Mr. Dobbs is a member of the Church of the Sub-Genius
Posted on 01/12/2004 2:30:42 AM PST by kattracks
Ms. Coulter makes statements which simultaneously sound outrageous--and are plainly true.In the article alluded to above, she called for an invasion of all Moslem countries with the goal of converting their one-billion inhabitants to Christianity--two days after 9/11! Plainly true? Satire? Was "satire" possible in the wake of 9/11? Oh, I see, I was supposed to roll about on the floor convulsed with laughter at yet another of her "penetrating insights." My mistake.
That column by Ms. Coulter was her subtle way of telling muslims that if 911 was a joke, she didn't get it.And of telling you to gut it up because 911 was not a joke.
Bottom line: criticism of Ann post-911 column is so 9/10.
There is no gainsaying the fact the people are reacted to based on their appearance. That is why TV is such a terrible medium for political discussion. (If you could see my handsome profile right now, you would be so dazzled that you would not be able to concentrate on the elegant logic of my words!)And herein lies the appeal of Coulter. No, it's not her ferocious powers of intellection, which consist largely of hyperbole, ad hominems, and non sequiturs held loosely together with sticky tape. She's pretty. She writes what she's knows you want to hear. It's a brilliant schtick. Imitators, seeing the six-figure book deals she gets, will multiply like toadstools. When confronted by enthusiasts, skepticism is a virtue.I heard and saw on TV a woman spouting outrageous "family planning" propaganda a couple of years ago, and I was struck by the fact that what sounded reasonable coming from an attractive woman would have sounded contemptible in the mouth of a man.
It is no good trying to impress me with hypercritical parsing of obvious hyperbole. Cynicism is no virtue, and that is what I see in your words. There was one page in Treason that I didn't understand, and didn't understand why she wanted to make whatever point she was going for. But that aside, I consider it thoughtful and well written.Typically she makes an argument, and you want to think that "the truth lies somewhere in the middle"--but she anticipates that reaction and skewers it with ridicule, and you are left with no defense. Of course if you're an outright liberal, your response to that is to make a lying claim that her argument was flawed--when your real beef is that she is pointing out the truth.
She gets away with saying things that a man wouldn't--but since she's usually pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, that is not altogether a bad thing.
If I take a bath can I join your country club?
You may be young, but some of us are old enough to remember the political climate being plenty toxic before Ms. Coulter was ever on TV or ever published anything.Do you believe that all liberals are mentally ill? Is there a difference between being wrong and being mentally ill?The reason for that is not "nasty conservatives" but journalism. The trouble with journalism is that it fits Reagan's description of big government--"It's like a baby--all demanding and complaining on one end, and a complete lack of responsibility on the other." And carrying on a Socratic dialog with a baby only gets you so far.
In the bad old days before Reagan was a serious candidate for president, Democrats and Republicans had different positions on the deficit than they do now. Back then, Republicans thought it was conservative to raise tax rates to cover government spending with revenue without regard to the effect of tax rates on the economy. Democrats wanted to spend and didn't worry about responsibility for taxes. The Republicans were so eager to "balance the budget" that they put the Democrats in the catbird seat--Democrats got credit for the pork barrel, and Republicans were stuck with the responsibility of the taxes.
It was a real racket, and explains a lot about the weakness of the Republican Party in Congress (40 years in the wilderness).
During the Ford Administration, Congressman Jack Kemp stepped up and said that the reason government revenue was low wasn't because tax rates were too low, but because they were too high. And the only solution for the stagnation of the time was to cut tax rates in the teeth of the deficit (exactly as the solution for a truck's slowing down while going uphill is not to shift to a higher gear but may be to downshift to a lower one). Ford (and certainly Jimmy Carter) never took the clue, and we suffered through the seventies until Reagan adopted Kemp's diagnosis of the economy. Which was by then not only stagnated but beginning to hyperinflate.
With the success of Reagan-Kemp-Roth the Democrats lost their electoral gravy train. And since people become Democrat politicians because they lust after power (a disease that Republicans tend to acquire drinking the water in Washington), the loss of that gravy train has made them bitter, dead-end, rule-or-ruin types of the Hillary persuason.
Do I believe that Dean's voters would rather see America defeated in Iraq and another 911 in America than to see Bush reelected? Yes. Is that mental illness? You tell me.All I know is that Socratic dialog doesn't work when the other guy is unwilling to answer a reasonable question reasonably because he knows where an honest answer would lead. And that having someone tell the truth with the bark on is the only thing you can do at that point. Otherwise you end up negotiating with yourself--you are the only one who concedes anything.
While you're chewing on food for thought, consider the possibility that she just really believes what she says.
Stranger things have happened.
Nobody tought William F. Buckley was trying to hard, but perhaps that was because it took so much effort to understand him. Maybe, if Ann is trying "too hard" at anything, it's trying too hard to be approachable by the masses who will always prefer liberalism because it's the gutless solution.
Shalom.
Mr. Dobbs is a member of the Church of the Sub-Genius
And that is THE bottomline regarding Ann Coulter -- "logic," of which NO ONE has been able to refute. And from not in the least, Shakespearean trolls.
BTW, great post.
The most devastating answer I've yet heard to the question: "Does liberalism = mental illness?"
Yes.And many Freepers have substantive problems with David Horiwitz's problems.
Do I believe that Dean's voters would rather see America defeated in Iraq and another 911 in America than to see Bush reelected? Yes. Is that mental illness? You tell me.You came to the wrong guy for a defense of Dean's enthusiasts. I'm interested in the general issue of the psychological/epistemological status of false convictions and took issue with Coulter's ex cathedra pronouncement. Labeling subversives as "mentally ill" is common practice in some countries (China). I'm opposed to it in principle until actual medical evidence says otherwise. Our disagreement may be regarding the definition of "insane," which is probably best saved for another year ;0)
I think we can agree that support for Dean is not limited to people who are sufficiently delusional as to evoke actual pity, and that you don't go around trying to round such people up and subject them to psychotropic drugs.And that Dean must not be elected president of the United States.
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.