STORRS, Conn. (AP) — Conservative columnist Ann Coulter cut short a speech at the University of Connecticut amid boos and jeers, and decided to hold a question-and-answer session instead.Shocking! How dare she? Hate speech! Hate speech! Burn her, she's a wiiiiitch!
... Before cutting off her speech after about 15 minutes, Coulter called Bill Clinton an "executive buffoon" who won the presidency only because Ross Perot took 19% of the vote.
Don't weep for Ann. She's acerbic and bombastic. This is her schtick, and she was right in her element -- provoking the worst behavior of those who pride themselves on open minds and liberal attitudes. The mere sight of her striding onto a campus in her stylish black boots and leather miniskirt can turn intelligent minds to mush.
Just look at what she brings to the surface of the stagnant ponds of academe. One of the groups that played into her hands at UConn was called "Students Against Hate." The AP quoted its leader -- "Eric Knudsen, a 19-year-old sophomore journalism and social welfare major" (!!! look for that byline in the New York Times in a few years) as saying, "We encourage diverse opinion at UConn, but this is blatant hate speech."
Meanwhile a campus newspaper article about the speech before it happened quoted Ali Langston, a "member of the Muslim Student Association," as saying "ignorance is something that divides us as a people," and then in the next paragraph inadvertently gives an example of ignorance."Islam is a word that means peace," Langston said.BUZZZZZ!! It means "submission;" it comes from the Arabic root of aslama "he resigned, he surrendered, he submitted," a causative conjugation of salima "he was safe." It is related to salam "peace," like English history is related to story. But it is not the same word, and Islam decidedly does not mean "peace." When she spoke at Kansas University, "Some of the protesters, such as Robert Richardson, said they were members of the Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics."
"We're just not open-minded enough to like Ann Coulter," Richardson, 28, of Lawrence, said.When she spoke at University of St. Thomas, in Minneapolis, the university's president "issued a statement condemning Coulter's speech as 'hateful,' " even though he never said what he found hateful in it, and in fact it turned out he had not even attended the speech. Daily Kos, meanwhile, takes its usual position on the high ground of the left by speculating Coulter either is just out there looking for a man, or else she really is a man:
Somewhat more trivial or perhaps pruriently motivated critics have suggested that her positions amount to trolling and that because of her pronounced trachea due to her being extremely underweight, appears to have an Adam's apple and therefore might be a transvestite or transgendered person.Because, you know, real hot blonde chicks just can't be that wicked and focused and sharp and mean to nice noble-souled liberal boys like us. When a university community does manage to keep its wig on long enough to let her speak and ask her civil, but pointed questions, it learns how easy it is to puncture her polemical balloon:
Coulter was asked why she condemns the terrorists so strongly, but not those who kill abortion doctors. She said that the latter have been extremely frustrated by the fact that they can’t vote on this issue, thanks to Roe vs. Wade, and that they worked within the system for twenty years without success before turning to murder. She said that those individuals believe they had been left with no other routes for dissent in the face of an ongoing atrocity. Coulter further suggested that although she would not take it upon herself to take extreme actions on the abortion issue, she will not condemn those who do.But that so rarely happens, because her mere presence magically transforms ivy-mantled walls into a Jerry Springer set.
If anyone has an interest in drowning out Coulter, it's conservatives. She's intelligent and articulate, but so driven by the lust for the jugular that she only absorbs enough information about anything to make a weapon, not an argument. She's as bad as the comic who only bothers to memorize the punchlines, not the jokes.
As a result, she inadvertently poisons the waters of perfectly valid positions by wielding them too crudely. The McCarthy book, for instance, which took acclaimed new looks at the post-war struggle against communism by historians such as Arthur Herman and Ron Radosh and ran with them to places that made the historians cringe. If you want to use that argument now, you have to make an elaborate detour to explain why you're not actually saying the same thing Ann Coulter said, even though it looks like it on the surface. Complexities of issues, and occasionally even the facts of them, are lost on her, in her eternal search for the zinger. It's as though she took a delicate but deadly ray-gun weapon and used it to pistol-whip her opponents, so when she hands it back to you it's bent and useless.
Right-wingers seem to have an intuitive knack for recognizing this type, at least when it appears on the other side of the debate. The opposition teammate who is most likely to throw an interception or miss a free throw is someone to be cherished, nurtured. It's why some conservative bloggers I know dutifully contribute to Air America fund drives. But they tolerate Ann Coulter.
On the other hand, she's useful for just such moments as this.
Ann Coulter comes onto a campus one night, gives a lecture students are free to attend, or not, as they see fit, and is gone the next day. The left's equivalent of Ann Coulter tend to be ensconced in tenured teaching positions. Students have to endure them day after day, and craft essays and reports that suit their ideologies. Yet these obstacles to a bachelor's degree can be every bit as mean and partisan as Coulter, a newspaper columnist. Consider Columbia University's Joseph Mossad's infamous retort to a student, "If you're going to deny the atrocities being committed against Palestinians, then you can get out of my classroom."UCLA professor John McCumber informed The New York Times that “a successful career in academia, after all, requires willingness to be critical of yourself and to learn from experience,” qualities “antithetical to Republicanism as it has recently come to be.” In another Times article, Berkeley professor George Lakoff asserted that Leftists predominate in the academy because, “unlike conservatives, they believe in working for the public good and social justice, as well as knowledge and art for their own sake.”As Montclair State professor Grover Furr put it after reading the above article,
“Conservatism” champions racism, exploitation, and imperialist war. It’s the enemy of 90% of the human race. We need LESS of it, not more. Sure, it should be “represented” in classes — but only for the sake of exposure and refutation.Juan Cole in defending Mossad (and resorting to exactly the tactics he accuses Mossad's accusers of using), proudly proclaims the purity of the academic mission:
University teaching is not about fairness, and there is no body capable of imposing “fair” views on teachers. It is about provoking students to think analytically and synthetically, and to reason on their own.How, in such an atmosphere, do you justify killing only certain unpopular messages? Emily Salsibury, executive director of the College Republicans at UConn, wrote a defense of the speech in advance of the event, pleading for dialogue, not denigration.
To define a speech as hateful or racist simply because you do not agree with the point of view is a lowbrow tactic. It is ironic that some preach tolerance and diversity, but cannot practice it well. We must all learn to deal with dissenting voices, and this is just what Coulter is. Disagreement with a voice should never lead to silencing that voice.Or, as another famous modern American academic figure puts it,
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
You're completely right, this people need to speak.... and then by torn apart factually by her opponents. The problem is that she says something so outrageous that it's impossible to think rationally afterwards.
She came to my university a few years ago, but I had my thesis defense the day before and didn't have the stomach to listen to her in person.
"...The problem is that she says something so outrageous that it's impossible to think rationally afterwards..."
This is something to practice. Perhaps daily doses of Rush?
Personally, I love listening to outrageous people on both sides of the debate. On the left, I love hearing guys like Charlie Rangel, James Carville, and that fat black guy on the Sunday morning talk shows. Carville and Coulter are a little too much for me, simply because, as you say, they use the personal insult as a tactic to push the other side over the top. But I could certainly go hear either one and enjoy it.
I think it is only fair to ask, with all the discussion of proof on this board -- where is the proof of this story? Do you have pictures of Ann Coulter's hooters?
(sorry. I had to do that)
Is it mere coincidence that Ted Rall and Ann Coulter-- two columnists I consider among the most loathesome in America-- are mentioned here on the same day?
Good linguistics on the meaning of islaam. Another data point, every muslim i have ever asked says it means submission.
But the Bene Gesserit loathe Ann Coulter's moral equivalence. Abortion-doctor-murderers are terrorists. They are exactly the same.
They may "pride themselves on open minds and liberal attitudes" - but really, that's kind of like Jessica Simpson priding herself on her intelligence.
darwi odrade: "Good linguistics on the meaning of islaam. Another data point, every muslim i have ever asked says it means submission."
This has become a handy way to identify shameless liars. Anyone who says "Islam means peace" should be discounted.
darwi odrade: "But the Bene Gesserit loathe Ann Coulter's moral equivalence. Abortion-doctor-murderers are terrorists. They are exactly the same."
I don't think they are exactly the same. Terrorists typically kill people who haven't killed anyone else first.
But it's a moral distinction without a practical difference. Both have to be defeated. The people who are really serious about winning this thing in the long run, especially the Catholic Church, believe only in peaceful persuasion. Which mean there can't be any tolerance for alternative, wrong approaches. Too many lives are at stake.
I'm not a fan of Ann Counter. I like the kind of humour were the joke is just as funny, or funnier, if you realise that it's on you. Ann Coulter does not specialise in that gentle kind of humour.
The only time I can remember really laughing at Ann Coulter was when John McCain, every time someone would object to one of his stands, would pretend to misunderstand their motives and say they were just using issue X as a distraction and they were really out to get him for being a proud veteran or whatever positive he was boosting that week. Ann said: no, if pro-lifers are going after you on that issue, it's because they disagree with you on that issue. At least give then credit for this, they're such single-issue voters they'd vote for 100% taxation if it would save those little tiny babies. And I thought: "would that be, like, 100% taxation for just one year, and we get to keep protection for the unborn after?" At which point I realised the joke was on me, and started laughing, a lot.
I don't think most of the people Ann Coulter is dead right about can laugh at her jokes. She does not soften the blows enough so that they can.
Then again, I think most of them are not inclined to laugh at themselves in general, so it's no real loss.
The Bene Gesserit despise your moral equivalence as well, David Blue.
Define "people".
Terrorists use violence as a means to an end. They kill those outside their genetic and/or memetic kinship groups.
I see no difference.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."
The Constitution has nothing to say about getting shouted down. The students were also excercising their rights to free speech, if you want to frame it like that.
And if I had a nickle for every time a Liberal or Democrat got shouted down on Fox, I'd be rich.
And at any rate, your premise is bogus. Ann Coulter is not there to provoke for the purposes of edification, she's just a messenger of hate who lies and refuses to acknowledge it when she has. "Dissenting voice?" That's like saying the Devil is a "bad dude"...LMFAO.
Even liberals recognize there are limits to free speech...because they recognize Ann Coulter to cross them frequently is not hypocritical in the least.
But nice try. You probably got the hots for her.
Frankly I don't care if she goes for the jugular. She's an effective and witty propogandist. I don't feel she ruins a good argument, because I don't feel that the difference between right and left has got anything much at all to do with logic.
To me she is a fighter who never seems to take it personally. I have never seen her get emotional about people insulting her. She is cool and detached and exudes infinite self-confidence.
Do I have the hots for her as a skinny blonde bright conservative babe?
Certainly.
You can count me as a fan.
David Blue: "I don't think they are exactly the same. Terrorists typically kill people who haven't killed anyone else first.
But it's a moral distinction without a practical difference. Both have to be defeated. The people who are really serious about winning this thing in the long run, especially the Catholic Church, believe only in peaceful persuasion. Which mean there can't be any tolerance for alternative, wrong approaches. Too many lives are at stake."
darwi odrade: "The Bene Gesserit despise your moral equivalence as well, David Blue."
Equivalence to what?
thank you for your entry
it's very great
"...Even liberals recognize there are limits to free speech...because they recognize Ann Coulter to cross them frequently is not hypocritical in the least..."
Wow.
I'm always so amazed at some of the things people say on here -- apparantly free of any introspecion at all.
Maybe Ann can convince the ACLU to take her on as a pet project. You know, to protray themselves as protective of all speech, even hateful speech.
Don't hold your breath.
Ann is no worse on the right side of the debate than a good portion of democrats are on the left.
And last I knew, both extremes have been more than effective at getting people to at least consider and debate the outer edges of rhetorical argument.
It may be schtick, but it's effective.
And if I had to make a judgment on whether "common knowledge" or public consensus on the issues and histories Ann is always on about ("McCarthyism," the Cold War, National Security, little "p" patriotism, abortion) needs to be "nudged" left or right, the answer to me is obvious. We couldn't get much further left.
She's been more of a voice crying in an academic wilderness, it doesn't surprise me if she uses inflammatory rhetoric. Is no one listening to the head of the DNC?
Like Coulter, you make excuse for the loathesome abortion-doctor-murder-terrorists. Haven't you heard the argument of Islamic fundamentalists that the West, and the US in particular, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of muslim children? They believe that as surely as you believe that abortion is murder.
Sickening. There is no excuse, no way to rationalize such behavior. You become them.
Look, let's put all the names down at once:
Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Randy Roades,Rush Limbaugh, and Hannity. There are many others, I'm sure you all know who they are.
Ok, what these people have in common is that they speak in a vacuum. Ann Coulter, to be more specific, rights w/out acknowledging criticisms, and does not argue with other political pundits. Every time she has, she gets just obliterated.
The radio talkshows rarely take opposing viewpoints. When they do, they go out of their way to make sure it's someone who has no idea what they're talking about. This way they can belittle their competition while making themselves feel like free debaters.
I'll give Hannity some credit for H&C on fox, but when I used to watch I often saw him refute an argument merely by saying "You're lying" w/out further explanation. And colmes isn't really fair competition, it should be something like 'Hannity & Franken' or better yet 'Hannity & moore'; then we'd really see spittle fly!
Do these people have the right to speak? Sure. But it would be nice if all of them got thumped by a hostile audience now and then.
In general, left wing people watch left wing commentators, rwp watch rwc. Most people want to be entertained on MSM. The last thing they want is to have their blood pressure raised.
Ann Coulter is not serious analysis. She is a conservative satirist and comedian with the advantage of sex appeal. Her audience (me) want her to say what they'd like to say themselves but to be more outrageous and witty they they could ever hope to be. Then afterwards, they can chortle over her great lines with their conservative friends. Meanwhile since most news/political junkies are male, she is great eye-candy. I'd rather look at her than Hannity. Come to think of it, I'd rather do anything with her than with Hannity. (No offense Hannity, if you're reading this, but you know how it is.)
I see a distinction between Coulter and Randi Rhodes, although I find them roughly equivalent. They are both friggin' nuts, make outrageous, untrue statements and paint the other side with broad-brush smears.
The difference is Randi Rhodes is not welcomed in the polite company of screaming-head television as she would be considered too far "out there". Coulter is a regular guest on TV and her cockamamie statements are actually treated with respect.
One says President Bush is guilty of murder and the other says "liberals", meaning anyone to the left of Sean Hannity, are guilty of treason. Both are full of crap, but one is on television regularly being treated as if she is respectable. You know which one that is.
"I see a distinction between Coulter and Randi Rhodes"
Ozzy's old guitar player?
darwi odrade: " Equivalence to what?
Like Coulter, you make excuse for the loathesome abortion-doctor-murder-terrorists. Haven't you heard the argument of Islamic fundamentalists that the West, and the US in particular, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of muslim children? They believe that as surely as you believe that abortion is murder.
Sickening. There is no excuse, no way to rationalize such behavior. You become them."
Ah. So when you say this, darwi odrade: "The Bene Gesserit despise your moral equivalence as well, David Blue."... that means I am morally equivalent to "the loathesome abortion-doctor-murder-terrorists" which I "become", and "the Bene Gesserit despise" it.
I'd recommend we get back on the topic of lunatic, hate-spewing rhetoric, but I don't feel we've ever left it. You've been providing examples.
I have nothing further to add.
#14
The ACLU sided with Limbaugh, I see no reason why they wouldn't do so for Coulter if she were in a similar position of legal disagreement with the government on fundamental constitutional rights.
And if you are here to defend her "rights", you must also defend Michael Moore's right to speak on campuses so as not to be judged hypocritical, or worse.
I support the students who shout her down and throw pie in her face. She's been given a disproportionate amount of airtime as it is given her more than negative contribution to the public disccourse.
Get her a friggin' PPV cable program on HBO, but keep her off the public airwaves by all legal means. To me, its the same as wanting to keep garbage off your lawn.
While we're on the subject, how about this little bit of "humor" from one of yours:
Howard Dean should be arrested for treason, and either hung or put in a hole until the war's over.
Soooo funny!
Find me someone on the Left who said that in a similar forum, if you can.
And don't tell me that you won't, or don't need to, or ask me if I "ever heard of GOOGLE"...because I don't think you CAN.
No. I said you were the same as Coulter. You seem to want to excuse the murder of abortion doctors on the grounds that you believe they have killed someone. Did i get that wrong?
It is very hard to tell the difference between a fake blog and a real blog until you read it for a while
and realize there's no human brain behind it, like one of those Jack Format radio stations that fired
all their DJs, or maybe FEMAPoliphonyc ringtones.Mobile phone
Free mobile phone
Ann Coulter on Roe v Wade
In her own words.
Coulter is simply a "combat sophist." Factual errors, her acerbic personality and offensive tone are one thing, but it is the extraordinarily dubious logic she employs that makes her so ridiculous. There are numberous websites that catalogue her fallacies, but a freshman philosophy student could pick apart her nonsense.
I would be sympathetic to the idea that controversial figures should be heard, that "dialogue" should occur, but she is not interested in dialogue, only snarky polemics, and so she deserves whatever she gets. She is not a "public intellectual," she is an obnoxious whiner who is only interested in talking trash.
"...I would be sympathetic to the idea that controversial figures should be heard..."
One hopes that you remain sympathetic to the most vile type of speech you can imagine. Else your civics instruction has been for naught.
People have a right to speak. They do not have a right to be heard.
Coulter and the rest (on both sides) are entertainers folks. Surely you understand that by now? Rush, Rev. Jackson, even old Howie Dean -- this is about entertaining people of like mind by tossing rhetorical bombs for the true believers. For an open and educated person, it makes for great entertainment no matter what the position taken. When done well, it is like watching an artist work with paints. I used to love to hear Carville try to defend that boss of his -- it was hilarious! Those who let their emotions get control of them will probably have a much different experience.
What bothers me is that people are beginning to confuse entertainment with sound political discourse. If you spend all your time reading blogs on the right or left, you're missing the real work of being a free citizen, which is finding middle ground through open and honest discussion.