Posted on 08/14/2002 5:04:42 PM PDT by anncoulteriscool
Make liberals safe, legal and rare
Posted: August 14, 2002
6:45 p.m. Eastern
Whenever a liberal begins a peevish complaint with "of course, we all agree ..." your antennae should go up. This is how liberals couch statements they assume all Americans would demand they make, but which they secretly chafe at.
Liberal sophistry requires pretending they support, for example, sexual abstinence (for teenagers) and marriage (between heterosexuals); making abortion and drug use "rare"; America's winning the war on terrorism – and before that, winning the Cold War. Fascinatingly, their proposals for achieving these goals are invariably the opposite of what any normal person might think would work.
Instead of punishing bad behavior and rewarding good behavior, liberals often feel it is the better part of valor to reward bad behavior and punish good behavior. Of course, we all agree that Fidel Castro is a bad man. That's why we need to lift travel restrictions and trade with Cuba! Of course, we all agree that abortion should be "rare." That's why all reasonable regulations of abortion must be fought against like wild banshees! (One proven method of making something "rare" is to make it illegal.)
Their comically counterintuitive positions are inevitably backed up with long, complicated explanations about the dire risk of encouraging "hard-liners," the enemy's "paranoia," or clever points such as "teenagers will have sex anyway." The arguments not only make no sense ab initio, but openly contradict one another.
While pretending to oppose drug use, the New York Times has supported programs to give addicts needles, referring in a 1998 editorial to "some interesting new ideas" such as "needle exchanges." In the case of cigarettes, however, liberals enthusiastically embrace the otherwise mystifying concept of punishing bad behavior.
Thus, the Times has cheered on Mayor Michael Bloomberg's obsessive desire to outlaw smoking, referring to his proposed ban on smoking in bars as an attempt to close "a major loophole in the city's anti-smoking law." Aren't people going to smoke anyway? Why not make smoking "safe, legal and rare" – just like abortion?
The liberal clergy at the Times have criticized sex education programs that purport to discourage sexual activity among teenagers, while unaccountably neglecting to hand out condoms and scented candles.
Times theater critic Frank Rich has rhapsodically supported Joycelyn Elders' genius idea of teaching children to masturbate: "The more people talk about masturbation, the more fears can be dispelled among those young people." (Thirteen-year-old boys could probably teach him a few tricks.)
So it was striking that a recent op-ed piece in the Times opposed a Bush administration's plan to encourage marriage. Needless to say, it included the ritualistic disclaimer: "Of course, none of this is to say that marriage is not a wonderful institution." It seems that, in this one case, "we don't need government programs to convince people ... that marriage is good for them."
We do, however, urgently need government programs to teach them that dying of AIDS is bad for them. (At least, we finally have the left on record opposing some federal government program other than national defense and an independent counsel investigating a Democrat.)
Currently, liberals pretend to be rooting for America in the war on terrorism. To show their support, they oppose America doing anything. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said: "We are all prepared to give the men and women in law enforcement the latitude necessary to protect our nation." Despite what "we all" support, Durbin said using appearance to sort potential terrorists from non-terrorists "reflects not only poor judgment, but poor law enforcement."
Really? Which law enforcement experts concluded that surveilling angry Middle Eastern men with smoke pouring out of their trousers would be "poor law enforcement"? Seems unlikely. For some reason, liberals think it's fun to give Arab terrorists a chance.
Democrats claim to support invading Iraq – just not yet! As the Associated Press recently reported, "the Democrats always preface comments on Iraq with a general statement that Saddam must go." Of course, we all agree that Saddam must go. But first – there are many worthless objections to be raised.
Sore loser Al Gore has said that before invading Iraq we need to establish peace in the Mideast, create a perfect Jeffersonian democracy in Afghanistan, and get the American-hating French and Germans on board. Also invent cold fusion and put a man on Mars. Then will the time be ripe for a pre-emptive attack!
Liberals also carped pointlessly about the war in Afghanistan last fall. Their principal complaint was that we were going to lose. Among many, many other liberals, columnist Maureen Dowd raised the specter of Vietnam and called Afghanistan "another quagmire." She said that Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem "may be the last to know that Afghanistan is a stubborn and durable place."
After we routed the Taliban approximately five minutes later, Dowd said, "The liberation of Afghanistan is a wonderful thing, of course." Of course. And something you said we couldn't do.
"Of course, we all agree" always means liberals don't agree, but are under no illusions about the popularity of what they really believe.
Rape? Drug use? Robbery?
You really don't have a clue do you? Is your Context out to lunch? Have you, Smarty Pants, got a better idea of how to stop these heinious crimes...Oh yes, I forgot YOU'RE the SAVIOR of mankind, not Yahweh.
What got your knickers all in a twist, Newbie?
How does one rise to such power in such a short time?
They would look at each other in disbelief, but no one would say a thing. The libs learn from the master.
What she does, she does very well. And I realize the NYT is the table-setter for a lot of their journailistic brethren. But really, how difficult is it to cut the words of Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and that old coot who recently retired (forget his name right now) at the NYT to ribbons so everyone can see how shallow and slanted they are?You are right. While it IS important to regularly pummel the (unfortunately) powerful "Old Gray Lady" as frequently as is practical, Ann COULD also focus her ire elsewhere occasionally.Just once, I'd like to see her spend a whole column castrating William Raspberry or Ted Turner or Peter Jennings like she can the Times. Just for the change of pace.
And, since she often lurks here, and generally respects the advice given to her by fellow FReepers, now perhaps she will - in her COLUMNS.
Even the Washington comPost agrees that she has already done so in her BOOK:
...Some people think of pundit Ann Coulter as a razor-tongued right-winger. But in her latest book, "Slander," she's a human Uzi -- spraying a volley of invective at members of the media establishment.(Note that - as per the court order - this is an excerpt, not full text, from the WP.)Among those who come under heavy fire -- for allegedly spreading what Coulter labels "liberal lies about the American Right" -- are "Today" show anchors Katie Couric and Matt Lauer; U.S. News & World Report owner Mort Zuckerman and his one-time girlfriend, feminist icon Gloria Steinem; the New York Times's ArthurSulzberger, Howell Raines and Maureen Dowd; and our Post colleague Howard Kurtz...
Drug use is heinious (sic)?
Does it ever occur to drug warriors
that by criminalizing something so trivial
as smoking marijuana, they are making
scofflaws and criminals out of millions
of Americans? And that disregard of
law leads to the very coarsening of
society the drugs warriors cite as
reasons for needing more and tougher
laws? Drop the ridiculous pot laws
and watch heinous criminality be
reduced. Then look at the other
victimless crimes and see what
other vicious circles are operating.
And FOR whom?
And FOR whom?
I hope you forgot your sarcasm tag and aren't really asking
this as a serious question. If you are serious, please see a mental health
professional soon.
Robbery is rare? Drug use is rare?
Someone needs to see a mental
health professional, alright. But it
isn't me.
That's why I will be voting AGAINST my Republican Congressman in a couple of weeks.
Wonderful. I have been looking forward to another 2 years of Daschle as Senate Majority Leader (Supported by Leahy as Judiciary Chairman and Kennedy as Labor Chairman) and 2 years of Gephardt as Speaker of the House (Supported by Conyers as Judiciary Chairman and Rangle as Ways & Means Chairman).
And don't give me any of that "I have the right to vote for whomever I want." If you know the consequences of your actions, you are responsible for those consequences.
OK, I won't give you any of that. I'll just sit here and wait for you to give me the benefit of your infinite wisdom by instructing me how to vote.
I'm shocked to discover that Al Gore hasn't already invented cold fusion!
Great Coulter column, as usual....
Stay off this web site. Liberal!
In fairness, the poster isn't necessarily a liberal, since Republicans aren't necessarily conservatives. The Republican Party traditionally has been the home of conservatives, but our movement does have a lot of housecleaning to do in the party.
And Ann, are you really going to be the country's first woman president??
Heinous, dag gum that creative spelling dictionary!!!
Look, I realize some of us want to go thru life Stoned and Stupid and that's not heinous, but it leads down a path that can be harmful to others on so many other levels!
I would say that it's in our best interest to make drug use rare, completely making it illegal...or would you prefer to hand out those needles for addicts to become more dependant on your tax dollars because they can't hold a job or you have to pay their medical bills because of their abusing use of drugs .
I had an employee that I had to almost fire because he was coming to work stoned all the time, he could hardly function.
This would be better, to make Ghanja legal so legally more could get stoned and try to function normally on their jobs?
Yeah, that makes a whole lot more sense...NOT!
WWWWWWHAT, is that gold underline for under Medical Bills???
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.