Coulter Libs
Yes, Ann Coulter says a lot of really wretched things, but she also can be pretty amusing. Via Allah [UPDATE: and WLS!], this Joel Stein column is actually funny — but it’s really Coulter (whom I was in a room with last night) who makes it so. Joel Stein decided to try to manufacture some goofy Coulter quotes in a “Mad Libs” style column by asking Coulter for words that he would randomly plug into sentences he had written. The thing is, her responses are often funnier than his sentences. For example:
[Liberals] don’t believe in the Constitution (you know, that piece of paper that Bill Clinton thought was for cleaning up [something messy] DEMOCRATS’ POSITION ON NATIONAL SECURITY after he [verb, past tense] JITTERBUGGED.
or
When I was on [obscure cable news show] ANYTHING ON MSNBC, I mentioned to fellow guest [grumpy old white man] WALTER CRONKITE that, scientifically, men are [any number] 47 times more likely to accomplish [an incredible feat] A LIBERAL LISTENING POLITELY TO AN OPPOSING POINT OF VIEW than women, who should stay at home and focus on [obsolete chore] BUTTER CHURNING.
or
So while my Godless, liberal detractors are in hell with the [non-Christian group] MASONS, [ethnic group] ALEUTS, [occupation, plural] DOCTORS and [deceased Democrat] MIKE GRAVEL, I’ll be in heaven dying my hair and not eating. Because the one person I haven’t offended is God.
Heh.
By the way, what is Stein saying when he talks about Coulter “dying” her hair? Is he suggesting that she is killing it by dyeing it?
Anyway, good stuff. I don’t usually say that about a Joel Stein column, but it isn’t really just a Joel Stein column.
UPDATE: D’oh! That’s what I get for not reading my own blog before posting! WLS has already posted on this here.
WLS semi-accuses Stein of ripping off an NRO idea. Oh, I don’t know. I doubt Stein reads NRO.
UPDATE x2: This, however, is quite an amazing coincidence indeed.
Since you say “via Allah”, I guess you missed WLS’s post yesterday where he accused Stein of ripping off another writer.
Since you may not be reading your own web site, you may have missed where DRJ, WLS, and lots of commenters defend torture.
Can you please come out against torture? I would have hoped that this would never have been necessary to ask of any American. And please, please don’t argue that waterboarding is not torture.
Ken Hirsch (92c4bc) — 11/3/2007 @ 9:55 amI did an update, even before I saw your comment.
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/3/2007 @ 10:05 amI have no problem with any technique or method that saves American lives. If it takes torture to prevent what happened to Nick Berg, Danny Perl or 3000+ innocent people at the World Trade Center, I say do what you have to do. It don’t tell em its not effective. Once you have the information you can corroborate or eliminate via other means. Show criminals & terrorists no quarter. They don’t show us any.
Bud Dickman (7cfd24) — 11/3/2007 @ 10:06 amFour names in unity cause fear, blackout, & smear.
gravel kucinich paul nader (baee57) — 11/3/2007 @ 10:44 amI’ll allow this: If somebody’s torture directly saves the lives of thousands, then the torturer should be given clemency. And if the torturer is wrong, they should have to face the consequences of their crime. Since there has never been actually been a case anywhere at anytime where torture has saved thousands of lives, that should give the torturer something to think about.
If you think torture should be used more liberally, then I suggest that you volunteer yourself, your wife, your children and any other loved ones to go first. They might know something about something that might happen in the future. It’s better to be safe than sorry.
Right. Only guilty people are tortured. Tell that to Maher Arar and Khalid El-Masri. But maybe they don’t count because they’re foreigners. Fortunately, the civilized world has adopted a bright line against torture to protect us from people like you who let fear override any sense of law or decency.
Ken Hirsch (92c4bc) — 11/3/2007 @ 10:49 amSince there has never been actually been a case anywhere at anytime where torture has saved thousands of lives,
I wonder how you know that, Ken. Please provide particulars.
Banjo (b5278d) — 11/3/2007 @ 10:59 amNo, Banjo. You tell us when torture has saved thousands of lives.
nk (7aed24) — 11/3/2007 @ 11:14 amIf this had happened, then the defenders of torture would be trumpeting it from the rooftops.
If somebody had accomplished this, it would be written in the pages of history.
Ken Hirsch (92c4bc) — 11/3/2007 @ 11:28 amHere’s where Stein actually stole the column from:
Ann Libs! Media Bloodhound, October 18, 2007
http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/weblog/2007/10/in-honor-of-a-1.html
JG (ec5ce4) — 11/3/2007 @ 11:43 amIf you think torture should be used more liberally, then I suggest that you volunteer yourself, your wife, your children and any other loved ones to go first.
What an interesting argument. May I try out these similar ones?
– If you think the federal government should spend more money on the poor, then I suggest that you liquidate your assets and send them to Uncle Sam in a big fat check.
– If you think that we need to reduce global warming, then I suggest that you cancel your electricity service, forswear transport by motorized vehicle, and refuse to eat any animal products.
– If you think that health care should be distributed without regard to cost, then I suggest that you go to medical or nursing school, get your degree, then spend your life giving free health services to your fellow citizens.
Golly, what fun we can have trying out (warning: bad pun coming) tortured logic in the comments section.
JVW (951b34) — 11/3/2007 @ 12:15 pmWell, if you are for the federal government spending more money, you should be willing to be equally subject to taxes. Mr. Dickman’s comment implied that torture was something that would only happen to those other people, those evil, guilty people over there. In reality, everyone is subject to torture, including those in your family. So, if you do support torture, you are offering up your family for torture, even if only a small chance.
Only about 1 in a million people is a terrorist. Unless you believe that you can identify terrorists with greater than 99.9999% accuracy, you are more likely to torture an innocent person than a terrorist. This is a literal statistical argument, not hyperbole.
Ken Hirsch (92c4bc) — 11/3/2007 @ 12:51 pmIn reality, everyone is subject to torture, including those in your family. So, if you do support torture, you are offering up your family for torture, even if only a small chance.
Using the same logic:
In reality everyone is subject to terrorist attack including those in your family. So, if you are against torture, you are offering up your family to die by terrorist attack, even if only a small chance.
So, if we are attacked again, some of your family members die and we find out that someone in custody had prior knowledge of it and didn’t give it up because we didn’t press the issue, you would just shrug your shoulders and say, “Oh well. We still have the high ground on torture.”
Paul (66339f) — 11/3/2007 @ 1:07 pmI am offering my family an equal chance of being attacked by terrorists and it is tiny and I am fine with that. And I don’t believe for one second that I would be safer if we were a nation of torturers.
Oh, well, if we only torture the ones who have knowledge of imminent attacks, I might be all for it. But, in reality, we don’t know who has such knowledge. So we would have to torture thousands and thousands of innocent people before we had a slight chance of preventing an attack. As I said above, if this ever happens, I’d be happy to pardon the torturer for the torture of the one person who gave up such information. But they’d still be guilty of torturing anyone else.
Ken Hirsch (92c4bc) — 11/3/2007 @ 1:21 pmIn reality, I think that many techniques the libs would brand as torture garners us information that saves lives on a daily basis. However, the nature of most intelligence gathering is secret as it must be due to the nature of these ongoing investigations. Still, there are cases we now know of where coercive interrogations did in fact help us thwart terrorists acts. The one at LAX for example to name just one.
Retired Cop (7cfd24) — 11/3/2007 @ 1:25 pm“Here’s where Stein actually stole the column from:”
Yeah, I’m looking into that.
Can you torture-discussers take your torture discussion to a torture thread?
Patterico (bad89b) — 11/3/2007 @ 1:26 pmThe link in JG’s comment 9 does look remarkably similar.
As for the torture comments, please take them here.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/3/2007 @ 1:34 pmCan you torture-discussers take your torture discussion to a torture thread?
Sure Patterico. Because readig them here is, well…torture.
Sorry, Pat, couldn’t resist.
Paul (66339f) — 11/3/2007 @ 1:54 pmIf we ban torture in all instances, how would Maureen Dowd make a living?
Another Drew (8018ee) — 11/3/2007 @ 1:59 pmPut the mercy back in mercenary.
gravel kucinich paul nader (baee57) — 11/3/2007 @ 2:46 pmPut the chicken back in the pot!
I ♥ non sequitur!
Pablo (99243e) — 11/3/2007 @ 3:10 pmLiberal wussietards belive the constitution gives them the right to run stark naked through town yelling THE WORLD WILL END TOMORROW yet dont believe we have the right to keep and bare arms becuase their minds are blown on dope
krazy kagu (4ca035) — 11/3/2007 @ 9:16 pmbarack obama mike huckabee vs machine
huckabee obama:
we understand your disgust.
subversion of democracy.
know this:
gravel kucinich paul nader
will fight any ticket
with clinton or mccain on it.
your eyes & ears are open…
gravel kucinich paul nader (6c8da1) — 2/13/2008 @ 6:43 pm