Posted on 06/13/2006 3:02:44 PM PDT by Mike Bates
In the controversy over Ann Coulter's comments about the group of 9/11 widows, there is one critical question, from the point of view of ensuring standards of accuracy in the media. How does Coulter know it to be true that, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." There is no evidence whatsoever that those women enjoyed their husbands' deaths, and Coulter offers none. The only "evidence" for this preposterous and hurtful claim is that the women became activists and sought the media spotlight and took a political position at odds with that of Coulter. But what does that prove?
I think Coulter probably would have been correct to say that the women appeared to enjoy the media attention. You don't go on these shows unless you enjoy them to some degree. But enjoying a death? And the death of a loved one when fatherless children were left behind? Coulter's comments are not only false but cruel. She has also made other disparaging personal comments about the women.
In journalism, facts and truth are supposed to matter. Opinions are allowed, and Coulter, a columnist for Human Events and many other newspapers, is entitled to her own opinions.
SNIP
If the matter only involved personal opinions about people or things, Coulter's comments wouldn't really be newsworthy or significant. But she is claiming to have inside knowledge of the personal psychology of this group of women who lost their husbands on 9/11. That is why the comments have generated so much outrage—except from a few conservatives unwilling to criticize her.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
That's silly nonsense. You are proceeding from the false premise that the most important factor we must use in evaluating the "Coulter issue" is "style"; it is not. The most important factor is "truth".
Although we might not like the "invective" of Moore, Maher and Carville, we don't battle them because they offend us or hurt our feelings. We battle them because they LIE about important matters which will eventually destroy our country if their lies are allowed to prevail.
They lie; Coulter tells the truth. That is the essential criterion. Style may be important to some of us, but it won't matter one whit to history.
You're just saying that 'cause it's true...
Well then, what was the "truth" to be found in her surmising on Hannity and Colmes: "How do we know that their (The Jersey Girls) husbands weren't going to divorce them before 9/11?"
What was Ann's truth there? What dirty thing was she more than intimating there? Wasn't that invective at it's worst on her part? Commenting like that on these women's personal relationships with their killed husbands, to me, was as despicable an the left's disgusting remarks over the years. Was that necessary by her or at all in good taste?
In my opinion there was NO NEED for her to go there. Her point about the "protected victims" being used to spout liberal bull had already been made.
She had previously made her point, and had made it very well ......... she had them all squirming already, but her immaturity (or whatever) made her go over into the gutter.
But, I'm rooting for her, she's very effective.
This one is still a good point, IMO.
The Jersey Girls' celebrity was based entirely on their marriage to men who died on 9/11 (in conjunction with their opposition to Republicans)... If they were divorced from these men, then there would be no reason to shower them with attention. Because they are basing their authority on the magnitude of their suffering that resulted from the deaths of their husbands, it seems legitimate to point out that IF their husbands were going to divorce them (and as Ann said, we don't know that they were), their authority falls apart.
The point is she should have never made that uncouth/vulgar speculation about divorce on national tv.
She showed very poor breeding (or just that good old greed) .......... PERIOD.
Now, you know that, I know you do.
;-)
I don't think so... I think the point being made is that, if you're going to base your authority on marriage, and if you're going to suggest that authority makes your point infallible, the logical conclusion to that is, to unseat your authority, that marriage may be brought under scrutiny.
Coulter wasn't the one who made their marriage the point. They did. That makes them, as you say, uncouth. Ann just correctly pointed out what that must lead to, as she often does.
Of course, Coulter goes to great length to explain the problems with suggesting a tragedy makes one an expert and unquestionable, but if we are to assume those terms (which the media, for all their huffing and puffing about the "enjoying" comment, do), then we have to understand their full implications.
Coulter did NOT say, "Their husbands were going to divorce them." She said (paraphrasing), "Assuming your premise is true, to counter your argument we then have to question the authenticity of their authority on these grounds."
LOL!!
Let's call it "Coultery", interjecting comment to arrest liberal mantra in an already inflamed argument.
Much like "cautery", use of a caustic agent or very hot or very cold instrument to destroy aberrant tissue.
Say you've been given the task of hiring an expert botanist to discover why your flowers are wilting earlier than they are supposed to. You've got a good background since you're an expert yourself, but you can't figure out why this is happening.
You get dozens of resumes from people around the area--all of them claim to be experts in flower diseases. You assume that everything on their resumes are relevant. If their claims are true, they would, indeed, be considered experts in the field you need them to be experts in.
Here's the question. Do you assume their claims on their resumes are correct, or do you do background checks to make sure?
Perhaps some of them bought degrees from unaccredited "diploma mills" and don't have the knowledge to plant a tulip. Perhaps some of them simply lied about their degree altogether.
Would it be "tasteless" to question these things, or would you consider it good judgment to determine whether or not they are, indeed, experts?
Similarly, we know these women were married. They imply that the suffering that could only result from the death of their husbands makes them experts on geopolitical affairs--so much so that we are not even allowed to question them; we are to give their opinions added weight because their husbands, whom they loved, died (which we all agree is terrible).
Well, then... Shouldn't we question whether or not their marriages were of the quality that would have resulted in such suffering?
I say, first of all, that their suffering doesn't make them experts or more worthy of being heard than anyone else. But if we were to assume their parameters, then would need to look at their supposed "expertise" to confirm that their suffering is authentic.
It's a reductio ad absurdum argument to demonstrate the overall point that assuming their suffering makes experts out of them leads to an absurd result.
Ann was a pig. She lowered herself and it will hurt her eventually. And, I really don't care. She's just a loud, and insecure woman to me right now ................ with a superior wit at times, but mostly on the written page.
On television she's perfectly terrible......... just another bewildered, giggling, farcical, argumentative human. She really needs to aim higher!
****
By the way, I prefer adults to make commentary on politics, life, and history. Will and Ariel Durant were my examples and continue to be. Their series "The History of Civilization" was and is brilliant.
You can keep the needy bomb throwers until they grow up just a little.
Very poor analogy.
As some old genius used to say to me.......... "comparisons are odious."
lol
I'm still waiting for my argument above to be refuted, but I understand that Ann isn't to your liking. This is true with several people I know personally.
I can't get enough of it. I think your reaction is a perfect demonstration of her reductio ad absurdum argument. Assuming the liberal's premise leads to a conclusion that conflicts with the other premise that you find so offensive (that it's poor taste to question whether or not their marriages were in good health).
Tell me how.
They do imply that? Baloney.
There you go again. You have jumped to another unprovable conclusion. You do not know why these four women have stepped forward to spew their inanities to all of us.
Personally I think it was the Democrat Party that lifted them out of their homes to lecture G.W. and the rest of the world.
Not worth the time....... gotta go back to the plants.
The Democrat Party/Media machine. Not just the party. The suffering of Republicans never seems to get them much airtime.
They do imply that? Baloney.
"They," being the Democrat Party/Media machine? Of course they do. That's the basis of this entire discussion that has so many conservatives saying "I agree with what she said, but I disagree with how she said it."
If you do determine that it is ever worth the time, you'll find me as one who listens to valid arguments with an open mind. I did not come by my opinions without consideration.
That's sheer foolishness. That's a conclusion on your part that is unprovable.
You are full of questions but you seldom answer a question.
Here is one for you. Do you think in a decent society a woman like Ann should challenge another woman's marriage with her husband after the husband's very unhappy death. If you think that is kosher, then you were raised by wolves.
I'm just getting tired of trying to impress on everyone that:
1. Ann is a fine and needed writer.
2. Ann made a great point TO THE WORLD that needed to be made about these pathetic "protected victims" the Dems. drag out.
3. Ann said things that were classless and repulsive when she needn't have.
4. Ann needs to grow up.
5. Ann will receive invective now that she should not have had to take if she would have been just a little smarter.
****
Rush and the nursery await.
Take care..................
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.