Here’s an example of why I wish See Dubya were writing here: a post about Larry “Your mother killed herself because she hated you” Johnson titled If You Disagree with Larry Johnson, You’re Gay. Apparently Johnson suggested another blogger was gay when said blogger criticized recent outrageous statements by Johnson about Karl Rove. Dubya imagines Johnson confronting members of the Clinton Administration during high-level talks about combating terror. A taste:

JOHNSON: So, Mr. President, while I can’t advise policy decisions, we may never get an opportunity to reach Osama bin Laden like this again…

PRESIDENT CLINTON: (strokes chin, bites lip) This is truly an important opportunity. But what about collateral damage?

JOHNSON: With all due respect, sir, this is no time to be such a mincing nancy-boy.

(ALL) What?

JOHNSON: Look, I’m Larry Johnson, people. If you disagree with me, it’s obviously because you’re a little light in the wingtips for this terrorist, and this is no time to go all friend-o’-Dorothy on me.

Hilarious. Read it all.

There is actually someone in the world who agrees with me that Ann Coulter’s statement about Clinton ejaculating on a “fat Jewish girl” was gratuitous and apparently pejorative. After having a couple of long-time readers declare that they are going to stop reading my blog because I criticized Coulter, and having another one tell me that “I’ve decided that you ain’t particularly bright,” it’s nice to have a little support.

At Hot Air, Allah (whom I admire greatly) says:

For the record, I think Patterico has a fair point. Read the quote and make up your own mind; in the context provided, her use of “Jewish” does sound gratuitous and pejorative.

Allah actually put it best in a comment at Ace’s:

I don’t think she’s anti-Semitic, but it does make me raise an eyebrow to see “Jewish” mixed into a string of pejoratives.

Well said.

Allah took a huge ration of crap in his comments for even suggesting that Coulter’s comment was ridiculous. Down in the comment thread over there, Bryan Preston said:

Ann hit both appearance and ethnicity in that sentence. I certainly don’t view it as among her best moments.

And further down, Michelle Malkin came on to say:

As for Ann’s description of Monica Lewinksy, it was dumb.

I’m disgusted every time Ann’s detractors bring up her weight. There was no need for her to turn around and mention Lewinsky’s. And what does Lewinsky’s Jewishness have to do with anything? Call her foolish, loose, promiscuous, or skanky. “Fat Jewish girl?” Totally gratuitious.

Here’s the thing: Coulter’s point was to deride liberals’ belief that Clinton had “saved the Constitution,” when in fact all he had done was something really tawdry.

Besides the word “Jewish,” every word in her statement was calculated to make the blow job seem tacky and cheap (as it indeed was): Clinton repeatedly (not just once) ejaculated on (not just kissed) a fat (not attractive) girl (not woman) in the Oval Office (not in private). And then the word “Jewish” is in there too . . . And I was left wondering: why did Coulter think that word belonged in a description that was otherwise geared to make the act appear as offensive and tawdry as possible?

It’s still hard for me to see why she included that word if she meant it as anything but pejorative.

Plus, it ruined for me what was otherwise a very funny line.

But for what it’s worth, while it seemed like a vaguely anti-Semitic comment, I don’t assert that Coulter herself is categorically anti-Semitic. (She seems generally prejudiced against Arabs — witness her “raghead” comment, for example — but not against Jews.) Also, as I said in comments at Hot Air, I ran this quote past several Jewish friends today from both sides of the political spectrum, and none was really offended. A couple of them chuckled. And the most negative reactions I got from Jews were along the lines of: “I’m not sure it’s anti-Semitic, but it sure is weird.”

I’m willing to go with that. If the Jews aren’t particularly offended, I’m willing to scale back the outrage on this particular comment, and just leave it this: it sure was a curious thing to say.

P.S. Ace has the best defense of the comment I have seen yet: it’s the “unnecessary specificity” that sometimes gives comedy its zing. He adds: “I would have avoided it, myself. It’s not really that funny, and, as is lately the case with Ann, the comedic or rhetorical value of the barb is far outstripped by its likelihood of giving offense.”

Using the term “raghead” to describe Arabs: good thing or bad thing?

HINT: The answer should be easy.

I passed on this when it was a current topic because it was so obvious.

But now, for some reason, I’m curious to see what some people say.

EXTRA CREDIT: If your answer was “bad thing,” did you buy her book anyway? How come?

UPDATE: I guess I didn’t pass on this after all.

A commenter asks what I think of “yesterday’s 5-4 supreme court decision dispensing with the requirement of knocking before executing a search warrant.”

Well, the first thing I think of it is that it did no such thing.

The decision makes no change to the rule that the Constitution generally requires police officers to knock and announce their presence before entry. It simply holds that, if officers violate that rule, the remedies available to the homeowner do not include the suppression of relevant evidence at a criminal trial.

The “knock and announce” rule is still in place. Since police officers don’t like to be sued, I think that they will continue to knock and announce. When they believe that doing so will pose a problem of officer safety or destruction of evidence, they will ask for a judge to authorize a “no-knock” warrant — something they already had the right to do.

All the decision means is that I won’t have to hold hearings about whether the cops waited 10 seconds or 20. I think it’s a good ruling. But then, I’m not a big fan of the exclusionary rule to begin with.

Pattt Morrison, in a column about the job prospects of Californians with criminal records, makes the following ludicrous statement:

One Californian in five has a criminal record (in no small part because the “war on drugs” has been cramming prisons with first-time offenders).

That’s just a bunch of baloney. To put it kindly.

California prisons are mostly assuredly not crammed with first-time drug offenders. Morrison has no basis for that statement. It’s something she says because all her friends say it, and Morrison thinks it sounds good.

And so, to hell with the actual truth.

(more…)