A Years Worth of Ann Coulter.

Ann Coulter is dependable. Like the sun moving through the sky, like the growing of the grass, Ann consistently writes vengeful prose. Her latest column contains her normal attacks on the media, the left (you know, those people who hate normal Americans and lie for sport), and US immigration policy. All well and good, and to be expected. But she also continues her attacks on Islam, disdaining to distinguish between a religion practiced peaceably by millions and the scattered insanity of a few individuals and communities. All over the southwest there are infrequent incidents in which Hispanics (predominately Mexicans) are abused and harassed because of the same anti-immigration attitudes Coulter espouses, and yet I would be loathe to hold her responsible for these bouts of lawless violence.

In her most hateful passage (I use the word hateful here to indicate that I hate what she says; I wouldn’t presume to judge Coulter’s motives in writing it.), Coulter states “In one of the oddest attempts to soften depictions of Islam – the one religion the media respects – the Times has apparently banned the word “burka” from its pages. (Burkas have gotten such a bad name recently!) Instead, one reads only about the “burka-style gowns” of the Islamic terrorists in Moscow or the “burka-like robes” of women in Bahrain. (How about: The swastika-like adornment on the skinhead’s forearm.)”

Here Coulter comfortably equates Nazism with Islam. How reprehensible. Ann Coulter places herself on par with those on the left (and some on the right) who feel that abandonment of Christianity is a necessary next step in the evolution of a just society here in America. Coulter is comfortable as an enemy of religious freedom; as a faith holding person myself I find that very dangerous.

November 07, 2002

What comes after math? Aftermath!

Well today’s articles are full of responses to the elections. So lets go down them. The Republicans are naturally ebullient. Ann Coulter happily contemplated the fate of the Democratic Party, saying “What a miserable party. I’m glad to see their power end, and I’m sure they’ll all be perfectly comfortable in their cells in Guantanamo.” Something to look forward to I suppose. I suspect the cells in Guantanamo aren’t sufficient for the approximately 1/3 to ½ of this country that is Democrat.

November 14, 2002

It’s Thursday!

Sorry not much of a post tonight. Ann Coulter and Ben Shapiro’s columns posted today, but both are doing post election spin. It’s nice that Ann Coulter is pushing to have the Democratic Party renamed the Abortion party. And it’s nice that young Ben has realized that he need never worry about liberals returning to power again. After all, “Americans are looking for more than radicalism with a friendly face.” Nope, young Ben has realized that American’s will see through liberals from now until the end of time.

Oh, and Ms. Coulter, some Democrats do know how a squirt gun works. I myself experimented with one this very evening. You see you pull the trigger and water shoots out one end, and also drips out the other end, thus watering the hand. They aren’t so tough to figure out.

Seriously, Ms. Coulter, are you for anything other than defeating the Democrats?

December 2, 2002

El Islam

Two good articles the last couple of days defending Islam. Both writers published at the Conservative Townhall.com. Both were responding to Pat Robertson’s comments of some weeks ago (that Islam is not a religion deserving any respect), as well as the increase of Islam bashing since the incidents in Nigeria. (For an example of Islam bashing, take the ever-dependable Ann Coulter. “Recently, the Religion of Peace suffered a PR setback when Muslims in Nigeria welcomed the Miss World beauty pageant by slaughtering Christians in the street and burning churches to the ground.”)

January 2, 2003

Some Thoughts

“Most journalists are so stupid, the fact that they are also catty, lazy, vengeful and humorless is often overlooked.” - Ann Coulter

“The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.” - Mahatma Gandhi

“Journalists’ quotes are as accurate as feminists’ statistics about anorexia.” - Ann Coulter

“If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend.” - Abraham Lincoln

“Apart from being a college professor, there is no easier job in the universe than being a journalist. For 99.999 percent of writers, there is no heavy lifting, no physical danger, no honest day’s work.” - Ann Coulter.

I suppose it’s unnecessary to point out the immense difficulty in being Ann Coulter. Aside from writing a column a week (here’s this weeks, from which I lifted the above quotes) and appearing on TV regularly, she also does other stuff. So you can see her life is much more difficult than being a journalist.

February 20, 2003

Give Peace a Chance

Well, as you know, there is a big debate today. One that has eclipsed the faltering economy. It has eclipsed the War on Terrorism. It has eclipsed the impending invasion of Iraq. That issue is: Could Liberals create a liberal alternative to Rush Limbaugh?

Take a moment to examine the breadth and importance of that question. Makes things like troops dying in Iraq or your diminishing paycheck seem insignificant in comparison.

Ann Coulter, who I’ve ignored for a while, offered an opinion on this subject, saying. “One thing about liberals is they’re pesky devils. They’ll never quit. And now they are back again looking for the next “liberal alternative” to Rush Limbaugh. They have the money, the business consultants, the radio talent. Now all they need are ideas. There’s the rub.

If liberals cared about ideas or knew any facts, they would cease being liberals.”

So there you have it. Liberals are all fuzzyheaded warm and fuzzy guys who wouldn’t know a fact if it bit them on the tuckus.

Ann does quote later in her letter a Pew poll that seems to indicate that only Conservatives watch the news anyway. Take a moment to look at the questions. You notice all the questions on ideology, to determine whether or not a caller is conservative or liberal? There’s a grand total of one. “Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?” And based on that one question, the Pew foundation is apparently able to determine the politics of a person. What magicians (maybe they employ Ben Shapiro, Boy Prognosticator). The Pew foundation has learned one of the great secrets of life: People will believe anything if it is in a table and there is lots of numbers.

April 3, 2003

Sedition

Sedition - \Se*di”tion\, n. [OE. sedicioun, OF. sedition, F. s[’e]dition, fr. L. seditio, originally, a going aside; hence, an insurrectionary separation; pref. se-, sed-, aside + itio a going, fr. ire, itum, to go. Cf. Issue.] 1. The raising of commotion in a state, not amounting to insurrection; conduct tending to treason, but without an overt act; excitement of discontent against the government, or of resistance to lawful authority.

Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary

Ann Coulter’s latest article uses the term Sedition pretty easily. Now, we all know that Ms. Coulter is a propagandist not a reporter. She isn’t naturally going to be held to the same standards that one might hold others too. Most of her column focused on Peter Arnett, a dream come true for Conservative columnists. What he did by appearing on Iraqi TV and saying what he said was clearly wrong and possibly treasonous. But of course, to Ann and other Conservative Columnists, Arnett is not an aberration. He’s part of an organization of like-minded people that Ann has dubbed “The Sedition Lobby.”

I suppose that as this website has presented information questioning the wisdom of entering into this war, I must be considered part of this sedition lobby. I never get invited to the meetings though.

Sedition also has a legal meaning, one that Ms. Coulter is no doubt aware. Although not often enforced, sedition laws have been passed and enforced in our past. The most notable use of the Sedition Laws was in early days of the Republic when the Federalists used the Sedition acts against their political enemies. Does Ms. Coulter favor a new sedition law to take care of us pesky liberals?

I suppose I should be pleased that she has softened her view a little—Sedition is marginally better than Treason. Still makes it clear, though, that she’d rather be rid of liberals rather than engage them in debate.

April 10, 2003

Great News!!!

Ann Coulter has revealed some great news in her latest column. “Liberals are no longer a threat to the nation. The new media have defeated them with free speech – the very freedom these fifth columnists hide behind whenever their speech gets them in hot water with the American people. Today, the truth is instantly available on the Internet, talk radio and Fox News Channel.” She goes on to reveal that the retraction of the Dixie Chicks attack on Bush, the booing of Pearl Jam, the firing of Peter Arnett, and the attacks on De Genova make it clear that the people can get the information they need to combat the liberal media.

Do you realize what this means? No longer do conservatives get to whine and complain about the evil liberal media that keeps people in a stupor. Now the information is out there available to all. So, either conservatism will quickly triumph, crushing liberalism once and for all, or, maybe, just maybe, liberalism’s control over the media wasn’t as complete as conservatives have been saying.

May 08, 2003

Good News (From My Perspective)

In Ann Coulter’s latest article she clarifies that all the ladies apparently don’t want Senator Kerry. “American girls aren’t good enough for Frenchy [Kerry]. We don’t think he’s so hot either.” Parenthetically, I guess calling Kerry Frenchy is supposed to be a terrible insult. I don’t see it myself.

But the good news—Ms. Coulter does not disillusion me. I’m still free to imagine that all the ladies want to get with me. And truthfully, I’m even more vulnerable to that Frenchy slam, as my natural father was apparently French.

In other news, I’m on the road today and tomorrow—so may not be available. Have a great Thursday and Friday if you don’t hear from me.

May 15, 2003

Schadenfreude

Well, it’s no secret that Ann Coulter hates the New York Times. You have to sort of expect that. And so naturally she’s overjoyed at the Blair fiasco. And she trots out the normal hobbyhorses that all conservatives are trotting out. For example, this proves that affirmative action fails, and should be abandoned. And the canard that “If mismanagement at Enron had been this clear-cut, the Times would be demanding the death penalty for Ken Lay.” Of course, you can’t expect the relatively privileged Ms. Coulter to understand the difference between thousands of people losing their life savings and their jobs, and a few stories at the Times being false.

What strikes me about Ms. Coulter’s piece is its viciousness. She talks about “Soviet Style Reporting.” She calls both Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman liars (Her accusation against Krugman is particularly bizarre. Apparently he’s a liar because he wrote articles predicting a quagmire in Iraq. Does she claim that anybody whose prediction turns out to be wrong is a liar?). And she states, “As this episode shows, the Times is not even attempting to preserve a reliable record of events. Instead of being a record of history, the Times is merely a “record” of what liberals would like history to be . . .”

Nothing like kicking someone when they are down, is there, Ms. Coulter?

Of course Ms. Coulter’s own work has proven somewhat factually challenged, but I’m not going to call Ms. Coulter a liar. That’s not my way.

May 29, 2003

Aerosol is Doomed

Well, we’ve had a cold winter, so that apparently proves that Global Warming is a bunch of hooey. Got that? One cold winter = no Global Warning.

Ann Coulter brings us this happy news, but there is a sad side to this story as well. As Miss Coulter explains, “The key to the U.N.’s global warming study was man’s use of aerosol spray. You have to know the French were involved in a study concluding that Arrid Extra Dry is destroying the Earth. In a world in which everyone smelled, the French would be at no disadvantage. Aerosol spray. How convenient.”

So you see the use of Aerosol is doomed. After their impressive diplomatic victory against the United States in which they prevented us from invading Iraq, the French are heady with success and have chosen a new target. Soon all the world will be unable to use deodorant.

Well, except me, I use stick deodorant. So I’ll smell good while the rest of you aerosol users will not. Hmmmmm. Maybe there’s an upside here.

July 3, 2003

I’m Angry

Ann Coulter has written a new book entitled Treason with a long subtitle that I’m not all the interested in looking up. Basically her point is that Liberals are guilty of being commie lovers and of hating America, and then when people call them Commie-lovers and America-haters they smear them.

In her article today, she continues along the same vein, saying, “The left’s shameful refusal to admit collaboration with one of the great totalitarian regimes of the last century ?– like their defense of Bill Clinton ?– quickly transformed into a vicious slander campaign against those who bore witness against them.”

Here’s a simple logic preposition that Ms. Coulter seems to want us all to accept.

Statement 1: Some Liberals were also Communists and/or Spies.

Statement 2: Some Liberals denied being Communists.

Statement 3: All Liberals are guilty of a shameful refusal to admit collaboration with the Soviet Union.

Wisely she chooses not to focus on their culpability of liberals, but instead on how innocent J. Edgar Hoover and others are maligned by the left. By making it about individuals she can avoid talking about Hoover and Joseph McCarthy’s effect on America.

She pulls out the old argument about how FDR shuffled Japanese Americans into camps while being praised as a genius. Make no mistake; it was a disgraceful moment in American history and in FDR’s generally noble life.

But of course she makes no mention of his declining health, or the fact that he privately didn’t like doing it. The Governors of California, Oregon and Washington pressured him into doing it. She also ignores that many liberals of the time criticized. Indeed her analysis seems to be FDR did it, he’s a liberal, and liberals are guilty. I’m sorry, Ms Coulter but perhaps a more in-depth analysis might be required.

July 17, 2003

Ann Coulter’s Latest

“Manifestly, there is no civil-liberties crisis in this country. Consequently, people who claim there is must have a different goal in mind. What else can you say of such people but that they are traitors?”

Manifestly it’s entirely possible to disagree with Ann Coulter and her extreme branch of Conservatism while loving your country and believing in it. Manifestly, it’s possible to love your country and believe that invading Iraq was a bad idea. Manifestly it’s possible to believe that President Bush has been a failure economically and in the foreign policy arena and still want a strong prosperous America.

And yet Ann Coulter characterizes those who dare to question President Bush’s policies as treasonous fifth columnists, stirring up fears of terrorist liberals who hate America and try to destroy it.

What else can you say of such a person?

Article here.

July 24, 2003

Life is but a Dream

Well Ms. Ann Coulter’s latest work takes aim at the CIA. Apparently the CIA is to blame for the Governments inability to prevent September 11^th. Also, President Bush should be exonerated for failing to make any changes at the CIA since September 11^th. She doesn’t say that, but it’s assumed.

But even that little tidbit pales in comparison to the whopper she tells later on in the article. “For 50 years liberals have called Republicans idiots, fascists, anti-Semites, racists, crooks, shredders of the Constitution and masterminds of Salvadoran death squads. Only recently have they added the epithet “liar.” Even noted ethicist Al Franken has switched from calling conservatives “fat” to calling them “liars.””

Minor point first. Actually Franken in his book, “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot,” relayed that he originally planned to call it “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Liar.” So it’s not entirely a switch.

Major point second. Can anybody think of a five-letter name that refutes Ms. Coulter’s larger point? Starts with N, and remarkably it has a X right in the middle of it. That’s right—it’s Nixon. You remember Nixon, Ms. Coulter? Liberals did call him a liar as I recall. Of course this isn’t technically a lie. You can’t believe that Ann expects anybody to take her literally.

Oh and how about this particularly nasty phrase. “Clinton also lied every time he said “God bless America,” though he doesn’t believe in God or America, and I don’t recall any Republican ever ripping his skin off about that.” Thank God for Clinton, eh, Ms. Coulter? Without him to attack, you’d have to figure out some way to actually suggest that George Bush was good for America. A task, which is presumably beyond you.

August 07, 2003

Ann Coulter and the History of China

Ann Coulter’s latest article is a bit of a complaint about a bad review of her work. But she uses the opportunity to spring into saying further nutty things from the McCarthy era.

“Democrats lose entire continents to totalitarian monsters, lose wars to bloody tyrants, lose countries to Islamic fascists, and then insist that everyone recite the liberal catechism: “No one lost China,” “Vietnam was an unwinnable war,” “Khomeini’s rise to power was inevitable.” (Conversely, Ronald Reagan didn’t “win” the Cold War; it just ended.)

At the time, the State Department even issued an 800-page “White Paper” purporting to prove the communist takeover of China was inevitable. Despite these heroic efforts, a Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans did not buy the “inevitability” excuse.”

OK, lets start with the end first. Are we really to believe, Ms. Coulter, that we should accept the opinion of the majority of Americans over those who have studied the situation in depth and who have the best information? Yes we are. Because in Ms. Coulter’s world the State Department was full of traitorous liberals.

One of those traitorous liberals, Dean Acheson, described the China situation thusly. “Our military observers on the spot have reported that the Nationalist armies did not lose a single battle during the crucial year of 1948 through lack of arms or ammunition. The fact was that the decay which our observers had detected in Chungking early in the war had fatally sapped the powers of resistance of the Kuomintang. Its leaders had proved incapable of meeting the crisis confronting them, its troops bad lost the will to fight, and its Government bad lost popular support. The Communists, on the other hand, through a ruthless discipline and fanatical zeal, attempted to sell themselves as guardians and liberators of the people. The Nationalist armies did not have to be defeated; they disintegrated. History has proved again and again that a regime without faith in itself and an army without morale cannot survive the test of battle.”

It is one of the conundrums of history that McCarthyites of the time and Ms Coulter today seem absolutely certain that a few Liberals in the State Department lost us a country of over a billion people, but they seem incapable of suggesting what they would have different.

And of course the great crime of those liberals in the State Department; analyzing the situation and predicting what would happen. They saw the Nationalist Chinese as having lost the support of the people, of having been totally unmotivated, leaderless. They saw the Maoists as being aggressive and disciplined. So who did they think was going to win? But in the ideologically driven world of Ms. Coulter all information is to be judged not on its merits but on its adherence to Conservative Dogma.

I have more to say on this subject, but unfortunately have to get on the road—have a nice day.

August 21, 2003

Arnold Schwarzenegger is not Gray Davis

You heard it hear first. They are two separate people. For, verily, this is the word that Ann Coulter has brought to the masses that she loves so much. And although she describes the race as a contest between two tax-and-spend liberals, she is still willing to admit that Arnold Schwarzenegger is not Gray Davis.

The problem with this equation is that it turns out the American people like services. I can see how Ms. Coulter and others of her philosophical persuasion might not want to admit that. But most people want good schools, they want road repairs, they want to eat meat safely, they want safe working environments, and they want hundreds of other services that the government has provided. So far, President Bush’s strategy has been to suggest that we can have large tax cuts without any change in services. Gray Davis’s strategy has been, as near as I can tell, to suggest that we can have increasing services without any change in taxes. Both policies are clearly problematic, particularly in light of the Gries Straight Line unveiled on this site many moons ago.

So California, whatever happens is going to have to cut services and/or increase taxes. We’ll have to see which view wins out. Ms. Coulter is doing her part by describing schoolteachers as parasites; making it easier for Governor Schwarzenegger to fire them all.

August 28, 2003

War is Over

Good news everybody! I know a lot of you were feeling, like me, a little duped by this administration. I supported the war on the theory that Saddam had Chemical and possibly Biological weapons that could be used against the United States or other nations. So I’ve felt a little down as these weapons of mass destruction have failed to materialize. Well, Ann Coulter has the answer in her latest column.

“Now that we’ve taken the country and are uncovering mass graves, canisters of poison gases, victims of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and colonies of terrorists, liberals are claiming the war created it all.”

So you see. We’ve found canisters of poison gas. That proves that they had weapons of mass destruction. Oh wait, that turned out to be a false report, months ago. They were canisters, but of something else, wrongly assumed to be Poison Gas. I guess Ms. Coulter must have missed that story.

She also reiterates a bumper sticker point I’ve made before. Democrats have, according to Republicans, sided with Terrorists. Yep, our misgivings about the war in Iraq, our suspicion that running up the highest deficits ever, our desire to see the United Nations take a larger role in the rebuilding so as to get as many of our troops out of their as possible: all those are symptoms of terrorist-lovers. Either you are with Hard-line Conservatives or you are with the Terrorists.

Something to keep in mind.

September 18, 2003

Ann Coulter Names Names

Yes. Ann Coulter’s book, accusing liberals of treason, was released on June 24, 2003. Now, 86 days after her book was published (according to Amazon, anyway), she is finally willing to name at least one liberal traitor. And that traitor is Arthur Ochs Sulzberg, publisher of the New York Times.

Exactly what treason is Mr. Sulzberg accused of? For daring to draw a link between the fall of Chile to Pinochet and the September 11^th attacks on our own country. Now, I’m no expert on Latin American history, but I have to say that Ms. Coulter’s description of what happened in Chile doesn’t square with many other accounts. One suspects that Pinochet’s ruthless control over his country is, somehow, appealing to Ms. Coulter.

Oh, and Mr. Sulzberg’s paper is guilty of noting that a lot of people have died since President Bush declared us victorious over Iraq.

You might wonder why Ms. Coulter has waited so long to name a traitor, despite numerous opportunities. She answers that, saying, “During my recent book tour, I resisted the persistent, illiterate request that I name traitors. With a great deal of charity – and suspension of disbelief – I was willing to concede that many liberals were merely fatuous idiots. (In addition, I was loathe to name names for fear that liberals would start jumping out of windows.” Did you catch that? Ms. Coulter is kind hearted enough to believe that liberals are morons who would kill themselves if she called them traitors.

I have to say, if Ms. Coulter called me a traitor, I could probably take it.

October 2, 2003

Ann Coulter - Nuttier than Three Squirrels

Yep. Ann wisely chooses to ignore Republican Treason (i.e. the outing of a CIA undercover operative. For more info check out these comments, via Atrios) in favor of spending an article making fun of the Democratic Presidential Candidates. So let’s dive right in.

“According to a new survey, six out of 10 Americans can’t name a single Democrat running for president. And that poll was actually taken among the 10 current Democratic candidates. According to the survey answers, “the military guy” leads with 19 percent, followed by “that doctor, what’s his name?” with 12 percent, and “the French-looking guy” with 9 percent.”

Actually said survey did not occur; it is in fact completely made up. The military guy is General Wesley Clark, the doctor is Howard Dean, and the French looking guy is John Kerry. Oh, and in Ann Coulters twisted world looking French should disqualify you from being President.

“Since Wesley Clark entered the race, Democrats have been salivating over the prospect of a presidential candidate who is a four-star general, and has the politics of Susan Sarandon! Clark’s entry into the race was seen as a setback for John Kerry, the only other Democratic contender with combat experience. (Although back in the 1970s, Dennis Kucinich served in the Kiss Army.)”

While Clark is certainly more liberal than Ann Coulter (who isn’t?), he is not actually as far left as Ms. Sarandon. He is in fact a liberal centrist. Also, there is no evidence that Dennis Kucinich served in the KISS army (and when you refer to KISS you use all caps, Ms. Coulter).

“Before Clark becomes the answer to a Trivial Pursuit question, consider that Clark’s main claim to fame is that he played a pivotal role in what most of his supporters passionately believe was an illegal, immoral war of American imperialism in Vietnam. How does that earn you points with Democrats?”

This argument reflects Ms. Coulter’s belief that the part is exactly equivalent to the whole. She believes that if you are a liberal you share every opinion with every other liberal; and same for conservatives. It’s this sort of black and white division of the world that she and many of her followers see as a strength; when in fact it distorts the world almost out of recognition. But for her benefit, allow me to state that, as hard as it to believe, one can believe a war is immoral and wrong, and still respect the troops, even leaders of troops, for following orders.

I have to say this diving right into Ms. Coulter’s argument is starting to make me a little fatigued. I think I’ll skip down a bit; she spends the next few paragraphs attacking Clark.

“Howard Dean is not a general, but he is a doctor. Democrats are enthusiastic about Dean since they figure that if this Democrat were ever caught with a naked intern, he could just say it was her annual physical.”

Actually Democrats like Dean because he acts like he opposes President Bush and his policies. There’s something energizing in an opposition candidate acting like an opposition candidate, although I understand Rush Limbaugh (who presumably has a lot on his mind) wishes we would act like pansies and support the President. I don’t know about other Democrats, but I personally don’t think that’s a very positive route to go down.

“Sen. John Kerry has said we need to “de-Americanize” the war, I guess on the theory that the “de-Americanizing” process has worked out so well for the Democratic Party. He is furious at Bush for prosecuting a war Kerry voted for, saying the difference is, “I would have been patient.” He would have had to be extremely patient in the case of Germany, inasmuch as Gerhard Schroeder announced before the war began that he would never authorize war in Iraq under any circumstances.”

Actually the Democratic Party is an American party, made up of people who love their country and want to see it succeed and prosper. It is, to borrow a phrase, as American as apple pie. And I think that most people understand where Mr. Kerry is coming from. We were told that Congressional Support for President Bush’s authorization was necessary to push Saddam to being more open. Then President Bush took us to war, insulted the rest of the world, handily defeated a military decades out of date, and failed to prepare any sort of exit strategy. So perhaps we Americans can understand Mr. Kerry’s feelings; as we share his sense of being betrayed by a President determined to take us to war.

I’m done. This is too hard—if you want to read the rest of the article, here it is.