Look, I'm Back!
I take one little, long-weekend break from blogging and all sorts of unexpected things happen.
Burlington Pol took an intermission, Homocon - one of my fav., non-local, conservative blogs - did an entire post linking to She's Right (it's in my Friday Morning Coffee, so I missed it last week), and my favorite blogger, VDB, aided and abetted by that other Vermont lefty blog, GMD, decided to wage a campaign to convince The Caledonian-Record to dump Ann Coulter over her use of the word "faggot."
About that, I have mixed feelings. My knee-jerk reaction was to fire off an e-mail to The Caledonian-Record, urging them to keep Coulter. Just who do these liberals think they are, trying to dictate which conservative voices get heard? Of course they don't like Coulter - she's a conservative.
I'll tell you what, Philip, Jack, why don't you two head over to Town Hall and let us know what syndicated conservative columnist you would like to see in The Caledonian-Record. Then we'll talk.
But, I'm not the knee-jerk type, so I thought about it a little bit more.
Personally, I don't even like Ann Coulter. I don't think she's funny and I think at this point her career is more about her own shock-value and less about making a coherent point. She's done for conservative political hacks what Howard Stern did for horny, teenage boys. If you are into what they are talking about, you get it and maybe even think it's funny, but if you aren't a member of their respective core demographics, you are just disgusted.
I have not read an Ann Coulter column in at least a year or longer. My husband had to tell me the real point of her Edward's comment. (You can read a decent, short summary of that here.)
Even though the real target of Coulter's grade-school level joke was the PC police that will cart you off to "rehab" if you utter a homophobic slur, her tactics are petty and, frankly, really don't do anything for me. I'm so over my emasculating bitch phase. It's called growing up.
I'm sure The Caledonian-Record could find a more thoughtful conservative columnist to run, but I don't even read the Caledonian-Record print edition, so I don't really think it matters what my opinion is.
I get really angry when I see liberals trying to silence opposing viewpoints in the media. Now, I'm not saying that that is what Philip is trying to do. He has been one of the biggest supporters of my blog and I am every bit as conservative as Ann Coulter. I just have a sore spot left from my days in the Free Press Writers Group, when there was an active campaign by a few loudmouth, local liberals to get my column dropped. (It didn't work.)
On the one hand, everyone has the right, even the responsibility, to hold the media accountable for staying within the realm of decent, respectful political debate. It is arguable that Ann Coulter has crossed that line. (And by arguable, I mean a third-grader could easily make the case.) Though, it is worth noting that she did not commit this latest impropriety in a column.
On the other hand, I don't think the the left-wing of the blogosphere is the proper agent for determining what the realm of acceptable speech is for the right. There are plenty of personalities on the left that are just as petulant as Coulter, possibly even more so. Perhaps they should concern themselves with policing their own.
10 comments:
Can we just agree that it's inappropriate to call someone a "faggot" ??
Just like it's inappropriate to call someone a "Spick" or a "Towel Head" -- ??
This isn't about being PC, it's just about being civil.
First off, I'm quite sure Charity agrees with that proposition.
Taking Charity's suggestion, I have a very hard time thinking of a columnist who is both thoughtful and conservative. The two that come to mind immediately are Mickey Kaus and Nat Hentoff.
Jack, interesting suggestions.
Anon., um, did I not make it clear when I said, "It is arguable that Ann Coulter has crossed that line [of staying within the realm of decent, respectful political debate]. (And by arguable, I mean a third-grader could easily make the case.)", not to mention any of the other negative things I said about her?
I don't think it's arguable. I think it's certain. She crossed the line.
If conservatives choose this person as a spokesperson, that's fine with me.
She hurts the conservative movement more than she helps it.
(Just like Cindy Sheehan hurts anti-war liberals more than she helps them.)
I don't know if Nat Hentoff would pass the God test with the Cons.. he's an outspoken atheist who writes for the only magazine I subscribe to, Free Inquiry.
That said, Charity, you are most certainly not like Ann Coulter. Even though I think you're wrong about nearly everything, you're not a hateful blowhard, and unlike Coulter, you at least seem to think about what you say before you say it.
See, we liberals DO police our own. You look at my blog, you see me going after the left quite often. When's the last time you did a hit piece on Dobson? TO say we don't have the right to speak out against hateful speech (which, 90% of the time comes from the right -they own it), is bullshit.
I'd think you'd be glad they'd get rid of Coulter. All she seems to do is reinforce the stereotype that you cons worry about all the time that you're hateful, nasty and not deep-thinkers. Why would you want her around? When has she EVER said anything that looked like she actually did some fact-checking, research, or even thinking about it? Cons can do much better. Maybe not.
Oh, and here's something from the knuckledraggers over at Townhall.com:
probably the number one Republican Web site in the country:
But enough about what Ann [Coulter] ought not to do. Heres what she should do immediately:
1. Start a website called Global War on Fags today.
2. Begin writing essays calling for the cleansing and purification of society via the mass murder of homosexuals.
3. Distribute videos on the website showing the actual murders of homosexuals.
4. Circulate instructions on how to bomb gay bath houses in San Francisco.
5. Circulate a battle dispatch to give people specific information on Americas most notorious bath houses.
(form Americablog):Almost as funny as suggesting terrorists take out the New York Times. And Republicans wonder why only 30% of the country likes them anymore.
Is that typical of conservative humor? This is where you want us to get insightful commentators from? Like who, Michael Medved ?
"When's the last time you did a hit piece on Dobson?"
When's the last time I did a hit piece on anyone? I don't do hit pieces, as a general rule, but I have spoken out against social conservatives on several occasions.
I happen to like Dobson a lot, as far as the ministry side of Focus on the Family. I think they are a great resource for Christian families. I do, however, disagree with the political arm of the organization. I have been clear about that position throughout my blogging life.
And, JD, I like how you conveniently cut the Mike Adams column before:
6. Apply for a job at Kent State University.
He was not serious about those suggestions, it was a reference to this column about a professor running a jihad website.
Can we get a little honest discussion here, or are you too blinded by your hatred of the right?
Dobson has some great advice on how to make sure your boys don't grow up and get 'The Gay':
Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.
Gotta make those manly boys, can't have 'em grow up to be pussies, right?
No comment on the Medved piece?
It's not hatred, Charity. it's fear. And, no, it's not fear that they are right. It's fear of having to live in a world devoid of reason and tolerance, and ruled by fear and superstition.
This is funny:
You said, "When has she EVER said anything that looked like she actually did some fact-checking, research, or even thinking about it?" Then followed it up with a copy and paste of this post and didn't even to bother looking at the linked piece it originally came from to learn that it had, as I said, (1) been intentionally truncated and (2) was taken completely out of context, as it actually was a spoof of a professor who ran a website self-described: "We are a jihadist news service, and provide battle dispatches, training manuals, and jihad videos to our brothers worldwide."
I was wondering when I read the piece how you could not get what Adams was saying (he basically spells it out in the paragraphs following the partially quoted bit), then I realized that you hadn't "fact-checked" before you took the left-wing blog post as the gospel truth.
And you are the beacon of reason and tolerance?
Also, you said, "TO say we don't have the right to speak out against hateful speech (which, 90% of the time comes from the right -they own it), is bullshit."
Yet, I said in my original post, "everyone has the right, even the responsibility, to hold the media accountable for staying within the realm of decent, respectful political debate."
JD, I have read your blog. The right does not own hateful speech.
Be sure to comment again when you can stop letting your anger get in the way of accurately quoting people.
You SAY that everyone has the responsibility to hold the media accountable ... but when someone does, you accuse them of silencing the voices of the right wing.
Charity, you are full of double speak.
No, it is not double speak. I just think it is important to examine people's motives for calling for censorship. Is it because the person they want to censor has crossed the line, or because the person they want to censor has different views?
I said in my post that I do not believe that Philip's motive is based on opposing views, largely based on his own promotion of my blog. Philip obviously can appreciate a thinking conservative. Jack, on the other hand, cannot even admit there is such a thing.
If I wanted to encourage people to call for the censorship of a lefty, I might, for example, say, "I encourage thoughtful people on the left to contact the paper and ask them to stop running this column. It is not helpful to your cause, nor does it further debate, to have as your spokesperson someone who uses such hateful tactics."
I would not encourage people on the right to call for a liberal columnist to be censored.
That is a distinct difference, not double speak.
Post a Comment