Key Issues

Well, I'll probably get insulted by other commenters like I have on many of the other blogs where I've had the temerity to not completely agree with the blogger when I commented, but I think Anne Coulter is not "witty" and "vivacious" but instead spiteful and hateful. In addition, she's an apologist for Joe McCarthy (which I rediscovered in a pissing match in the comments at Blackfive, much to my chagrin as I had forgotten it), which for me makes her almost as much a persona non-grata as Michael Moore.

I agree with what Sam said in terms of "what the heck did USA Today expect?", but I will not condemn their decision to not publish the column (even though their objections show how clueless they are).

Don't we have enough venom being spewed around without this yin and yang pair of Coulter and Moore adding to it?

Sigh... why do I have to be such an opinionated son of a bitch who can't refrain from making his opinion known?

...because you're a blogger. ; )

I don't quite see it that way, and I don't think it's only because she's infinitely more pleasing to look at than Michael Moore.

She introduces comedy into a topic that is beyond frustrating to conservatives.

If Michael Moore wants socialism, he can take his pick....dozens of countries can offer him that form of government TODAY.

However, if this country continues to head that way, those who oppose such infringements are screwed...we have no other option; preserving what's left of this set-up is all we have.

...thus the frustration.

Any comedic relief is an appreciated distraction.

For that I say, thanks Ann.

...and Jack, for what it's worth, I behaved myself - well, as best I could - in the previous post.

Perhaps your voice of reason has calmed my nerves ever so slightly. I forced myself to leave out any references towards demoturds or demwits! ; )

Thanks Key!

Key, I appreciate the compliment regarding my "voice of reason". Call me a fuddy-dud, but I have a hard time finding humor in a column that starts out describing the Democrats as "the spawn of Satan". To me, that is just as bad as what Michael Moore has done, especially coming from the pen (or should I say keyboard) of one who has defended Joe McCarthy in her books.

I find it ironic than many of those who condemn the French, including very prominently Ms. Coulter, say that McCarthy who in many ways emulated the behavior of the French of 150 years before his time, is nothing but a maligned patriot. McCarthyism was the closest we came to resembling our enemy the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and for those who don't recall their history, the worst atrocities of the French Revolution were based upon the mere accusation of "not supporting the Revolution" in the same manner as the mere accusation by Mr. McCarthy could and would ruin the career of many an innocent person.

Is it wrong that I can't separate Ms. Coulter's support of McCarthy from her other work? No more wrong than those who cannnot separate the individual works of Mr. Moore from his pronouncements to the media. For that same reason I will remain a fuddy-dud and not separate Ms. Coulter's (to me feeble) attempts at humor from the damage she has done and continues to do to our democratic republic through her vitriolic attacks (that resemble those of Mr. Moore remarkably well) and her misrepresentation of history.

Yeah, the whole "spawn of satan" thing was a bit much. And I'll agree that it's a shame that she likely lost readership due to such sloppiness.

I prefer articles that shed light on the reasons that more government is a bad idea, no matter how sugar-coated. Unfortunately, these articles aren't offensive enough to get published and/or gain recognition.

I must ask, Jack, are you a moderate or a democrat? Your sympathy seems to go only one way these days!

Oh, you're welcome Sam. ; )

Now. Where the hell did you go? Aren't you going to defend your tall blonde? (Not me, the other one...)

Well, Key, I'm a moderate who reads mainly conservative weblogs, so if I "go mainly one way" on occasion it's to give *myself* balance (we're supposed to be writing for ourselves, right??? :-P ). See my follow up on Jim's post on illegal seizure of firearms for a non "liberal leaning" recent post, if you like.

Actually, I've been leaving comments on other weblogs that "lean liberal" and as a consequence have been accused of being from a "conservative moron". When I comment on blogs that "lean conservative" I get told I'm a "sycophantic twit". That's why it's so tiring to be in the middle, you get shot at from BOTH sides. Last time I checked, I'm not a moron, nor am I a sycophant (although I may very well be a twit, I'm not objective enough to tell... :-P )

I've been planning on making three posts, one on the things I don't like about Kerry, one on the things I don't like about Bush, and one on what I believe. I've been delayed in writing them because it's been a heck of a week here for me.

Does that answer your question, or is it TMI (too much information)?

Hold on sweetie...I'm always there for you...I'll be back. I must think a bit about the "yin and yang pair of Coulter and Moore". What?

Wow!!!!

Jack: I insult thee! What do you call people who disembowel babies, and base their party's platform on the seven deadly sins? Overenthusiastic idealists? What specifically did McCarthy do except accuse people of treason who turn out to have been guilty of treason? Can Coulter's defenses of him be rebuted by arguments other than "no, no, no, he was a bad meanie, this is too extreme"? Moderates are like schoolteachers, more that fifty percent of them are morons, so that's the way to bet.

I do not believe Ann Coulter is spiteful and hateful. I do not believe she misrepresents history. Period. I do believe she is well educated, and capable of seeing through the fog of the Democratic Party. The fact is, whenever the Democrats are confronted with cold hard facts, they try to spin them to their advantage. Sadly, and they realize this; the only way they can win is to spin it (lie) so that the uninformed voter sees them as their savior. Uninformed voters equal about 90 % of the ten most populated cities / areas of the United States, right? You know, the same people from whom Gore got the majority of his votes in 2000. I’m not going to touch Joe McCarthy; what the hell does that have to do with USA Today stepping on their dicks (which was why I linked it in the first place)? What is the relation? There is none.

To me, mentioning Ann Coulter in the same sentence with that piece of shit Michael Moore is true comedy.

Ann Coulter’s opinions have, in my opinion, done no damage to our democratic republic. On the contrary, hopefully, they have opened the eyes and minds of some Americans I would call, undecided voters. After all, it’s the “undecided” that will determine the outcome of this election. The world has changed.

Jack is absolutely correct: McCarthyism was the closest we came to resembling our enemy the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but, that was because the Democrats were leaning toward true Socialism, and perfecting the Spin. If it wasn’t for McCarthy, they might have been successful. And I said I wasn’t going to touch it. I lied and spun it.

We should remember, though, Ronald RayGun won it. We are all much better off because of it.

Jack…I really look forward to meeting you some time in the future, and I look forward to the three posts you mentioned earlier. Are you a chess player? A well set board, bottle of Scotch, and good conversation…my idea of a good time…cept' I’m happily married and take that for granted…my wife plays…are there chess groupies, ya think?

Anyway, I agree with Ann Coulter. I agree with Key. I believe that preserving what's left of what we have is all we have.

USA Today is the only colorful rag stuffed next to the portable puke bucket in the back of the seats on airplanes. I guess that means something.

Mr. Munger, despite your insults to moderates, those who actually choose to THINK instead of just jerking their knees out of joint, I will chose to respond to one part of your comment. You say, "What specifically did McCarthy do except accuse people of treason who turn out to have been guilty of treason?" Give me a list of who among those accused by McCarthy were found guilty of treason by a jury of their peers, as specified in our Constitution. That list will have NO names on it. Accusations of treason are not proof of treason. With your poor grasp of history, I think your analysis of the impact McCarthy had is questionable at best and tends to weaken your unjustified statement that teachers and moderates are morons. I suggest that if you’re going to call someone a moron, you’d best better have your own facts straight.

Sam, we'll have to agree to disagree regarding Moore and Coulter. I brought up Ms. Coulter's defense of McCarthy because if we're going to judge Mr. Moore on his works, we should judge Ms. Coulter on hers, including her defense of McCarthy and McCarthyism. I dislike the methods of both Mr. Moore and Ms. Coulter. I have seen Mr. Moore's movies and statements to the media, and I have read a lot of Ms. Coulter's writings. If you take out the politics and look at HOW they make their arguments, not what they are advocating, you will find very little difference in their tactics, in their skewing and distorting of facts, and in some cases making things up out of whole cloth. Sadly enough, they both resemble McCarthy in that mere accusation is sufficient, actual evidence is irrelevant and can be manufactured to support the “fact” of the accusation. That is why I referred to them as yin and yang; to me they are merely opposite sides of the same corroded coin, like the witches in Macbeth, stirring the pot to create trouble. I have yet to identify the third witch, however…

Key and I have exchanged a few very long emails over this, and we're as far apart as it may seem on the face of it in this comment page.

As more terror alerts arise, more people are beheaded abroad, more divisiveness arises at home, there are times I wonder if I miss the days of the Cold War, until I recall that we faced nuclear annihilation based on the hard, inhumane logic of MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction. Now, even if terrorists get a nuclear weapon, horrifying as that prospect is, we will not lose ALL major cities in the US, as we would have in an attack from the USSR. So, yes, we are better off because of the efforts of Ronald Reagan and all those who preceded him back to Harry Truman. Regarding the socialist tendencies the Democratic Party was showing in the 1950s, I am not sure the Democrats would have succeeded in implementing socialist policies even without the jolt of McCarthyism. What is often forgotten is that Socialism is not identical to Communism. The two-day weekend and 40-hour workweek are products of Socialism, but we regard them as fundamental now, just as the Emancipation Proclamation was the result of radical Liberalism. I am not advocating Socialism, but I am pointing out that what we now think of as “normal” was once considered radical and, horrors, Socialist. Things change, people change, but the world continues.

There is an irony in historical change. The party that now stands for Conservatism was birthed by the breaking away of a group of Liberals from the Whig Party. There is a lesson in that irony that is being lost in the SFSN (Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing) that is the main product of our politicians today.

To prevent this rambling from becoming a post that belongs on MY weblog, I should wrap this up. Sam, I do play chess, and there are “chess groupies”, or at least there are in Austin. Unfortunately, I’m in France right now, and my cat tends to dislodge the other pieces when he makes moves on the chessboard. I do enjoy a fine single malt and good conversation between reasonable people who respect each other even if they do not agree on all points. I would definitely enjoy that with you and anyone else who would care to participate.

There is one thing we can agree upon unequivocally, though. I have always referred to USA Today as “the Weekly Reader for adults.” It is sad that trees die to make the paper it is published on.

Bloody hell!!! I meant to say that Key and I are NOT as far apart as it may seem in the comments here.

D'OH!

Jack, I respectfully agree, to disagree. It would surely be boring if we were all in agreement all the time.

We'll have that single malt and a game some day, no doubt.

Jack, living in France has caused you to lose your sense of humour ( ;
I think Ann Coulter is very funny. She is smart and clever and she bugs the heck out of people who disagree with her. Heck, its her right as a journalist in a country with true free speech rights.
I thought the column was obviously very funny and obviously very tongue in cheek.

At the risk of proving your point for you, Beth, tell me I've lost my sense of humor when you find something Michael Moore has done funny.

:-P

As I said, I find them BOTH offensive, which means as much as you dislike Moore, I disike him, but I also dislike Coulter just as much. Hence the apparent "loss of humor" in failing to appreciate the attempts at humor in her column.

See my post today about the paper made of elephant dung if you want to see my still living sense of humor.

;-)

I don't think Michael Moore has ever *tried* to be funny. Ann Coulter does, and I think she is succeeds.

And, poor, dear, Jack, I did read the elephant dung paper story. . . .

I still really like you!