed, strident and...right.
So they’re enjoying their husbands’ deaths?
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2006 06 08 at 12:37 PM • permalinkI tend to agree with rhhardin and Kyda. Ann’s problem is she tends to confuse “pithy” and “pissy”. She can indeed be callous, and needs to be called to account when she is. But if she is sometimes callous, Ted Rall is a full-body blister who offends everytime he takes pen in hand, and does so without even residual traces of wit. Periodic similarities in technique, perhaps, but not full “moral equivalence”.
They’re enjoying the fruits of the deaths, yes. That’s the point.
Ah, so that’s what she meant to say?
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2006 06 08 at 02:00 PM • permalink"I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.” That’s what she did say.. How is that different from what rhhardin said, “that they’re enjoying the fruits of the deaths”? The consequences of a beloved spouse’s death would be for most people pain and bereavement. For the wives Coulter was talking about - not all the 9/11 widows, just a very few - the consequences of their husbands’ deaths were notoriety, speaking fees and adulation, because of their dishonoring of their husbands’ memories.
Posted by robert speirs on 2006 06 08 at 02:37 PM • permalinkI guess she’s becoming George Galloway on two legs.
Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 06 08 at 02:37 PM • permalink"I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.” That’s what she did say.. How is that different from what rhhardin said, “that they’re enjoying the fruits of the deaths”?
You’re kidding, right?
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2006 06 08 at 02:41 PM • permalinkWell, she’s definitely wrong: I’ve known women who definitely enjoyed their husbands’ deaths way more than the Jersey Girls. When they start going out on cruises, going to bingo every other night, and having raucous wine-cooler-fueled antique hen parties in their condos now freed of the old balls & chains, then we’ll talk. I think that their frantic leftist politicking is more distractive therapy than anything, and it doesn’t sound like much fun to me. (How can hating the people who are trying to avenge your husbands’ deaths be fun?)
Be that as it may, it’s too bad Coulter’s such a crass loose canon. There are ways of cutting people down without making yourself look bad, but it takes a certain kind of imagination and wit, and they don’t teach that in law school. Not that she isn’t good with the old two-by-four, and not that it isn’t needed way too often. For instance, the sort of spine-jellying cult of Niceness that has permeated American culture, and that I think is what has driven Coulter and others over the edge so often, is much more dangerous to the continuance of Western Civilization—never mind to victory over our current enemy—than the occasional insult and instance of hurt feelings.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 06 08 at 06:47 PM • permalinkYou’re kidding, right?
Two words : metonymy
So that’s a yes?
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2006 06 08 at 09:36 PM • permalinkFor instance, the sort of spine-jellying cult of Niceness that has permeated American culture, and that I think is what has driven Coulter and others over the edge so often, is much more dangerous to the continuance of Western Civilization—never mind to victory over our current enemy—than the occasional insult and instance of hurt feelings.
Amen to that. When one thinks of the polemicists of old - H.L. Mencken, just to name one of the most obvious - and their ability to combine opprobrium, bluster and wit into high grade invective, one can only shake one’s head in disappointment at the quality of polemics today. Either too much light fencing, or too much hacking with a broad-axe.
Was McCarthy perfect? Of course not. Was he right? Of course. Was he 1000 times more morally upright than the communists and anti-anti-communists? Absolutely.
The reason that McCarthy’s legacy is what it is today is that otherwise well-meaning, good conservatives abandoned him to the smear campaign of the communist sympathizers. Pure faggotry, in my opinion. McCarthy was right, there was a real crisis, and if any lives were “ruined,” it was the result of simple-minded or treacherous scheming to prevent a righteous purge of Soviet spies in the U.S. government.
A little balls goes a long way (or would, if conservatives would ever display them)and I respect the f*** out of Ann for what she’s trying to do. Her very point, now illustrated brilliantly by the mass-cowering on the right, is that there’s no way that the Left can have an honest debate, so they appoint legions of sacrosanct tribunes with “absolute moral authority” in the hopes that conservative civility will prove a barrier to any kind of challenge.
Veteran amputees, Vietnam “heroes,” mothers of war dead, widows of terror victims, black “victims of racism” are all enlisted to dish it out and not take it . . . it’s a pretty clear and effective strategy.
The stakes are too damned high for these people to get a pass and there can be no doubt that the crucial battle is not for Iraq, but for the will of the American people and to a lesser extent the citizens of its coalition partners.
If you think it’s hyperbole to consider Cindy Sheehan an “enemy,” after she snuggles up to Hugo Chavez, says that the U.S. “isn’t worth dying for,” and works daily to undermine success in the WoT, well then, you have a very lenient definition.
Surely Ann Coulter is saying, in a somewhat “in your face” fashion, that the Jersey Girls deserve no more adulation, respect, and acceptance of the moral authority of their views as does Mother Sheehan.
They are all pushing a political agenda, protected and enhanced by their victim status.
Surely to God people pushing an agenda, no matter how tragic their circumstances, can have their motives called into question without fearing a PC backlash?
No, I don’t agree with everything Coulter says, nor the way she says it. However, in this instance, I beleive she has every right to attack these sacred cows.
I’ve always thought Ann Coulter was a bit of a JILF. (Journalist I’d Like to......)
Posted by Daniel San on 2006 06 09 at 02:46 AM • permalinkMy general strategy these days is to ignore Coulter (Ted Rall, too), and if everyone did that things would be better.
Oh, get an Insta-life, for insta-god’s-sake.
Ann’s wit is biting. But however convenient that makes it for detractors/self-loathers to isomorphize her to Rall/Franken, it won’t make it even nominaly true.
Rall/Franken are blatantly loathing, insipid and empty-- Ann has never spoken a word, NO MATTER HOW CUTTING, without a twinkle in her eye and a smile on her face. And there’s a reason for that. Cut to the chase-- does the point she makes shed light on truth, or not?
Andrea: When they start going out on cruises, going to bingo every other night, and having raucous wine-cooler-fueled antique hen parties in their condos now freed of the old balls & chains, then we’ll talk.
But that’s just exactly what they ARE doing, in their own way. Can’t you see that?!?
“Good grief”, Andrea.
They have chosen not merely to grieve, but to enter politics. And in doing so, they put themselves where I can fairly judge them. And I find them wanting.
Is it really more complicated?
Posted by zeppenwolf on 2006 06 09 at 03:15 AM • permalinkExactly. She doesn’t really mean it, even though it’s true. Huh?
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2006 06 09 at 04:53 AM • permalinkZeppenwolf: that was meant to be a bit of sarcastic humor. Maybe you should get an “insta-life.” Whatever that is. Did you think I actually approved of these women? I don’t, and I don’t even feel very sorry for them. Like Cindy She-hag, they’ve used up any sympathy I might have had with their antics.
The opprobrium Ted Rall earned was due to the fact that he attacked women who hadn’t done anything but have the nerve to be married to men who were killed in the World Trade Center attack. They hadn’t gone around politicking for antiwar causes and making borderline traitorous moonbattish statements like these Jersey Girls. Does Ann Coulter deserve as much of the venom she’s getting because she didn’t join in on the pity party? Maybe—for her methods and manner, but not for the spirit of what she said. Leftists use our own good instincts against us—in the case of the Jersey Girls, our impulse to let grieving widows do and say whatever they want without censure because we don’t want to add to their misery. Ann won’t play. Neither will I, though I like to think I’d express myself better than Ms. Coulter. Then again, I’m unlikely to be interviewed on television, and I have plenty of time to think before I spout off.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 06 09 at 06:58 AM • permalinkI suppose I should add that personally I don’t care much for Ann Coulter. She has no finesse, and what the right really needs is a helping of civilized wit. Leftists claim to be cleverer and more witty than the right, and it does not good to point out that they haven’t been clever or witty in years if all we have to meet their crude adolescent barbarity is more of the same. Also, her repertoire has only one note, and it’s designed to get the liberal monkey caged shrieking and throwing feces. The sight of that has palled. On the other hand, those who claim that now the leftist liberal idiots will use Coulter’s invective against us should keep in mind that that’s what they do anyway, and who cares what they say? Are you doubting your cause because someone doesn’t like you? That’s the American disease; try not to catch it.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 06 09 at 07:16 AM • permalink#30 I’ve always thought Ann Coulter was a bit of a JILF. (Journalist I’d Like to......)—Posted by Daniel San
Oh gee whiz. More riddles. I hate these acronymns.
One word. Begins with F. Find? Finesse? French fry? Well fuck if I know.
Posted by wronwright on 2006 06 09 at 07:57 AM • permalinkThe Coulter backlash makes you reconsider Rush Limbaugh. Five minutes were enough to convince me he’s not my bag. But he’s been around for 20 years, with his credibility having ben “destroyed” by the 1996 Democratic landslide, Oxycontin and the Donovan McNabb fiasco (I’m an Iggles fan). If you have your own audience, you don’t need everyone else.
Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 06 09 at 09:07 AM • permalink#36 Wronwright,
I’d like to feed her, you dirty boy. She’s skinny as a Gypsies dog.Posted by Daniel San on 2006 06 09 at 10:05 AM • permalinkI think AC has tremendous wit. Her books are hilarious and extremely well-written (better than her column, though I enjoy that as well). Granted, she’s not exactly the kind of pundit that provides deep, Steynian, mindf***ingly brilliant kind of insight.
What she does is upset the ossified foundation of conventional “wisdom” that the Leftists have laid, with the help of the MSM and other fellow travellers, and which even some very sharp conservatives often accept unchallenged. She’s a master of reframing a debate to deprive the enemy of its natural comfort zone, like dragging a shark onto the beach before you kill it.
"Hey, Jim T--no, wait...I’m not gonna start anything with the Treacher-Man…”
Go ahead. I’m just trying to understand why it’s okay when Coulter says it.
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2006 06 09 at 12:50 PM • permalinkAnd too skinny. Eat a pizza, woman.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 06 09 at 07:24 PM • permalinkI know teachers are not very popular on this site but Harry is as funny as a fit.
Like this one about parents who think their kids are brilliant:
“Some of them were actually aggressive, convinced that anyone who dissented from the view that their child was a genius must be motivated by malice. Very often I was motivated by malice, but that is not the point.”
Thanks for the thorough response, Slammer.
I swear, the conservative movement is so f***ing cowardly sometimes. AC is absolutely right and she’d be doing a world of good for the conservative side of the debate if the it weren’t for the lopsided nancy-boy demographic and attendant lack of support for anything on which the DemoKKKrats can smear the label “mean-spirited.”
Summarizing:
Ann is absolutely right in criticizing these widows for dining out on their husbands deaths, though she could probably have expressed herself better. This may be due to the fact that she does not write as well as Mark Steyn.
Nevertheless, she is one feisty, gutsy lady, as evidenced by her spirited defence of Joe McCarthy in “Treason”. She is also often extremely witty, albeit in a slightly repetitive way.
Most importantly, she is hot, though she could use a few extra pounds - nobody likes a skinny broad.
Finally, Jim Treacher has lowered himself in the estimation of a number of us.
Does that about sum it up now?
"Finally, Jim Treacher has lowered himself in the estimation of a number of us.”
Yay!
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2006 06 12 at 12:02 AM • permalinkI think the main difference is in what people want to achieve with there criticism, Ted Rall is just a hate filled commie slimeball, there is no level to which he would not willingly sink to indulge his seething twisted hate of america and all it stands for, but Ann has a point the left think they can neutralise you by using your own decency as a weapon against you ana Ann is tearing that barrier to debate down, the right can win the battle of ideas , we have proved that, which is why the left will do anything to avoid an honest debate on ANY topic, why else do you think these sacred cows Sheehan, Berg etc, are wheeled out on the media time after time after time,
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Yeah, Coulter does come up with good lines, like “the witches of east brunswick” in this case, but as folks have said she’s the Ted Rall of the right, and I don’t want to be associated with that type of behavior.