Ann Coulter: America's fiery, blond commentatrix [MARK STEYN on ANN COULTER!]

www.macleans.ca ^ | June 21, 2006 | Mark Steyn

[RonDog]

MARK STEYN

Ann Coulter: America's fiery, blond commentatrix

June 21, 2006

One crack about 9/11 widows and the author of Godless loses her audience. Too bad.

MARK STEYN

Ann Coulter's new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism is a rollicking read very tightly reasoned and hard to argue with. After all, the progressive mind regards it as backward and primitive to let religion determine every aspect of your life, but takes it as advanced and enlightened to have the state determine every aspect of your life. Lest you doubt the left's pieties are now a religion, try this experiment: go up to an environmental activist and say "Hey, how about that ozone hole closing up?" or "Wow! The global warming peaked in 1998 and it's been getting cooler for almost a decade. Isn't that great?" and then look at the faces. As with all millenarian doomsday cults, good news is a bummer.

But nobody's talking too much about the finer points of Miss Coulter's argument. Instead, everyone -- from Hillary Rodham Clinton down -- is going bananas about a couple of paragraphs on page 103 and 112 in which the author savages the 9/11 widows. Not all of them. Just the quartet led by Kristen Breitweiser and known as "the Jersey Girls." These four widows have been regular fixtures in the New York TV studios since they first emerged to complain that the average $1.6 million-per-family compensation was insufficient. The 9/11 commission, in all its ghastly second-guessing showboating, was largely their project. As Miss Coulter writes:

"These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. The whole nation was wounded, all of our lives reduced. But they believed the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process. These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

And at that point Senator Clinton jumped in to denounce the incendiary blond commentatrix as (dread word) "mean-spirited." Maybe so. But in 2004, the Jersey Girls publicly endorsed John Kerry's campaign for president: they inserted themselves into the political arena and chose sides. That being so, to demand that they be insulated from the normal rough 'n' tumble of partisan politics merely because of their biography seems absurd. There are any number of 9/11 widows. A few are big George W. Bush supporters, many are apolitical. I was honoured to receive an email the other day from Deena Gilbey, a British subject whose late husband worked on the 84th floor of the World Trade Center and remained in the building to help evacuate his colleagues. A few days later, U.S. Immigration sent Mrs. Gilbey a letter informing her that, as she was now a widow, her residence status had changed and they were enclosing a deportation order. Having legally admitted to the country the men who killed her husband, the U.S. government's first act after having enabled his murder is to further traumatize the bereaved.

The heartless brain-dead bonehead penpusher who sent out that letter is far more "mean-spirited" than Miss Coulter at full throttle. Yet Mrs. Gilbey isn't courted by the TV bookers the way the Jersey Girls are. Hundreds of soldiers' moms believe their sons died in a noble and just cause in Iraq, but it's Cindy Sheehan, who calls Bush "the biggest terrorist in the world," who gets speaking engagements across America, Canada, Britain, Europe and Australia. When Abu Musab al-Zarqawi winds up pushing up daisy cutters, the media don't go to Paul Bigley, who rejoiced that the man who decapitated his brother would now "rot in hell," nor the splendid Aussie Douglas Wood, who called his kidnappers "arseholes," nor his fellow hostage Ulf Hjertstrom, a Swede who's invested 50,000 bucks or so in trying to track down the men who kidnapped him and visit a little reciprocal justice on them. No, instead, the media rush to get the reaction of Michael Berg, who thinks Bush is "the real terrorist" rather than the man who beheaded his son.

But it wasn't until Ann Coulter pointed it out that you realize how heavily the Democratic party is invested in irreproachable biography. For example, John Kerry's pretzel-twist of a war straddle in the 2004 campaign relied mainly on former senator Max Cleland, a triple amputee from a Vietnam grenade accident whom the campaign dispatched to stake out Bush's Crawford ranch that summer. Maybe he's still down there. It's gotten kinda crowded on the perimeter since then, what with Cindy Sheehan et al. But the idea is that you can't attack what Max Cleland says about war because, after all, you've got most of your arms and legs and he hasn't. This would normally be regarded as the unworthy tactic of snake-oil-peddling shyster evangelists and, indeed, the Dems eventually scored their perfect Elmer Gantry moment. In 2004, in the gym of Newton High School in Iowa, Senator John Edwards skipped the dreary Kerry-as-foreign-policy-genius pitch and cut straight to the Second Coming. "We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other debilitating diseases . . . When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." Mr. Reeve had died the previous weekend, but he wouldn't have had Kerry and Edwards been in the White House. Read his lips: no new crutches. The healing balm of the Massachusetts Messiah will bring the crippled and stricken to their feet, which is more than Kerry's speeches ever do for the able-bodied. As the author remarks, "If one wanted to cure the lame, one could reasonably start with John Edwards."

"What crackpot argument can't be immunized by the Left's invocation of infallibility based on personal experience?" wonders Miss Coulter of Cleland, Sheehan, the Jersey Girls and Co. "If these Democrat human shields have a point worth making, how about allowing it to be made by someone we're allowed to respond to?"

Now that's a point worth making. As it is, thanks to Coulter cracks like "Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy," even chaps on the right are doing the more-in-sorrow shtick and saying that they've been making the same basic argument as Ann and it's such a shame she had to go too far with her cheap shots because that's discredited the entire argument, etc.

The trouble with this line is that hardly anyone was objecting to the professional widow routine pre-Coulter. Well, that's not strictly true. Yours truly objected. After the Zacarias Moussaoui trial, I wrote:

"The first reaction of the news shows to the verdict was to book some relative of the 9/11 families and ask whether they were satisfied with the result, as if the prosecution of the war on terror is some kind of national-security Megan's Law on which they have inviolable proprietorial rights. Sorry, but that's not what happened that Tuesday morning. The thousands who died were not targeted as individuals: they were killed because they were American, not because somebody in a cave far away decided to murder Mrs. Smith. . . It's not about 'closure' for the victims; it's about victory for the nation."

But nobody paid the slightest heed to this line. For all the impact my column had, I might as well have done house calls. Then Coulter comes in and yuks it up with the Playboy-spread gags, and suddenly the Jersey Girls only want to do the super-extra-fluffy puffball interviews. So two paragraphs in Ann Coulter's book have succeeded in repositioning these ladies: they may still be effective Democrat hackettes, but I think TV shows will have a harder time passing them off as non-partisan representatives of the 9/11 dead.

So, on balance, hooray for Miss Coulter. If I were to go all sanctimonious and priggish, I might add that, in rendering their "human shield" strategy more problematic, she may be doing Democrats a favour. There's no evidence the American people fall for this shtick: in 2002, the party's star Senate candidates all ran on biography -- Max Cleland, Jean Carnahan (the widow of a deceased governor), and Walter Mondale (the old lion pressed into service after Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash). All lost. Using "messengers whom we're not allowed to reply to" doesn't solve the Democrats' biggest problem: their message. The Dems, says the author, have "become the 'Lifetime' TV network of political parties." But, except within the Democrat-media self-reinforcing cocoon, it's not that popular. A political party with a statistically improbable reliance on the bereaved shouldn't be surprised that it spends a lot of time in mourning -- especially on Wednesday mornings every other November.

To comment, email letters@macleans.ca

Copyright by Rogers Media Inc.
May not be reprinted or republished without permission.

This story can be found at:
http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20060626_129699_129699

[Coyoteman]

Your argument against evolution based on the origins of life are false.

As pointed out in the following post, what are the implications of each of these possible origins with regard to the theory of evolution, that is, the change since origin?

From a post by Dimensio:

I submit five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.

a) Natural processes occuring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.

b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension travelled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.

c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.

d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.

e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.

From a post by Dimensio here.

In each case, evolution could proceed just fine. Your argument in the previous post is thus false.

[pgyanke]

Your argument is reduced to THIS? I'm starting to wonder why I'm still on this thread...

BTW, I haven't been arguing about the change since origin... I'm talking about the origin itself. These hypotheses are silly.

a) Natural processes occuring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.

It takes a lot of faith to believe this came about by its own fiat.

b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension travelled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.

So where did they come from? There has to be a beginning somewhere. Oh yeah... BANG!

c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.

Sorry. This displays a surface-only thinking process. Before man can get far enough to seed his own race, he had to have his own origins. It's a nice sci-fi canard, though.

d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.

Did I happen to mention that this divine agent nurtured a family of people, to a race of people, to a nation of people, to the world to reveal Himself? Historians record how He rescued His chosen people from bondage in Egypt and then chastised them repeatedly for their unfaithfulness. Centuries before He Himself came into the world, He told us what would be and it was all fulfilled to the letter. The people of his day were convinced by the miracles He performed to prove His identity. Just because you don't know Him doesn't mean He didn't do all He said He did.

e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.

Right. Like the one in the link above that scientists would have us believe.

Your argument in the previous post is thus false.

It must be so if you say so!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I could sum up your post as "cause I said so". I'm convinced."

You could sum it up that way, but you would have to lie to do so. You have not in any way demonstrated how anything in evolution violates the 2nd law, nor that you even know what the 2nd law is.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"He fails to show how solar radiation has been shown to change nonorganic material to organic to living organisms... reason: it doesn't and has never been shown to do this."

Here's a hint for you:

[pgyanke]

Oh, that's rich. Why don't you tell me how photosynthesis fits into this... hint for you: chicken and egg.

[pgyanke]

You could sum it up that way, but you would have to lie to do so.

I'm getting very close the ending our conversation. I don't take well to being called a liar. Back it up, if you can.

You have not in any way demonstrated how anything in evolution violates the 2nd law, nor that you even know what the 2nd law is.

Frankly, neither have you. Time for you to do some heavy lifting. I've told you where I stand, you tell me where I'm wrong instead of just telling me I am.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Oh, that's rich. Why don't you tell me how photosynthesis fits into this.."

It's an example of how solar radiation has been shown to change non-organic material to organic to living organisms.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I'm getting very close the ending our conversation. I don't take well to being called a liar."

I didn't say you were a liar, yet. I said that you would have to be a liar if you summed up my post as "cause I said so". You only said that you COULD sum it up that way. When or if you actually take that plunge, you will be lying.

"Frankly, neither have you."

The burden of proof is with you. You say that the 2nd law goes against evolution, but you won't back it up by saying how. Your claim shows you don't even understand what the 2nd law states.

"I've told you where I stand, you tell me where I'm wrong instead of just telling me I am."

You tell us where evolution goes against the 2nd law, and then maybe it will be possible to get into more detail. Your just saying it does doesn't mean squat.

[King Prout]

"a self-described engineer not understanding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics"
PLACEMARKER

[pgyanke]

Chicken and egg. Photosynthesis is a process where an organic body creates a sugar using sunlight. If the organic body doesn't already exist to create it, where did the sugar come from?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Chicken and egg. Photosynthesis is a process where an organic body creates a sugar using sunlight. If the organic body doesn't already exist to create it, where did the sugar come from?"

You said that "he fails to show how solar radiation has been shown to change nonorganic material to organic to living organisms... reason: it doesn't and has never been shown to do this." I showed an example of that happening. The light energy is converted to an organism.

It's dishonest to change the goalposts in mid debate.

[pgyanke]

You say that the 2nd law goes against evolution, but you won't back it up by saying how.

You're just not paying attention. Read what I wrote above about entropy (more than once), tell me where I'm wrong and we'll continue. So far, you've added nothing of substance to this discussion and I'm not going to continue feeding your impulse to tell me I'm wrong. Show your understanding of the Law and how I'm wrong... surely you know how wrong I am, right? You keep saying so...

[King Prout]

It's dishonest to change the goalposts in mid debate.

exactly. thus my constant requirement for agreeing to concrete requirements and standards before engaging in debate. thank you for giving him an opportunity to demonstrate precisely the behavior I was attempting to pre-empt.

[pgyanke]

The light energy is converted to an organism.

REALLY? Please tell the class what organism is created. Then we'll go on to how this all applies to a system with no living material to start with...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Read what I wrote above about entropy (more than once), tell me where I'm wrong and we'll continue."

When you explain how evolution violates the 2nd law i'll take notice. Here's a hint: the origin of life is not part of the ToE (though the origin of life doesn't violate the 2nd law either.)

"Show your understanding of the Law and how I'm wrong... surely you know how wrong I am, right?"


When you show yours first (you were asked first.) Please just state what YOU think the 2nd law says.
All

[CarolinaGuitarman]

It's amazing how dense some anti-evos can be.

[pgyanke]

You think I'm dense, you should see the people who can't read and think I'm anti-evo...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"REALLY?"

Yes really. Here's a clue:

E=mc^2

"Please tell the class what organism is created."

The plant. You DO know that organisms are not static things, right? That the molecules they start with are constantly being reshuffled and replaced with new molecules? You for instance are not made of the same molecules you were 10 years ago, even if you look superficially the same.

"Then we'll go on to how this all applies to a system with no living material to start with..."

What would that have to do with either evolution or the 2nd law?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You think I'm dense."

Yes.

[pgyanke]

When you explain how evolution violates the 2nd law i'll take notice.

From post #291: Actually it does. The argument against says that life isn't governed by this law. How about the creation of life? I'm not arguing about the process of evolution, as I pointed out above. I am arguing about its beginning. Where does life begin? For the strict evolutionist, there comes a point where one moment there wasn't life and the next there is... THIS violates the 2nd Law of Thermo. I agree life is an open system. However, before there was life, there was entropy. It certainly violates the 2nd Law of Thermo that complex life could come from a system evolving toward inert uniformity.

Here's a hint: the origin of life is not part of the ToE

Barbra Streisand. Every pro-evo who denies a creator's hand has some theory they lean on to explain the origins of life. It is these I am attacking. As I said at the start of this conversation, that God chose to use evolution or simply selective adaptation doesn't bother my faith a bit. However, if a pro-evo doesn't believe in God, God's creation violates their very core and they will find something, anything else to believe (like the nonsense I linked a couple of times to this thread).