More on Coulter
Commenter nk had an excellent comment on Xrlq’s blog:
OK, what’s sauce for the goose …: “This broad, Ann Coulter, is a millionairess, lionized on TV and in articles and blog discussions about her, revelling in her status as a celebrity and stalked by wingnuts looking for her autograph. I have never seen anyone enjoying the deaths of the 9/11 victims and the grief of their families so much.”
Beautifully put.
UPDATE: For the benefit of those who haven’t following my running comment battles with Coulter defenders elsewhere, let me make my position clear. I don’t think the Jersey Girls should be immune from criticism. I think that the form Coulter’s criticism took was despicable.
Had Coulter said that the Jersey Girls are enjoying the notoriety resulting from their husbands’ deaths, that would have been fair comment. That’s not what she said. She said the women are “enjoying their husbands’ deaths.” That is venal and nasty.
Consider this statement: “You are enjoying the deaths of American soldiers.” Wouldn’t you consider those to be fighting words? Certainly you are enjoying certain benefits that you wouldn’t enjoy had American soldiers not died. But that doesn’t mean you are enjoying their deaths.
Coulter doesn’t get an easy pass on an “I didn’t mean it” defense. Her statement was not an off-the-cuff comment. It was a passage that she wrote in a book that she expected would be widely read. She had to know the passage would be controversial. She has dissembled about what she actually said, but has not backed down or admitted that she worded it improperly.
Finally, consider her history. She has previously joked that someone should assassinate Justice Stevens, and has said, repeatedly, that she regrets that Tim McVeigh did not blow up the New York Times building.
I have previously said:
Coulter has very strong opinions, and I often agree with her and admire the forceful and humorous way that she states her position. But that doesn’t come close to making up for her tasteless comments about killing leftists. If these are her idea of jokes, she needs to stop telling them.
I’m getting to the point where the weight of all her wrongheaded statements makes it very difficult for me to enjoy anything she says any more.
Thanks. Though I had to go and weaken it with my comment to Steve Sturm. I violated the advice I give my clients when they are to testify: Never justify, never explain.
[Mmmm . . . I might have to explain that this comment of yours is a parody. I think people understand that, but I'm not 100 percent sure everyone does. -- P]
Comment by nk — 6/12/2006 @ 10:22 pm
Nah, it doesn’t quite work.
Ms. Coulter’s fame and fortune didn’t emanate from the ashes of the twin towers. She was a big star prior to 9/11, and her meal ticket is as an opponent of big, liberal government and the mainstream media.
If 9/11 had not happened, she would still be a big star.
Besides, if there’s anyone who’s a target for criticism by her opponents—it’s Ms. Coulter.
She loves to debate, and she hides behind no shield.
And that was the point that many seemed to miss in her debate with Matt Lauer.
Remember when Maureen Dowd wrote in the NY Times that the fact that Cindy Sheehan’s son died in the war gives Ms. Sheehan ‘absolute moral authority’ over her critics ??
That’s exactly the point that Ms. Coulter was contesting in her statements on “The Today Show”, which many folks seem to mis-understand—it’s that when folks criticize Cindy Sheehan or the Jersey Girls for their publicly stated political positions/endorsements, instead of defending the merits of their own statements, they turn around and claim ‘moral authority’ over their critics simply because their loved ones perished.
Suppose you’re someone whom lost TWO relatives in the twin towers, or in Iraq,—does that afford you TWICE the ‘moral authority’ of Cindy Sheehand, or any of the widows ??
Furthermore, Matt Lauer was referring to a passage which appears in Ms. Coulter’s new book, “Godless.”
I think we should all get a chance to read the ‘offending’ passage before we chastise her for it.
Comment by Desert Rat — 6/12/2006 @ 10:50 pm
You can add a third, nk: don’t point out your weaknesses yourself if others don’t.
But seriously, your comment is clever but nonsensical. Her fame has nothing to do with 9/11, unlike the targets of her comment. So you’d have to work a lot harder to connect the dots on that one.
Patterico says at Xrlq’s: “Has she backed off the statement? Really? How about a link? If she has made plenty of clarifications, give us a link to one.” He says he won’t back off his criticism of what Coulter actually said based on what her defenders wish she had said. (I said “she should have used the difference between ‘enjoying the deaths’ and ‘enjoying the fame resulting from’ to make her point.”)
Here is where she says she meant “enjoying the fame” rather than enjoying the deaths. I don’t deny, Pat, that if that’s what she meant, that’s what she should have said. But I will continue to deny that she is a bitch on the same order of magnitude that Ted Rall is an asshole. I think Allahpundit (same link) has the last word on this one: “The maddening thing about Coulter is that when she’s not talking smack, she’s a trenchant commentator.” For her clear sight about some of the most important issues of our time, I will not be throwing her under the bus for this one.
Comment by Anwyn — 6/12/2006 @ 11:16 pm
Allah also says of the video linked in his post (and his description is quite accurate, if overly kind): “the first third is her dissembling over what she actually said about the Jersey Girls.”
Damn right. That’s “dissemble” as in make a false show of, as in (let’s be blunt) lie.
She claims: “What I said is that they’re enjoying their celebrity status . . .”
Bullshit, Ann. Bullshit! Calling that “dissembling” is kind. That is *not* what you said and you damn well know it. What you *wrote* — in a passage you knew would create controversy, in a book you knew would be widely read — was that they are enjoying their husbands’ deaths.
That’s what you wrote, and your backtracking is pure bullshit, and you know it.
Own up to it. Defend it or take it back. But don’t freaking lie about it.
Comment by Patterico — 6/12/2006 @ 11:51 pm
Anywyn beat me to the punch. NK’s analogy is even sillier than your general proposition that Ann Coulter equals Ted Rall. How many of the Jerky Girls had you heard of prior to 9-11-01? Had you heard of Ann Coulter by then?
[Why are we talking about her right now? People who had notoriety can enjoy more. Especially if some gratuitous nastiness helps them sell books. -- P]
Comment by Xrlq — 6/13/2006 @ 3:38 am
Sorry, Pat.
Ann Coulter had plenty of notoreity before 9/11. A better analogy would be to compare her “relishing Bill Clinton’s BJ’s” or something of the sort. Which would sound extremely stupid.
I don’t get it. These broads whine, moan, wrap themselves in their husbands’ obits, excoriate the President, make millions and demand special rules all because they had a loved one die on 9/11. But they are immune from criticism because of it. How on earth do you defend THAT?! I thought you were an intelligent guy.
[I don't defend that, as you would know if you had read my comments on this. I simply despise the form Coulter's criticism took. -- Patterico]
And shame on Ann for backing down. Those broads are enjoying their husbands’ deaths. No one would give a flying flip about them otherwise.
[They are arguably enjoying the notoriety *resulting* from their husbands' deaths. That's not the same thing. -- P]
Comment by sharon — 6/13/2006 @ 4:13 am
Sorry, Patterico, but I don’t “enjoy” your Coulter-bashing (definition 1, below). Just so you know:
en·joy ( P )
(1) To receive pleasure or satisfaction from.
(2) To have the use or benefit of: enjoys good health.
Somebody start handing out some dictionaries - Ann is absolutely right (again).
[Again? Like when she joked that someone should assassinate Justice Stevens? Like when she said, repeatedly, that she regretted Timothy McVeigh hadn't blown up the New York Times building? At least this time she isn't joking about killing people she disagrees with -- she's just saying that people she disagrees with are enjoying the fact that someone else killed their spouses. -- Patterico]
Comment by KRende — 6/13/2006 @ 5:57 am
KRende,
Also, you’re ignoring context. Consider this statement:
“KRende enjoys our soldiers’ deaths.”
If you weren’t hell-bent on defending Coulter, and twisting the English language to do so, you would bristle at the inaccuracy of that statement. You are enjoying the fruits of freedom our soldiers’ deaths have brought, not our soldiers’ deaths.
Comment by Patterico — 6/13/2006 @ 6:39 am
I don’t read Ann Coulter’s books and dislike her almost as much as I dislike those Jersey girls.
Comment by Mike K — 6/13/2006 @ 6:49 am
See the update to the post.
Comment by Patterico — 6/13/2006 @ 6:52 am
I guess sometimes even parody needs to be explained. “Broads” is ad hominem but at least it’s honest ad hominem. “Millionares”, “revelling in celebrity status”, and “enjoying … deaths” is pure demagoguery. Pulling on the emotional strings of the audience with loaded phrases which sound like argument but when parsed are seen to be irrelevancies and half-truths and attacks on the messenger instead of the message.
Comment by nk — 6/13/2006 @ 7:02 am
We’re talking about Coulter because NK made a silly comparison, which you described as “excellent,” between her notoriety and that of the Jerky Girls. And because you stubbornly refuse to admit that whatever merit there may be to the suggestion that Coulter’s current statement was wrong, your comparison to Ted Rall is at least as over the top vis a vis Coulter as her unfortunate choice of words was toward the Jerky Girls.
It’s also a distinction without a difference. No one serious thinks she means they are enjoying their husbands’ deaths directly, which is not even possible since their husbands aren’t currently dying. What she is saying, to those of us who don’t rely 100% on strict adherence to English grammar to the exclusion of common sense, is that they are deriving enjoyment from their husbands’ deaths - precisely the point you yourself admit is fair comment. Does anyone seriously believe there would have been one iota less of a hue and cry if, rather than writing “I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much,” she had instead written “I have never seen people deriving so much pleasure from their husbands’s death?” If so, email me privately; I think I can get you a really sweet deal on the Golden Gate Bridge.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/13/2006 @ 7:06 am
We are talking about her because she made a comment about some 9/11 victims.
See my update to the post.
Consider this statement: “I have never seen anyone derive so much pleasure from the deaths of our soldiers as Xrlq.”
What a silly thing that would be to say.
Comment by Patterico — 6/13/2006 @ 7:16 am
Patterico,
You’re still splitting hairs. You KNOW what the statement “they are deriving pleasure from their husbands’ deaths” means. This is hardly in the same league with Ted Rall or even with Al Franken when he called for the execution of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. To keep trying to beat this into something other than about the shameless behavior of the Jerky Girls is, well, shameless. They’ve used the pure emotion of 9/11 for their own benefit. I hardly see how this isn’t “enjoying” their husbands’ deaths, unless, of course, you are dissecting it on a purely microbial level.
Comment by sharon — 6/13/2006 @ 7:53 am
It would be silly because Xrlq, unless he’s a famous left-wing commentator on the side, doesn’t go around the country crowing that his wistful wishes about foreign policy should be fulfilled every time one more soldier dies. Or using the occasion to call the president, secretary of state, and secretary of defense rude names. It would not necessarily be so silly if you said it about, say, Cindy Sheehan, instead of Xrlq. If you’re gonna make comparisons, you gotta use something comparable.
[My point is that X, and everyone else here, enjoys benefits brought to us by the deaths of soldiers. But you wouldn't say he enjoys their deaths. It would also be strange, at a minimum, to say he derives enjoyment from their deaths. See what I mean? -- P]
Comment by Anwyn — 6/13/2006 @ 7:53 am
Since I usually enjoy your work, I feel like I’m arguing with a friend (probably not your feelings though). Nevertheless, having you pile on top of what the liberal media is saying bothers me.
The “context” of which you speak is subjective. Your perceived context (and that of most liberal media that you often chide) is that Coulter is claiming that the 9/11 widows are “pleasured” (definition 1 of “enjoyed”), when the context can be argued that the 9/11 are “benefitting” (definition 2) and therefore the sentence is appropriate, controversial and ironic.
If I may be so bold - who is “ignoring context”, “twisting the English language”, and “hell-bent”? Pretty strong charges from a writer with a known anti-Coulter bias and considering that it was my first comment here (compared to your several) and was relatively tame. Although I wouldn’t claim to know what your political affiliation is, it nevertheless sounds like what is illustrated as a symptom of Battered Conservative Syndrome.
If Coulter’s pontifications aren’t your cup of tea, then so be it. Yes, Coulter is “enjoying” the deaths of the widows’ husbands of the 9/11 attack, maybe in both definitions of the word - but the 9/11 widows “enjoyed” it (bennefitted) from it first. The definition is there, whether you like it or not, but you obviously aren’t interested in giving Coulter the benefit of the doubt.
Comment by KRende — 6/13/2006 @ 8:05 am
Like sticks and stones, which may break my bones?
Comment by actus — 6/13/2006 @ 8:25 am
Re #13. Pattrico asked us to, “Consider this statement: “I have never seen anyone derive so much pleasure from the deaths of our soldiers as Xrlq.” Then he said, “What a silly thing that would be to say.”
Yes, it a silly thing to say, but you said it. There really are people who do enjoy the deaths of our solders, and who enjoyed the death of 9/11 victims. Zarqawi was one of them. Now, we all know that you and Xrlq are definitely not among them. You only said it about Xrlq to make a point and that lets you off the hook.
So, is that really any different from what Ann said for the same reason?
Comment by Black Jack — 6/13/2006 @ 8:34 am
Patterico, as I have challenged you at XRLQ’s comments section, so I challenge you here:
“Patterico has continued to assert a basic equivalency between Coulter and Rall. I wish Patterico would more specifically quantify his opinion, by ranking Coulter and Rall on a moral-reprehensibility scale of 1 to 100, 100 being most reprehensible.
Care to take up the challenge, Patterico?”
You’ve expended many words equating Coulter to Rall, Patterico; have the courage to assign Coulter and Rall comparative numeric values for reprehensibility.
Comment by clark smith — 6/13/2006 @ 9:28 am
David Klinghoffer of NRO hit the nail on the head: “If Coulter commits any indefensible excesses, they are small beans compared to her substantive, incisive, important main point.”
– Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.
Comment by Alan Cole — 6/13/2006 @ 9:30 am
The funny thing is, it seems like no one has ever read any of her other books. In [u]Treason[/u] she wrote that Truman had to be a Communist because he had some serving on his cabinet, thus a President was trying to sell out Post-war America to the Soviets. That was a gigantic “huh?”, but almost no one made a peep about it.
There were those that were trying to help the USSR take over the USA during those time, but the Prez was definitely not one of them.
In all of Ann’s books she works from extreme hyperbole. If you are not 100% for what she beleives in, then you are 100% working to defeat it. Which isn’t always the case. Sometimes, people just don’t care about that issue.
In the case of the Jersey Girls, the whole chapter is devoted to those things that were said in the Post-9/11 analysis that look stupid to people that have a conservative view. Kinda like reading [i]Slate[/i]’s Fray comments about conservatives. Yes, the Jersy Girls have an axe to grind. Yes, they are using the notariety generated by their husbands’ death to do so. Yes it is rather disgusting, but it is done all the time.
One could accuse the father of Amber Hagerman of “enjoying” the death of his daughter to create the Amber Alert system. It is just as silly, isn’t it. Tragic deaths seem to make celebrities of those left behind. Which is a [b]more[/b] tragic fact than the result.
Comment by MunDane — 6/13/2006 @ 9:55 am
“are you sure you want to send Patterico’s Pontifications to the recycle bin?”
Yes
Comment by Walter E. Wallis — 6/13/2006 @ 10:47 am
I have had problems with other books AC has written, particularly Treason, which did, indeed, seem to tar everyone with any possible link to Communism with the same brush. But, as in that book, one should look at the entire premise. Was it possible for Truman to be so out of the loop that he didn’t know about the various Communists in his cabinet or in civil service?
“One could accuse the father of Amber Hagerman of “enjoying” the death of his daughter to create the Amber Alert system. It is just as silly, isn’t it. Tragic deaths seem to make celebrities of those left behind. Which is a [b]more[/b] tragic fact than the result.”
But Amber Hagerman’s father shouldn’t be above criticism just because of his daughter’s death, should he? This was the point AC was trying to make: liberals trot out victims to spout the liberal cause du jour and no one is supposed to question the victim’s motivations or observations because of the victim status. It isn’t that people don’t get instant fame because of their association with tragedy. Just ask Richard Jewell. It’s what they choose to do with that fame that is the problem.
Comment by sharon — 6/13/2006 @ 11:03 am
ann coulter, at least her public persona and statements, radiates hatred and contempt for all who disagree with her. her statement about the 9/11 widows enjoying their husbands’ deaths is just as bad as ward churchill’s “little eichmanns”. you people defending her should be ashamed of yourselves.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/13/2006 @ 11:14 am
Wait…you equate castigating broads for using their husbands’ deaths as a soapbox for their pet projects with innocent people getting compared to Nazis? That seems like quite a stretch.
Comment by sharon — 6/13/2006 @ 11:22 am
Indeed it would be. Is there a point buried in there, somewhere?
[You betcha. I'll even spell it out for you, since it appears to be necessary. The point is: don't say someone is "enjoying" a terrible event that they damn well are *not* enjoying and never have, simply because they are deriving enjoyment from something that happened as a result of that tragic event. Especially when the tragic event is someone's death. -- P]
Comment by Xrlq — 6/13/2006 @ 11:33 am
coulter’s statement may actually be worse than churchill’s. i’ve been called all kinds of things from nazi to commie to anarchist, none of which was actionable in the context.
when joan rivers’ husband died, somebody stated that she was enjoying her husband’s death. i didn’t really feel that was actionable either, but she sued, and as i recall, got a settlement of some kind.
your use of “broads” in your comment is incongruous and somewhat tacky. you can go ahead and call me a stud though, i don’t mind.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/13/2006 @ 11:42 am
Nasty, maybe, but nonetheless accurate. They exult in their husbands’ deaths like Jesse Jackson waving his bloody shirt in 1968.
Comment by Tim — 6/13/2006 @ 12:07 pm
“She claims: What I said is that theyre enjoying their celebrity status . . .
…
Own up to it. Defend it or take it back. But dont freaking lie about it. ”
Patterico,
Ann makes a comment in her book that a lot of people find inappropriate, like I do, and when she makes a statement to defend what she said, and apparently to clarify it and lessen some of the criticism, you call her a lier. How does that make her a lier?
Name me one public speaker or author that hasn’t issued a controversial statement and then tried to clarify and defend it with another statement, even though the second statement doesn’t match the first. I don’t think you can. Although I think you can find a lot of people who feel that a situation such as this is proof of lying.
Personally I think she should retract the statement as it is unbecoming of her, but I’m not going to call her a lier when she tries to defend that statement.
[She could have defended it as written. That would be fine. She could have said: "I said it wrong. What I meant, or should have said, was . . ." She did neither. Instead, she whitewashed what she really said. That is weaselly and dishonest. -- P]
Comment by Ray — 6/13/2006 @ 12:12 pm
“She could have defended it as written. That would be fine. She could have said: I said it wrong. What I meant, or should have said, was . . . She did neither. Instead, she whitewashed what she really said. That is weaselly and dishonest. P”
It still looks to me that she was defending her position. I think your using a literal interpretation of her statement as a means to disregard the intent of that statement as a clarification of her postion. That last is an awkward sentence, but I’m having trouble stating my position. Public speaker, I am not!
[That's okay, I get your point. But Coulter makes her living with words. She alone is responsible if she says something poorly. -- P]
Comment by Ray — 6/13/2006 @ 12:43 pm
Devil’s advocate - does your pseudonym indicate that you are writing your comments to live up to it’s definition?
Even so, trying to equate the claim of Churchill that dead victims of the 9/11 attacks were “little Eichmans” (who cannot defend themselves) with Coulter’s claim that four widows enjoyed (meaning “liked” or “benefitted from”, depending on your bias) their husbands death is weak, very weak. Then to go on and claim that Coulter’s claim is worse just demolishes any credibility you may have had.
Comment by KRende — 6/13/2006 @ 12:50 pm
Er … ok. Now perhaps you’d care to explain what joy I’ve supposedly derived from any U.S. soldier’s death - as I can’t recall doing, but must have done for your analogy to make any sense.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/13/2006 @ 1:41 pm
Xrlq, are you kidding me? I didn’t want to jump into this, but I have thought Patterico’s analogy obvious from the beginning. You enjoy freedom as a result of the deaths of Revolutionary War soldiers. You enjoy freedom from Nazi tyranny based on U.S. soldiers’ deaths in WWII, or at least you enjoy a better world because of those soldiers’ deaths. If you believe in the Domino Theory, you enjoy freedom because of Vietnam War soldiers’ deaths. Every time a U.S. soldier dies, if you believe at all what the military says (as do conservatives in general) about our soldiers fighting for freedom, then you believe that we are all benefiting (enjoying the benefits of) soldiers’ valiant deaths.
By the way, I love reading Coulter - have read all four books and am reading Godless now. I suspect that Patterico is right, her language is wrong and inappropriate. However, she’s also brilliant. Brillian satire. Brilliant insight. Fun reading.
Comment by D Huff — 6/13/2006 @ 2:14 pm
Huff, I suspected as much but you’re wrong. With apologies to Patton, none of us enjoy any freedoms because our men died for their country. We enjoy them because our men made the poor s.o.b.s on the other side die for their countries.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/13/2006 @ 2:22 pm
So, I was about to write a comment trying to be a little bit snide and sarcastic about “the enjoyment” X obtained from a soldiers death, thought, but then, I couldn’t, seemed to weird, just improper.
Which maybe, (although my perspective coming into this is that Patterico should lighten up), shows that Patterico has a point. Decent people don’t say certain things until their pretty darn sure of them or sometimes don’t find certain things appropriate for sarcasm, and as a result it was kind of a low blow against the Jersey Girls. Maybe they are enjoying being celebrities. One hopes, that they would prefer to have their husbands back instead of their celebrity. Until they say something different, we should give them the benefit of the doubt.
Doesn’t mean they’re entitled to any sort of deference with respect to whatever political positions they take, those should be judged on their merits, but no need for the chop shot by Coulter I think.
Comment by Joel B. — 6/13/2006 @ 2:25 pm
Xlrq, lol, well put.
Comment by D Huff — 6/13/2006 @ 2:30 pm
Actually, I don’t think she is far off. It certainly had occurred to me, with respect to Cindy Sheehan. I think she is in fact enjoying the death of her son…it is the best thing that ever happened to her. She became a celebrity, and now people pay attention to her (both new developments for her.) These four women from New Jersey, with their vicious attacks, appear quite similar.
Comment by j woo — 6/13/2006 @ 2:47 pm
“But Coulter makes her living with words. She alone is responsible if she says something poorly”
I agree with you 100 percent. We are all responsible for our words or our actions. What I don’t agree with is the assumption that she’s lying simple because she said something poorly, as you put it.
Never the less, I guess it really doesn’t mater as I am sure she’ll continue to say things that are controversial. That seems to be her trade (tirade?) mark.
Comment by Ray — 6/13/2006 @ 2:59 pm
As for enjoying soldiers’ deaths, look no further than those who love to keep a running total of the Iraq war dead and make a big deal over the ‘milestone’ numbers like 2,000 and can’t wait ’til the next one so they can parade it around as well.
And BTW, does anyone here, in their heart, honestly believe that Kristin Breitweiser would trade her current fame to have what’s-his-name back alive? If so, you’re viewing the world through rose-colored glasses.
Comment by Tim — 6/13/2006 @ 3:28 pm
I criticized my friends on The Liberal Avenger, noting that all they were doing was giving the lovely Miss Coulter (and Michelle Malkin, someone else they hate) more publicity — and it’s usually thought to be an axiom that all publicity is good publicity.
I don’t see how this second major article on the subject on this site doesn’t do exactly the same thing.
Heck, I’ve read a lot more from Miss Coulter and Mrs Malkin due to the criticism they’ve received than I ever have from just looking for their websites.
Comment by Dana — 6/13/2006 @ 4:16 pm
Patterico said:
“Had Coulter said that the Jersey Girls are enjoying the notoriety resulting from their husbands’ deaths, that would have been fair comment. That’s not what she said. She said the women are “enjoying their husbands’ deaths.” That is venal and nasty.”
But is it true? Patterico, here’s my question: what about the *merits* of Coulter’s claim? That the Jersey Widows are enjoying their husbands’ deaths. Maybe it’s true.
I’m not going to hunt around for the evidence, but maybe someone will. How do the Widows act? What are their expressions? Certainly, they are allowed to smile and laugh in public most of the time without reasonable people assuming they are enjoying their husbands’ deaths. But how do they act when their husbands’ deaths are specifically mentioned? How do they respond to questions about their hudbands? I avoid watching them, so I don’t know, but I assume Coulter has watched them. Shouldn’t we analyze the content of Coulter’s claim before judging her?
Comment by D Huff — 6/13/2006 @ 4:40 pm
Okay, that is at least the third time that argument has been raised, and it’s silly. Ann expressed her opinion, totally ineligible for proof either for or against. She’s entitled to it. It was insulting to the JGs. So insulting that most people are focusing solely on the insult even if they find Ann’s opinion credible, because to find Ann credible would associate them with the insult. Her credibility, general or specific, is not what we’re discussing. It’s the insult.
Comment by Anwyn — 6/13/2006 @ 6:47 pm
Mundane, I’ve read a couple of her books, including “Treason” and she never said that. Care to give us a quote that you interpreted that way, or shall we just assume it was an outright lie?
Comment by Doc Rampage — 6/13/2006 @ 6:50 pm
[...] Interesting reactions to last night’s post quoting nk’s parody of Ann Coulter (you did realize that he was satirizing her comments . . . right?). [...]
Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » Coulter Didn’t Mean It, and Also, She Meant It and She Was Right — 6/13/2006 @ 6:56 pm
Russ Vaughn sums it up for me!
http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=5365
Hallowed Human Shields (a poem)
Libs think Hillary’s smart as a whip,
I think she’s just a fraud.
She couldn’t hold Ann Coulter’s slip;
Ann’s America’s sharpest broad.
She chews up liberal talking heads,
With wit so quick and cunning,
Rips Alan Colmes to bloody shreds,
And sends Matt Lauer running.
But now she’s really gone too far,
All the liberal lambs are bleating;
Is there nothing sacred she won’t tar?
My word, she’s widow-beating!
“Can you believe it?” reporters gasp,
“Those are victims that she’s dissing;
How dare that vicious rightwing asp
Threaten widows with her hissing?”
Our lovely Ann’s beyond the pale,
Got the Libs all hot and fuming;
Why, this attack is off the scale,
Sacred cows this blonde’s exhuming.
And with every shovelful of dirt,
We see from her indiscretion,
How Libs exploit such human hurt,
Then dare our right to question.
No, we mustn’t challenge anything,
Regardless how dumb or windy,
From a brain-fried lefty dingaling,
Like grave top screeching Cindy;
Or Cleland, Murtha, and Kerry,
Because of war, beyond aspersion,
Or those Jersey Widows Merry,
No, we daren’t dispute their version.
But Ms. Ann, so lithe and lethal, went ahunting in Liberal fields,
And sank her fangs in the haunches of their hallowed human shields.
Russ Vaughn
Comment by Gbear — 6/13/2006 @ 7:01 pm
D Huff — so, if Ted Rall were to publish something claiming that Bush was enjoying the death of Iraqi civilians, you would want it investigated before denouncing it?
Comment by aphrael — 6/13/2006 @ 8:36 pm
Xrlq:
All supporters of the Three Strikes law are “enjoying” the death of Polly Klaas. Right?
Comment by Patterico — 6/13/2006 @ 8:37 pm
Pat, why are you insisting on going into the scarecrow business? Coulter didn’t say that all 9/11 widows are enjoying their husbands’ deaths. You’re getting wild. I think several of our positions are more clearly outlined over at Xrlq’s, anyway, and I don’t think anybody’s convincing anyone else. I’m about to go take up Ceballos again, because this is getting gruesome.
Comment by Anwyn — 6/13/2006 @ 9:08 pm
Anwyn,
My comment is directed at those who would parse the word “enjoy” so as to remove all common sense, and interpret it strictly as “derive a benefit from.” See this comment for an example.
Comment by Patterico — 6/13/2006 @ 9:11 pm
See? Not so “wild” after all.
Comment by Patterico — 6/13/2006 @ 9:12 pm
K. Sorry, then. But it’s still gruesome, and we’re still wandering far afield. Now then, about that Ceballos …
Comment by Anwyn — 6/13/2006 @ 9:15 pm
Ceballos had the First Amendment right to say in a memo that Ann Coulter is an unhinged shrew.
How’s that?
If there’s one freedom that blogs give you, it’s the freedom to make like a dog, grab a bone, and never, ever let go.
Even when your readers tell you they’re sick of the subject, it doesn’t matter. You are The Dog — and you can simply reply: “GRRRRR!”
Comment by Patterico — 6/13/2006 @ 9:21 pm
*laugh* See over at Xrlq’s.
Comment by Anwyn — 6/13/2006 @ 9:25 pm
Anwyn, # 53,
I already made the suggestion for a “new loss of First Amendment rights due to government employment” thread but it’s his paid-for bandwidth not ours. I’m too
busylazy to do it on my blog. What about hosting it on your site?Comment by nk — 6/13/2006 @ 9:28 pm
standards of behavior…
Patterico misses my point because I haven’t, up to now, clearly expressed that I reject his assumption that there is some relevant standard of civilized discourse that Coulter has violated. He must be making such an assumption, otherwise his intemper….
Trackback by Doc Rampage — 6/13/2006 @ 10:39 pm
[...] [Editor’s Note: Yes, it’s another Ann Coulter post. I recently told commenter Anwyn: “If there’s one freedom that blogs give you, it’s the freedom to make like a dog, grab a bone, and never, ever let go. Even when your readers tell you they’re sick of the subject, it doesn’t matter. You are The Dog — and you can simply reply: “GRRRRR!” [...]
Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » Rall Says Coulter Was Worse — 6/14/2006 @ 6:53 am
No. Using the definition of “derive a benefit from,” which I don’t endorse in this particular context (it is sometimes used that way in others), the answer would of course be yes. Not just all supporters, mind you, but everyone else who hasn’t been raped/murdered/mugged/whatever at least once between 1995 and 2006 as a a result of the Three Strikes Law. [We don't know who these people are, of course, but we do know, to a statistical certainty, that they exist.]
Comment by Xrlq — 6/14/2006 @ 8:49 am
Seeing as it was originally directed at me, but relied on a definition supplied by someone else, I’d say that’s pretty “wild” after after-all.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/14/2006 @ 8:57 am
aphrael #48, yes, if Ted Rall is generally credible. I confess to not knowing who Ted Rall is. Coulter is generally credible. I will readily admit that she is a satirist though. She says things that are obviously not true to make a point. I don’t know whether she meant the statement under question as truth or satire. See more of my view of her at #35 above.
Anwyn #44. You said
“[Ann's statement] was insulting to the JGs. So insulting that most people are focusing solely on the insult even if they find Ann’s opinion credible, because to find Ann credible would associate them with the insult. Her credibility, general or specific, is not what we’re discussing. It’s the insult.”
I am saying that if “most people are focusing solely on the insult”, it is becasue they are assuming that it is false. That assumption is unfair. And if the evidence actually points to truth of the statement, then public opinion (at least of the right, and I’m guessing, Patterico, which is why I addressed my statement to him), will support Coulter. If the statement is true, then truth, is a reasonable defense to the statement, socially and politically. Do you agree with that?
You also said “Ann expressed her opinion, totally ineligible for proof either for or against.” I disagree. Demeanor evidence is probative, not just in court, but in all of life. Have you never had someone lie to your face and you knew it? Have you never seen a conversation and said, person A is enjoying this conflict too much, or just wants to win and doesn’t care about the issues? Admittedly, those are examples where the thing you are deciding on is less insulting or less important than what Coulter said, but you still make judgments based on people’s demeanor all the time. We can and should judge Coulter’s statements that are based on demeanor after seeing and judging that demeanor. Of course, this assumes that you agree that truthfulness is a reasonable defense to a severe insult.
Comment by D Huff — 6/14/2006 @ 11:26 am
Xrlq:
Mmmm . . . not really. You have made the same argument.
On your site, you said I read Coulter’s comment “hyper-literally” when I said that her claim that the Jersies were “enjoying their husbands’ deaths” meant that . . . they were enjoying their husbands’ deaths.
You have argued that anyone with any sense would read her comments differently from what she actually said. According to you, anyone whose head is not up their behind sees her quote as meaning that they are enjoying the notoriety resulting from those deaths — in other words, they are deriving a secondary benefit from the bad event.
Proof? In this comment of yours at your site, you replied to a statement of mine:
with this:
What you were saying there was that Coulter’s comment meant that the Jersies “are enjoying the notoriety they’ve received for no reason other than their husbands’ deaths.” I.e., in your mind, Coulter used “enjoying” to mean “deriving a secondary benefit from.”
My example of Polly Klaas is directed at those who would parse the word “enjoy” so as to remove all common sense, and interpret it strictly as “deriving a secondary benefit from.” People like you.
If that’s how you define “enjoying,” then — assuming you feel you are safer as a result of the Three Strikes law — you are “enjoying Polly Klaas’s death.”
Since that is a ludicrous assertion, it shows that your interpretation of Coulter’s statement is similarly ludicrous.
Not so wild after all.
Comment by Patterico — 6/14/2006 @ 7:50 pm
If by “the same” you mean “different,” then I gues so.
Only because you defied reason and insisted that this statement could only mean that they derived their enjoyment directly from their husbands’ deaths, an interpretation that is not even possible under the circumstances since their deaths happened some time ago (and a lot longer than, say, 2-5 months, but who’s counting). But it’s one thing to trade pithiness for precision and say “enjoy X” when meaning “enjoy the sick spectacle that resulted from X,” and quite another to switch gears and adopt a completely different definition of “enjoy,” which connotes no joy whatsoever. If mixing up my argument with Tom’s isn’t “wild,” nothing is.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/14/2006 @ 9:01 pm
[...] While 99.99% of Coulter’s critics would have been equally offended by any passage that criticized the Jersey Girls’ ploy, at least one critic insists that making an issue of deriving indirect joy from their husbands’ untimely demise was fine, the whole beef being over what the meaning of “isenjoy” is. To satisfy this contigent, Coulter should instead have written the following: These Vaginal Americans have amassed significant fortunes, both in a pecuniary and a non-pecunarary fashion. Popular media, including without limitation the media of television (including cable television, satellite television, local “over the air” television, and such other televisual media as may be employed from time to time) newspaper and newsmagazine articles, within and without the World Wide Web, have provided additional exposure to such individuals, who have reciprocated by demonstrating an apparent affinity for such untoward attention, even from some media sources whose manner of reporting may be viewed by some as unorthodox. Upon information and belief, and to the best of my limited memory, I have at no point in the past observed any individuals deriving such misplaced pleasure from the demise of their spouses, domestic partners, common law husbands or wives, directly or indirectly, or in any other manner express or implied. [...]
Pingback by damnum absque injuria » A Coulterism Even a Lawyer Can Love — 6/17/2006 @ 8:23 am
[...] or this: She said the women are “enjoying their husbands’ deaths.” That is venal and nasty. [...]
Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » Is Glenn Greenwald a Liar? Or Is He Just Someone Who Makes Confident Assertions of Fact without Having the Slightest Clue Whether They Are True? — 7/12/2006 @ 6:56 pm
question -
who here had ever heard of Ann Coulter before 911?
I hadn’t.
seems she has made a career off misery. Which makes her comment about the wives of those lost in the trade center that much more disgusting and loathsome.
she is a vulture. a bird that scavenges on death.
otherwise she’d be just another stupid neocon.
Comment by MICHELE — 8/2/2006 @ 5:38 pm
Plenty of people. She’s been all over the talk show circuit since the Clinton impeachment era, at least.
Comment by Xrlq — 8/2/2006 @ 6:55 pm