Posted on 06/20/2006 7:01:29 PM PDT by pissant
"Writing," observed the French playwright Moliere, "is like prostitution. First you do it for love, then for a few close friends, and then for money."
This aphorism is brought forcefully to mind by the cover of Ann Coulter's latest book, leering at customers from the windows of America's biggest bookstores. As always, the cover features a portrait of the artist as a young tart, blond locks flowing, her size zero little black dress catering to a combination of ideological and erotic perversion that's disturbing to contemplate.
In The New York Times, David Carr doesn't hesitate to label Coulter a literary crack whore, although naturally the editors of that august publication won't allow such an indelicate phrase to appear in its pages. Coulter, Carr suggests, "knows precisely what she is saying" when she says of certain 9/11 widows that she's "never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much."
For Carr, Coulter's habit of making outrageous statements is part of a simple and cynical swindle: say vile things, get lots of publicity for doing so, then sell hundreds of thousands of books as one's reward for performing unnatural intellectual acts on TV.
Prostitution, however, is a tricky business. I can attest that when she was an unknown law student, Coulter said outrageous things all the time, in class, in conversation, and in print. Was she merely laying the groundwork for selling her honor dear? It seems doubtful.
For what it's worth, Coulter's views have always seemed to me to be sincerely held, to the extent that narcissistic borderline personalities can be sincere. Not all writers are prostitutes, but all writers are narcissists, and Coulter appears to represent an especially acute case of someone who writes in order to be at the center of attention (hence the glossy locks and little black dress).
Nevertheless prostitution is everywhere in our society, and indeed the willingness to sell what shouldn't be sold often helps explain what's happening when one tries to interpret otherwise puzzling events.
Consider the drive to get the American Medical Association to redefine "obesity" in a way that will cause 40 percent of America's children to suddenly contract a dreaded disease. The campaign will likely succeed, which means that in September, when the new guidelines are announced, the media will uncritically parrot this ridiculously unscientific claim, leading to yet more hysterical demands that we "think of the children," and do something about this deadly epidemic, immediately if not sooner.
How does this happen? Here's how: The International Obesity Task Force, a drug company lobbying group disguised as an organization of disinterested scientists, has spent the past decade co-opting governmental policy by influencing groups such as the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control.
Recently, a prominent government scientist spent several hours detailing for me how the IOTF is at the forefront of a concerted campaign by the pharmaceutical industry to, as this researcher put it, "soften up" governmental regulatory agencies, in order to get various new weight loss drugs approved.
Ray Moynihan, an Australian academic, makes a similar point in a new article in the British Medical Journal. (Moynihan is the author of the book "Selling Sickness: How Drug Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients.")
Does this mean every researcher who claims to be concerned about childhood obesity is an intellectual prostitute? Of course not. Even the members of organizations like the IOTF join these groups for complex reasons.
What should not fool us is the eminently respectable facade such groups manage to maintain. We should remember that, whether in science, literature, or life, the great social distance separating streetwalkers from trophy wives doesn't alter the fact that they're all in the same line of work.
I don't doubt it at all. Coulter herself will tell you she's been like this all her life.
Aside from a few asinine adjectives, the article is pretty much true. I've seen much worse panty bunches than this. Like on whoever posted it? Did I say that out loud?
It's all because liberals, despite their obeisance to feminism, secretly believe that women shouldn't be allowed to be so outspoken.
LOL. To say the least.
LOL! My first thought was I wouldn't want to be shaking his hand any time soon.
Thanks. I just love that one.
Right; some are amatuers, who write for free; some are giggolos; and a select few, Mr. Paul Campos, are Johns, who pay to have their stuff printed.
I don't necessarily disagree with you about P.J., but I think I would broaden my search terms if you're serious about the results you want.
I do wish I could get a copy of the one P.J. essay that earned him significant opprobruim. It was a book review entitled "It Takes A Village Idiot," circa 1995.
And god knows what the left thinks about Mark Steyn. Actually, I know, and it ain't pretty.
I really hope you're a chick. LOL!
And that's true about the halo effect.
"(or just Annie in her panties)."
OK, if you insist.
"Willowy"? Jumping jimminy, Jack. She's down right skinny! I agree with the rest of your post, and get a grand kick out of her writing.
That guy is one horrible writer. I thought it was an article about Ann Coulter but it turns out to be about childhood obesity. What a letdown.
Cheers
The difference between Coulter and O'Rourke is, O'Rourke doesn't have to be hysterical to make a point, regardless of whether you agree with his point or not.
The fact O'Rourke hasn't been condemed is because he hasn't said anything about the Jersey Girls.
Even if he did, he would do so with a sentence so wittily constructed that even the Jersey Girls supporters would laugh, because he would make sense, and it wouldn't be in a hysterical sort of way.
Apparently he went to Law School with her.
I swear this guy sounds like he's JEALOUS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.