Oh good GOD!!!
Please tell me who the hell this woman fellated to get a law degree?
Hell, who’d she blow to get a high school diploma?
Argh, in my sleepyness I was missing a phrase. I meant to say;
“…the unlovely Ms. Coulter, with glossy photos of her and her chicken legs, including…”
I assume you meant “is”.
And just what IS her message, pray tell?
That she’s an untalented journalist wannabe?
That she’s crazier than a shithouse rant?
That she had rabies?
That the media has a liberal bias.
december, while it may be an earth-shattering revelation to you and Ann Coulter that the media has a (slightly) liberal bias, I assure you that most people know that already. It’s not really a big deal; the media has had a slightly left-leaning tilt since the days of Hearst. IMHO (and I’m a conservative), the “danger” is largely overblown. The media–while keeping a due eye on domestic civil rights abuses–seems to report the war on terrorism with a pretty favorable slant. Almost as favorable as, say, the Persian Gulf war ten years ago.
And even if the hype is true, and the papers are running full scale media operations against conservative issues, please explain to me how a shrill, hateful commentator with psychological issues is going to change all that. If I were on the political fence, and saw something like Ann Coulter’s interview on The Daily Show, I would give serious thought to becoming a socialist. Liberals aren’t winning over converts through the major media, december. Conservatives, such as Ann, are scaring the converts away. In the end, she does more harm than good, and she DOESN’T speak for me or my views.
Kind of a hijack, sorry:
Check out this guy’s reviews on amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/cm/member-reviews/-/A1UXI4MD2ZEBKV/002-4186189-2108845
Is this subtle satire? Is this Taggert? I can’t tell.
:shrug: Sounds pretty sincere to me. This is what I mean. She seems to strike a chord with a lot of people, which scares me. Granted, I haven’t read her books, which some claim make a lot more sense than her columns and interviews. Unfortunately, I don’t think I’ll get around to finding out for myself anytime soon.
quarx, Coulter isn’t my favorite conservative columnist, by any means. I much prefer, e.g., Thomas Sowell or Charles Krauthammer or Mark Steyn.
I was struck by the tone of the recent NY Times review. Note how gently Masllin criticizes the book, going out of her way to acknowledge some degree of agreement with Coulter and some appreciation for Coulter’s humor.
No, it’s not me. Some guy named Gus Henry. Looks to be about my age, but I don’t have the moustache and beard and I don’t live in Colorado. I so share his opinions of the books to the extend I’ve read them.
But, did Coulter’s previous book (High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton) really contain the following?
I understand she’s a rabid hateful extremist, but now we’re talking about a trip to tin-foil-hat town. Chinese soldiers in Maryland? Clinton handing over the US to the UN 10 years after his term is up?
I never said she was. I was responding to the implication that Coulter’s revelation that the media has a liberal bias is in any way newsworthy. It’s not. The media DOES have a leftist slant, IMHO, but again, the severity is exaggerated. For example, the Rev. Jesse Jackson is often taken to task by both the mainstream and conservative media, and as far as her amazing revelation that Hollywood is left leaning? Sorry, but Ann’s not going to win any Pulitzers for revealing that Robert Altman is flaky, either.
I might as well stay in my Captain Obvious role and point out that Ann often commits the same violations of integrity that she complains about in her book. Ad Hominems, “No True Scotsmans,” and strawmen chase each other right off the page in her columns.
I think that her creepy little world hinges around the fact that she doesn’t think that liberals are wrong or incorrect or misguided, but that they’re actually bad people for harboring these beliefs. When you stop attacking people’s beliefs and underlying logic and start attacking them personally, you’re leaving the world of rational debate behind. When other people who otherwise agree with you criticize you for doing that, and you turn around and call them “girly-boys,” you’re leaving reality behind. And when you blame the “liberal” mainstream media for the fact that 99% of your readers are turned off by this hate, you’ve pretty much traded your berth on this planet for the little pink happy room and the hug-me suit.
Oh, and I couldn’t read the article. No account at the NY Times.
*I think that her creepy little world hinges around the fact that she doesn’t think that liberals are wrong or incorrect or misguided, but that they’re actually bad people for harboring these beliefs. When you stop attacking people’s beliefs and underlying logic and start attacking them personally, you’re leaving the world of rational debate behind. When other people who otherwise agree with you criticize you for doing that, and you turn around and call them “girly-boys,” you’re leaving reality behind. And when you blame the “liberal” mainstream media for the fact that 99% of your readers are turned off by this hate, you’ve pretty much traded your berth on this planet for the little pink happy room and the hug-me suit. *
Just to clarify, I didn’t mean “you” here as “you personally,” december. This is stuff that Ann Coulter has done, and I was using the impersonal “you”
Hmm…maybe I did skim. Won’t happen again, I swear.
:smack:
The question is whether Coulter did really write that stuff, or if that guy just THOUGHT she did, or if maybe he’s just pulling a Taggert.
But thats just it! Even at first blush, you can’t be sure that a ridiculous position, presumably spewed onto newsprint by Whiplash Annie, is a hoax! Someone tells you Mark Shields put out such a position, you’d know right way it wasn’t so.
An impossibility of parody is an excellent indicator of absurdity.
Registering for the New York Times is free.
Ah, got it, thanks, december. But do you call that review gentle and appreciative? I’ve had teeth knocked out more gently than that.
Or are you being sarcastic? Never mind, I’ll whoosh myself.
No, I was not being sarcastic. Clearly the reviewer is totally opposed to Coulter, yet IMHO she pulled her punches. In fact, even choosing to run the review was a compromise. The Times book reviewers have ignored #1 best sellers in the past, when they didn’t like the books’ conservative message.
Note that Coulter’s book put the reviewer in an awkward position: If the reviewer totally blasted Coulter’s book, then she would be providing evidence for Coulter’s thesis. 
The one on Amazon has to be fake-the guy claims that Ann calls herself a lesbian biker chick. WE know she doesn’t.
Hehehehe!!!
december: Coulter is anything BUT conservative. She’s a radical.