Coulter's scandal du jour
Mar. 10th, 2007 05:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sparkindarknessNow, for a brief look at the scandal du jour (because I likes a good scandal, I do)
It seems Anne Coulter has opened her mouth. Now, such an action never leads to a good result and this is no exception. But this time she seems to have reached new depths (and I thought accusing the 9/11 widows of enjoying their husband’s death was a s low as she could go) but now she has (through a word game) accused Edwards of being, well, the f-word.
Well, point the first - to those who didn’t get it, the issue is NOT that she called Edwards a homosexual. The issue is that she used the f-word and called someone it - that is on par with calling Obama the N-word.
It follows that those on the right who have accused the left of being “oversensitive” or too “pc” need to get a clue. She used the f-word - if one of your keynote speakers got up on the podium and bandied the n-word about would they still scream over sensitivity? It was a disgusting and vile thing to say that doesn’t only have no place in polite society - it has no place in ANY society. All those who defended the woman have sunk so low in my estimations that heavy mining equipment couldn’t get them any lower.
Point the second, there have been many on the right who, realising that there’s no way to bail the water, have decided to abandon ship. They have condemned Coulter. She’s a loose canon. She is a crazed extremist and doesn’t represent mainstream conservative opinion. She doesn’t represent conservatives, the party, etc and you certainly can’t use her words as indicative of the right wing.
Well, nice thought and I hope it’s true - but it strikes me as much the same as when Anglicans say that their organisation isn’t homophobic while their bishops and archbishops support homophobic measures. Coulter is supposed to be this huge extremist that doesn’t represent the mainstream? Then why WAS she a speaker at the CPAC conference? Why is she a syndicated columnist in right wing newspapers? What, do you choose speakers at random? Grab anyone who happens to be passing on the street? For a loose canon who doesn’t represent the right wing, the right wing gives her a lot of prestige, column inches and microphone time.
And my last point. A few conservatives have tried to turn this round and make it about censorious liberals - the left is against free speech etc etc etc.
Clearly it is necessary for a refresher course in free speech.
Ms. Coulter’s free speech is protected. Her books are not being censored or recalled. She is not being prevented from writing new books. The law is not closing down papers where she appears. She is not being banned from the airwaves or speaking wherever the hell she likes. Indeed, she may open her maw and spew her hate as much as she likes and where she likes and when she likes.
BUT Free Speech does not immunise you from consequences. I can’t loudly proclaim what a great guy Hitler was and then scream “free speech” because the people around me shun me or criticise me. I am free to speak, but that doesn’t mean everyone else is forced to listen, forced to agree, or is not allowed to exercise THEIR free speech to express their disgust. It also doesn’t mean that people have to broadcast your views. You can speak, but a newspaper is not forced to print what you say - and if they find what you are saying to be disgusting or objectionable they certainly aren’t forced to print it. I can’t write a long diatribe against Muhammad and then scream Free Speech because a Muslim community newspaper won’t print it. This also means when you are a public and prominent representative of a company they will drop you if you express poisonous views.
Free speech does not mean everyone else must support what you say - only that you can say it. People, companies and employers will all shun you and disassociate themselves from you if what you say is extremely damaging or unpleasant. Free speech allows you to speak, it doesn’t immunise you from the consequences of speaking
It seems Anne Coulter has opened her mouth. Now, such an action never leads to a good result and this is no exception. But this time she seems to have reached new depths (and I thought accusing the 9/11 widows of enjoying their husband’s death was a s low as she could go) but now she has (through a word game) accused Edwards of being, well, the f-word.
Well, point the first - to those who didn’t get it, the issue is NOT that she called Edwards a homosexual. The issue is that she used the f-word and called someone it - that is on par with calling Obama the N-word.
It follows that those on the right who have accused the left of being “oversensitive” or too “pc” need to get a clue. She used the f-word - if one of your keynote speakers got up on the podium and bandied the n-word about would they still scream over sensitivity? It was a disgusting and vile thing to say that doesn’t only have no place in polite society - it has no place in ANY society. All those who defended the woman have sunk so low in my estimations that heavy mining equipment couldn’t get them any lower.
Point the second, there have been many on the right who, realising that there’s no way to bail the water, have decided to abandon ship. They have condemned Coulter. She’s a loose canon. She is a crazed extremist and doesn’t represent mainstream conservative opinion. She doesn’t represent conservatives, the party, etc and you certainly can’t use her words as indicative of the right wing.
Well, nice thought and I hope it’s true - but it strikes me as much the same as when Anglicans say that their organisation isn’t homophobic while their bishops and archbishops support homophobic measures. Coulter is supposed to be this huge extremist that doesn’t represent the mainstream? Then why WAS she a speaker at the CPAC conference? Why is she a syndicated columnist in right wing newspapers? What, do you choose speakers at random? Grab anyone who happens to be passing on the street? For a loose canon who doesn’t represent the right wing, the right wing gives her a lot of prestige, column inches and microphone time.
And my last point. A few conservatives have tried to turn this round and make it about censorious liberals - the left is against free speech etc etc etc.
Clearly it is necessary for a refresher course in free speech.
Ms. Coulter’s free speech is protected. Her books are not being censored or recalled. She is not being prevented from writing new books. The law is not closing down papers where she appears. She is not being banned from the airwaves or speaking wherever the hell she likes. Indeed, she may open her maw and spew her hate as much as she likes and where she likes and when she likes.
BUT Free Speech does not immunise you from consequences. I can’t loudly proclaim what a great guy Hitler was and then scream “free speech” because the people around me shun me or criticise me. I am free to speak, but that doesn’t mean everyone else is forced to listen, forced to agree, or is not allowed to exercise THEIR free speech to express their disgust. It also doesn’t mean that people have to broadcast your views. You can speak, but a newspaper is not forced to print what you say - and if they find what you are saying to be disgusting or objectionable they certainly aren’t forced to print it. I can’t write a long diatribe against Muhammad and then scream Free Speech because a Muslim community newspaper won’t print it. This also means when you are a public and prominent representative of a company they will drop you if you express poisonous views.
Free speech does not mean everyone else must support what you say - only that you can say it. People, companies and employers will all shun you and disassociate themselves from you if what you say is extremely damaging or unpleasant. Free speech allows you to speak, it doesn’t immunise you from the consequences of speaking
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-10 05:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-10 05:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-11 01:18 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-11 01:18 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-10 06:22 pm (UTC)Because she's young-ish, pretty, blonde and has a nice rack.
I'd love to tell you there's more to it than this, but I'd be lying.
The far right in America brings to mind the image of wizened old men sitting on the porch of an antebellum style mansion, rubbing their hands and bemoaning the loss of the days when inferiors (non-WASP non-wealthy people in general) Knew Their Place. Thus when the far right finds a relatively intelligent, relatively young, relatively attractive mouthpiece said mouthpiece is pushed front and center in an attempt to keep people from associating them with old and damn close to dead.
I'll bet nobody here is old enough to remember the Young Republicans group from around the first election of Ronald Reagan. Jesus, what a fucking nightmare they were. It looked like the Osmond gene pool had finally overflowed and contaminated everything for miles around. I've never seen so many shiny, perfect teeth and so much big, sprayed-to-the-point-of-toxicity hair in my life. They were zombie-like and terrifying and they were front and center during most of the publicity for the Reagan campaign in an attempt to get people to ignore the five-minutes-from-dead old white guys who were up on the podium, where the power is.
Really, Coulter's claim to fame is being blonde, not ancient, not male and having a nice rack and teeth while spouting some of the foulest crap you can imagine. She was meant to lure 'the kids' into the far right fold.
Of course her problem is that the real deterrent to her free speech is her own foot wedged firmly in her mouth. She's not all that bright and she is most certainly not kind. Like I'd want to hang around with her.
But it's a workable tactic in America. We elected one of the worst actors ever to hold a major studio contract as President because of the "awwwww, he's so cute when his eyes twinkle" factor. We elected a dumb-arse because he's cute and his Daddy was President, ignoring the C- average the jerk held at college.
Trust me, there will be those who look at Coulter and go "Aw, the poor thing, she's just speaking her mind and everyone's picking on the cute little thing." There are those who react to every one of Bush's mistakes with "you're just picking on him."
It's just occurred to me what Coulter really is: a right-wing pin-up girl. Right-wing porn. I've never been so frightened in my life.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-11 01:20 am (UTC)Heh, and their are party loyalists who would forgive her if she ritually disembowelled kittens on stage
It's just occurred to me what Coulter really is: a right-wing pin-up girl. Right-wing porn. I've never been so frightened in my life.
I need to scrub my brain now
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-11 03:00 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-12 12:14 pm (UTC)I am doomed to endless disappointment.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-11 04:32 am (UTC)You're so innocent. You don't remember David Duke. Southern boy, slightly to the right of Genghis Khan. Good looking boy. The right-wingers shining star until it was revealed he'd been a Grand Dragon in the Ku Klux Klan.
He still had supporters.
Bill O'Reilly has supporters, and he's fence-post stupid.
President Bush has supporters, not as many as he once had but this is NOT because he reveals his essential cluelessness with every exhalation. It's because he's a lame duck President, his popularity drops a few points from time to time and the party powerhouses who don't care who the President is as long as he's Republican are looking to disassociate whoever the next candidate will be from any possible bad Bush vibes. We know it won't be Dick Cheney, whose contributions as vice-president have been frequent hospitalizations and shooting a lawyer full of bird shot. The shot lawyer apologized to Cheney for getting in the way.
I have seen right-wingers online insist that Stephen Colbert is really one of theirs. Satire is over their heads.
Never underestimate the stupidity of those in power. They don't care if they're correct. They don't care if you think they're stupid. They only care about advancing their agenda and getting their pets elected. Oh, and enough ice in their drinks. That about covers it.
Jesus, some of that bunch countered concern over the rapid disappearance of the ice shelf in the Arctic by pointing out the opportunity now available for more oil and mineral discoveries. If that ain't stupid enough, I give up. One of their own said "Yeah, but at what cost?" and got nothing but blank stares for his problem.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-12 12:18 pm (UTC)I can see these extremist nutcases having supporters, but presenting them as an ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE? Like saying "our image is so poor, let's put these forwards since they look better." Well... how poor does your image have to be for these creatures to be better alternatives?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-12 01:47 pm (UTC)I don't think you've quite hit the mark. I think the right wingers pretty close right now to the center of power, American division, have learned that when it comes to getting their people elected a few rules hold true year after year after year, at least since 1980.
Getting people at least nominally in line with their goals elected is the entire point of the thing.
They've been remarkably successful in the past twenty-seven years except for what they consider that annoying Clinton episode. I'd like to remind you that despite having had a president who was likely clinically mentally disturbed (Nixon), despite evidence that another conspired with a foreign government which was holding Americans hostage to keep those hostages until he could get himself elected (Reagan), despite two presidents miring us in Middle Eastern wars which are, I assure you, more about oil than freedom (Bush pater et fils) the closest this country has come to impeaching a president was brought about not by federal malfeasance but by Bill Clinton getting a blow-job.
They've learned they just have to present something that looks attractive, looks and sounds comforting and doesn't make the majority of the nation think too hard. If Larry the fucking Cable Guy was slightly more presentable they'd run his arse for President because people think he's soooo cute, despite the fact that his act gets close enough to old time racism to make babies with it.
So when one of their poster children screws up...I'm happy. Really, I am. I love it when they get undone by their own stupidity. Inviting Stephen Colbert to address a group under the impression he really is a right-wing conservative only to find out the hard way what 'satire' means is a beautiful thing. I do have to remind myself that most Americans don't get it, though.
I'll tell you this story, which is absolutely true: the day after the last Presidential election I had to have an out-patient surgical procedure which I have about twice a year, no biggie. I'm lying on a gurney in a surgical gown with only my knickers and my footies to protect me and I hear one of the nurses crowing because Bush had been reelected. She said she called every one of her relatives after work on Election Day, even the 'funny' ones and reminded them to "vote and vote the right way".
Now. The majority of people in this country derive all their political philosophy from bumper stickers and campaign ads. The right-wing knows this. They're not working to convince people like me that their philosophy is best. They're preaching to the choir who do not want to be made to think, who do not want hard choices, who would prefer to have their voting choices made for them by their church ministers and whoever will keep them happily shopping at the mall as a hobby.
To paraphrase Eddie Izzard more than slightly, they know there are other countries, but they believe those countries don't really matter.
These are the people who respond to my admission that I have never shopped at a local mall in the nine years I've lived here with the words "why, that's just un-American." Swear to God, that happened.
The right-wing isn't saying "our image is so poor, ya da ya da ya da". They're saying "if that stupid bastard/bitch hadn't put his/her entire leg in his/her mouth we could have gotten him/her elected."
Here's the scary for me: they're really comfortable with the idea of getting their agenda across to the country via active bigots as long as the populace doesn't know that they're active bigots. Nobody called Coulter on her bullshit. Nobody called Duke on his bullshit. It doesn't matter to them unless the ugliness spills out into the public and the mall shoppers get offended.
That's scary.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-13 11:39 am (UTC)it's jsut so deeply depressing whn you see how low the whole situation is and what little hope there is with it. All these people who are so obsessed with appearance and perception and illusion that reality just wanders on by them. And that decisions that can change the world are made by the person who lies the most supported by those who found his soundbites pretty
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-11 02:59 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-12 12:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-10 09:15 pm (UTC)It seems to be particularly pervasive here on lj. "It's my journal, I can say what I want, but you can't, it's my journal!" Okay, ban me from it then. Until you do, I can tell you what I think of you on your journal, or on mine. Twits.
*ahem* Pardon the ranting.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-11 01:21 am (UTC)People can say whatever they want - but that doesn't mean we don't get to call them a bigoted idiot harpy as well.
The same applies to journals - heh, journal owners can censor them if they feel the need. Until then, they are a publically accessed and broadcast viewpoint - open to bitching
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-10 10:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-11 01:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-11 03:19 am (UTC)I really don't understand the right wing in this country. They revere Ann Coulter, watch Fox "News" Channel, and seem to think they are the mainstream and under siege by the liberal fringe. Any statement that could be seen as criticism of any of the above is a sign of anti-Americanism and must be screamed about.
What happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? Are there truly so few people who feel that way now?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-12 12:20 pm (UTC)It's like their silly war on Christmas - if we don't celebrate the holiday THEIR way then we're oppressing them.
TRheir idea of oppressed means we are not doing what they tell us to
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-12 07:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-13 11:22 am (UTC)