Ann Coulter, meet the squirrels

The Common Voice ^ | November 25, 2002 | Jonathan Pait

[Forgiven_Sinner]

In politics it is easy to categorize people into groups with defining attributes. These characteristics are typically broad generalizations. While stereotypes and generalizations often have some basis in truth, it doesn’t pay to get carried away! Recently, two things got me to thinking about this: Ann Coulter and squirrels.

One of the books currently on my reading list is Ann Coulter’s book, Slander. If you are a conservative who wants a quick vent for your frustration over the liberal national media, this is the book for you. However, to accomplish her goal of painting them as slanderers Ann does tend to use a rather broad brush.

According to the opinionated columnist, liberals are snobs. They are snobs because they are liberal. Liberals are out for power. They know what is best for everyone and they wish to keep people dependent on them so they can maintain their power.

Enter the squirrels.

Last week, I heard someone walk into my outer office. “Is Mr. Pait in?” My secretary being the incredible one that she is replied, “Do you have an appointment?” “No, I don’t have an appointment, but I was told that he could take care of some squirrels.” Now, this got my attention, so I walked out of the office to find a young man with a pocketed sweatshirt. The pocket was bulging as he held either end. Sure, enough he had three baby squirrels in need.

Now, I have a soft spot for animals. I am not an animal rights activist by any means. I can only recall shooting one animal in my life. I didn’t even mean to do that and when I did (I was about eleven years old), I burst into tears. I have also taken in baby squirrels to nurse them through their young years. Of course, to many people squirrels are simply rodents and a nuisance. I understand, but you haven’t seen them cuddled up together in an old t-shirt on top of a warm water bottle.

This weekend I was sitting on the couch holding one of the fury creatures. He had just eaten and was curling up under my hands as I laid them on my chest. He seemed so helpless as he purred (I don’t know what else to call it, but these guys are very much like baby kittens). I looked out the window and noticed the leaves were off the trees and realized the winter would soon be here. These little fellows are going to have to go out into it.

My reaction was to want to keep the squirrels as pets. I mean, think about it, they have no mama to teach socialization skills. They have been living off of top-of-the-line formula and shelled pecans (okay, we also give them acorns and water as well – oh yeah, and Gatorade). Will they be able to make it out there in the wild? I don’t want to let them go. I can take care of them.

Now, besides the fact that in many places it is illegal to keep squirrels as pets without a permit, there are some problems with the way I was thinking. First, after about five months, a wild squirrel will begin going berserk. Squirrels don’t generally fair well in confined areas. Squirrels have been known to literally bounce off the walls when they have been confined for a time. Sure, most people think squirrels are deranged to begin with – wait until you see what happens to a captive one!

Second, I was not really thinking about the squirrel. I was thinking about me. I wanted to have a little creature to love me and depend on me. It helps my feeling of worth to know that those little guys get all excited when they see me (is it me or the eyedropper?) It is cruel to think that I will have to put them outside to eat for a time from what I place there and then to go forage on their own. It is sad to think that the little guy I held in my hands there on the couch will become just another one of the squirrels jumping from maple tree to maple tree in my back yard.

It was then that I realized that that is the other side of liberalism. Most liberals that we meet each day are not the ones described by Ann Coulter. They are like me – at least when it comes to squirrels. They see people who seem defenseless. They want to step in and help them. To the liberal, helping is to provide the needs of those without or who are oppressed. It seems heartless to them to allow anyone to fail. It is not right that anyone should not be given the same opportunities as anyone else. They also believe that it is within their power to help someone succeed. With just the right amount of support and training, anyone can reach the top.

It is not a power grab. It is a sincere desire to help.

I am a conservative. I will let the squirrels go. They must make it on their own, or they won’t make it. Sure, it would be nice for me to have some pets, but is that really best for the squirrels? Where do you think a squirrel would rather be, in a chicken wire cage in my backyard or flying 50 feet up from one tree to another? Yes, it is a risk to put them out there with the neighborhood cats and the hawk that stops by occasionally. Freedom is worth some risks – even the risk of failure.

Really, the conservative feels the same emotions as the liberal. We just act differently. We maintain that success is made greater by the possibility of failure. We understand that we cannot guarantee success or even that we will all have equal opportunities. All of us have different gifts and have been born into different situations. However, we also believe that you do not have to be bound by those limitations. You can find your place if you have the desire and your ultimate success is accentuated by the possibility you had to fail.

So, in many ways, we liberals and conservatives need each other. The liberals remind us that sometimes people need a to be held up. The conservatives remind us that ultimately we need to be willing to let go. A man is not a squirrel. While squirrels may be bred and trained to live in captivity, a man can never reach his full potential living a life of dependence.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

I started reading this not knowing if it was positive or negative. I was pleasantly surprised.

[Clintonfatigued]

This is actually a nice posting. It helps prove that disagreeing with someone eles's politics doesn't make them evil. I am aquainted with a number of liberals, and I actually like them. It would be nice if politicians could see each other in that light. Problem is, there is power at stake, and the desire for power can turn many otherwise ethical people into thugs. Too bad, cause this is a very useful posting.

[Coeur de Lion]

I liked it. It's definately a "keeper"

[Forgiven_Sinner]

The pics:

[ServesURight]

Oh please! This is just a long line of pathetic responses from liberals to Ann Coulter's work.

[Gritty]

So, in many ways, we liberals and conservatives need each other.

I din't know about him, buy I don't need any Liberals.

The liberals remind us that sometimes people need a to be held up.

Yeah. And they do a pretty good job of it too. When is the last time a liberal ever looked at you and saw anything but the contents of your wallet for their pet projects?

[TASMANIANRED]

The analogy needs to be taken a little farther.
Liberals would put the squirrel in the chicken wire cage. After all they weren't trained to take the hardship of the outdoor world having been fed on pecans and gatorade. They need a safety net, they need a cage and a keeper. Safety in a risk free world is the goal, surrendering freedom is the method.

Conservatives know it is a big bad world out there. There is hunger, hawks and failure but they prefer to take the risk of these things to have the probable outcome of freedom and accomplishment.

The other difference between is the liberal "delusion" of a risk free world. It can never happen, only the libs do'nt know it.

[Waco]

This old fart will take 1 Ann over 3 squirrels any day.

[T'wit]

Nice person, but dreamily naive in his premise that liberals just want to help people. If that were so, liberals would be harmless and not interesting at all.

Coulter has it right. Liberals are arrogant busybodies who wage ceaseless war on America, its liberty and its spiritual values.

[ILBBACH]

They see people who seem defenseless. They want to step in and help them. To the liberal, helping is to provide the needs of those without or who are oppressed.

Except if they are Afghanis, Iraqis, or unborn babies!

[fly_so_free]

"Secondly, I was not really thinking about the squirrel. I was thinking about me. I wanted to have a little creature to love me, and depend on me. It helps my feeling of worth to know that those little guys get all excited when they see me."

"It seems heartless to them to allow anyone to fail."
(Unless you're an otherwise perfectly qualified minority, and/or female conservative Christian, judicial nominee.)

"They also believe that it is within their power to help someone succeed.
It is not is a power grab."

Interesting article. I disagree with the author's statement that liberals and conservatives feel the same emotions. I don't feel or understand the level of intense hatred liberals have for President Bush. He doesn't deserve it. All he is trying to do is protect our country.

I despise the Clintons because they dragged our country through the mud. They loathe our military. They loathe our country , truth be known-part of their legacy is 9/11, because they made us appear weak and vulnerable to our ennemies. They had and still have no respect for America. They showed no respect for the Office of the president.

Actually the trashing of the White house, they did on their way out is symbolic of what they did to our nation during their 8 years. They sold our millitary secrets to the highest bidders. They put us in danger. They taught our children what oral sex is, that its not sex, and that its ok to lie because it depends on what the meaning of "is is". (remember the story about the students caught cheating and lying and they said "what's the big deal , the president does it").

I could give a million more examples of the Clintons dragging us through the mud. Even with all this, I don't hate the Clintons. I despise what they've done, and I never want them to be in office again, but this is nothing compared to the vile hatred that spews out of the dems for president Bush, I don't get it. I don't feel hatred for my country, or shame and I don't get liberals who do.

[Old Professer]

This weekend I was sitting on the couch holding one of the fury creatures.

Freudian slip?

[Old Professer]

Actually, the part about wanting to step in nails the liberal - the arrogant notion that everything can be made right if they just lead the way; when you see the world as it ought to be rather than as it is, all sorts of romantic notions run through your head.

If you grow out of that stage, then you are on your way to becoming a conservative.

[fporretto]

Let's be candid. Ann doesn't often discriminate explicitly among the categories of liberals. Yet some discrimination -- yes, I know that's a verboten word -- is clearly called for.

1. There are pure "good intentions" liberals who simply don't understand the destructive implications of their positions.
2. There are envious liberals whose aim is to tear down anyone who's doing better than they, or who's dared to contradict their notions.
3. There are "strategic" liberals who have concluded, correctly, that left-leaning politics is a route toward enormous personal power and perquisites.

There may be others.

The proportions among these categories are important, yet they're very difficult to know. Since liberalism's ideology rests on its intentions, intentions are just about all you'll ever hear about from any of the categories, which clouds the issues still further.

When Ann attacks liberals in Slander and Treason, it's my sense that she's after the ones in group 3 principally, and in group 2 secondarily. As others here have pointed out, healthy people are well-disposed toward others regardless of their political affiliations...something liberals would do well to ponder. It's really the folks for whom political liberalism is a cover for some less noble undertaking, such as destroying their enemies or exalting themselves over us all, that one must beware.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

[expatpat]

Many liberals are the kind he's talking about, but they are just 'useful idiots' to the power-hungry exploitive ones that Ann is talking about.

[reformed_democrat]

They see people who seem defenseless. They want to step in and help them. To the liberal, helping is to provide the needs of those without or who are oppressed. It seems heartless to them to allow anyone to fail. It is not right that anyone should not be given the same opportunities as anyone else. They also believe that it is within their power to help someone succeed. With just the right amount of support and training, anyone can reach the top.

Noble sentiments. Conservative principles, everyone.

They see people who seem defenseless. They want to step in and help them.
Precisely what the U.S. did in Iraq.

. . . helping is to provide the needs of those without or who are oppressed.
Conservatives believe freedom is for everyone, not just a select few.

It seems heartless to them to allow anyone to fail. It is not right that anyone should not be given the same opportunities as anyone else.
This is why conservatives are at odds with the educrats. All children, if we are to be entrusted with their education, should be given a good, solid foundation on which to build their future. This means (at the very least) they should all be able to read.

They also believe that it is within their power to help someone succeed. With just the right amount of support and training, anyone can reach the top.
See above.

[T'wit]

The liberal movement has drifted toward the hard left for decades. To be "liberal" now is to be animated largely by hatred. They hate America, they hate Christianity, they hate non-believers (conservatives, Republicans), they hate normal and decent life for they have lost touch with any positive vision of life themselves.

It is increasingly difficult to find innocent, old-style "helpful" liberals. Those who remain must somehow shut their ears to the steady barrage of hate in liberal media. But liberals are by nature cliquish and most believe what the talking heads tell them to.

[tet68]

"....a man can never reach his full potential living a life of dependence."

True, then what does this say about those who HAVE lived their entire lives dependent on Liberal largess.

[T'wit]

> They see people who seem defenseless. They want to step in and help them.

Those of us involved in the Terri Schiavo fight can testify that the liberal instinct toward this battered and defenseless woman is to join in a pack hunt and kill her.

[MissAmericanPie]

Where is the barf alert? The only thing that conservatives need from liberals is for them to form a very long line and jump off a cliff.

They are power grubbing opportunists of the first order. Plying to individual greed for a free ride to attain and hold power. There is no oppression too great, no corruption too low, that they will not engage in.

The author has been in the company of one too many squirrels, he needs to put "Slander" down and go buy "Treason" right away.