I heard about this lengthy Sadly, No! diatribe against Jeff Goldstein, and clicked over, fully prepared to fly into a righteous outrage at the shabby treatment of my pal.

But a funny thing happened. They quote Goldstein extensively in the post — to bitterly mock him, of course — and I started chuckling as I read block quote after block quote of Goldstein’s hilarious insults against lefty jerks. My anger at the nasty things the Sadly, No! folks were saying dissipated as I started laughing out loud at the clever way with words that Goldstein has.

Don’t get me wrong. It is an outrageous post, and these guys are cretins.

And . . . strangely obsessed with Goldstein.

But Goldstein ends up looking good, to anyone who is rational and has a sense of humor. Because the quotes are just so damn funny.

UPDATE: And also not terribly polite. It’s Goldstein, folks. If you click over expecting Jeff to be talking about tea and crumpets, then you may be shocked. It’s more like Jeff talking about slapping people in the face with a certain part of his anatomy which is not his hand.

UPDATE x2: Honestly, the energy these people put into trying to destroy one guy is really amazing. In thoroughness and obsessiveness, the Sadly, No! post reminds me somewhat of my own Dog Trainer Year in Review posts. With two major differences — ehh, maybe three.

First, in my year-end posts, I’m taking on a major newspaper — meaning my obsessiveness is a little more justified than this craziness over a blogger. Second, my target comes off looking worse, not better, by the end of the enterprise. Third — and this is really the key point, I think, though some might disagree — unlike the folks at Sadly, No!, I am not a total cretin. If I do say so myself.

See Dubya thinks these guys may be so obsessed that they could end up going through Goldstein’s garbage — and damned if they don’t seem unbalanced enough to actually do it.

UPDATE x3: Is there any way to explain to these guys how stupid they are? They take something utterly ridiculous like “cock-slapping” and treat it seriously, which is just sub-moron stuff to begin with. Then, proceeding from the assumption that “cock-slapping” threats are meant seriously, they mock it for being . . . ridiculous. Which was the whole point to begin with — and the hint for those of us who are sentient that Jeff was KIDDING.

Man. Nobody in the world looks as stupid as the guy who doesn’t know that a joke is a joke.

Consider this statement by a pundit:

[Name deleted] is a shameless bastard. Small wonder his mother killed herself. Once she discovered what a despicable soul she had spawned she apparently saw no other way out.

Now: assume that it’s true that X’s mother killed himself.

What do you think of that statement?

Do you need to know the context before you can say whether that statement is out of the civilized bounds of discourse?

Does it matter whether the pundit is Ann Coulter or Ted Rall? Does it matter whether X is someone we like or someone we hate? Should we ask ourselves whether it might be true that X’s mother really killed herself because she realized X is despicable?

If the pundit is Ann Coulter, and [name deleted] is a hateful Democrat like Ted Kennedy, or John Kerry, or Bill Clinton — is that just “talking smack”? If it’s Ted Rall talking about a great Republican, does that suddenly make it terrible?

I can answer this without needing to know the context. This is one of the most soulless, ugly things I have ever read in my life. I don’t care who said it, and I don’t care who it’s about. If someone’s mother killed herself, and you say it’s because the mother must have hated her son, you are an utterly despicable human being.

End of story.

What do you say? Leave your comment before clicking on the extended entry.

(more…)

Ann Coulter defender Xrlq offers still more ammunition against Coulter: her own words. Our pal X provides this link to excerpts from Chapter 1 of her latest book. This way, you can form an intelligent opinion about whether the book is crap without having to pay her a dime.

Xrlq cites a disturbing passage in which Coulter suggests that she hopes liberals won’t make it into heaven:

I don’t particularly care if liberals believe in God. In fact, I would be crestfallen to discover any liberals in heaven.

To me, this kind of sounds like she wants liberals to roast in hell, but I’m sure her defenders will have all sorts of explanations: she didn’t say the word “hell”; maybe she meant they should go to purgatory; she didn’t really mean it; liberals should roast in hell anyway.

As much as I like that passage, I have another favorite:

Liberals use the word science exactly as they use the word constitutional.

Both words are nothing more or less than a general statement of liberal approval, having nothing to do with either science or the Constitution. (Thus, for example, the following sentence makes sense to liberals: President Clinton saved the Constitution by repeatedly ejaculating on a fat Jewish girl in the Oval Office.)

Here’s what I find especially interesting about that passage: why did Coulter find it necessary to include the word “Jewish” in that last sentence?

We have all sorts of Coulter apologists populating the comments here, so I am sure someone can explain this to me.

To me, every word in that sentence is designed to show how repugnant and disgusting Clinton’s actions truly were. I mean, just look how bad his behavior was. He didn’t just kiss her; he ejaculated! Not on a woman, but a girl! Not just once, but repeatedly! Of all places, in the Oval Office! And she was fat!

And to top it off, she was Jewish!

I just don’t know how else to read this. I can’t see the inclusion of the word “Jewish” in that sentence as anything but an attempt on her part to heighten the outrage.

As if the fact that she was “Jewish” somehow makes it worse. As if it is somehow relevant to anything.

My initial impression is that this is about as strong evidence of the repugnance of Ann Coulter as anything I’ve ever read by her.

If I’m wrong, why did she use that word?

UPDATE: Some explanations from commenters are offered in the extended entry.

(more…)

Via Mike Lief (via commenter Anwyn) comes this link to the “Come back with a warrant” doormat.

Available at Target, of all places.

I’m pretty sure that these doormats provide independent probable cause for entry into the residence.

P.S. If you choose to purchase the doormat, make sure you are abreast of the most recent Supreme Court case law. As of today, police officers who take up your doormat’s suggestion may not be doing too much knocking and announcing when they return with that warrant. They’re still supposed to — but if they don’t, the evidence they seize won’t be suppressed at your trial. So you might want to go ahead and dispose of your contraband now.

In this video clip (h/t Allah), you see the Iranian Foreign Minister say:

We emphasize the peaceful nature of our nuclear weapons… I mean… of our nuclear power plant…

D’oh!

Germany overran Poland yesterday, while millions of English-speaking people stood by and watched.

Now where have I seen this before?

UPDATE: I am reminded of a passage from a great Tom Lehrer song:

Once all the Germans were warlike, and mean
But that couldn’t happen again
We taught them a lesson in 1918
And they’ve hardly bothered us since then

UPDATE x2: My friend Abe said yesterday that he raised an eyebrow when he learned that the winning goal had been scored by an allegedly German player with the suspiciously French-sounding name “Oliver Neuville.” “I’d check his papers,” Abe said.

Oh, I’m sure the Germans already checked his papers, Abe. They’re quite good at that.

When someone says: “I love so-and-so to death,” you can bet that “so-and-so” is about to be slammed — hard.

You know that the speaker’s next sentence is bound to begin with the word “but.”

So:

I love Mickey Kaus to death.

But . . .

His lefty pal Robert Wright just kicks Kaus around the room in this Blogging Heads TV segment on evolution basher Ann Coulter and her hateful statements about some 9/11 widows.

It’s just devastating. I was cackling out loud.

Here is a transcription of one small excerpt:

(more…)