Sunday, March 17, 2002.
You like irony? Here’s some irony. At the same time as I’m writing this column I’m seriously considering canceling my subscription to the State Journal-Register. No, not really, although if I believed it would accomplish anything, I might.
Why, you ask? Here’s why. As of Friday, November 8, I can no longer in good conscience justify paying the salary of one Ann Coulter in order to read the rest of the paper.
You like irony? Here’s some irony. At the same time as I’m writing this column I’m seriously considering canceling my subscription to the State Journal-Register. No, not really, although if I believed it would accomplish anything, I might.
Why, you ask? Here’s why. As of Friday, November 8, I can no longer in good conscience justify paying the salary of one Ann Coulter in order to read the rest of the paper.
I know. She’s been maligned – and defended – more than the rest of the columnists combined who contribute to the editorial pages of this paper. I’m also privy to the fact that for every letter to the editor about her published on these pages there are several that never see the light of day. What could I possibly add to the dialogue – at article length, no less – that hasn’t been argued, and counter-argued, already?
Call it no new information but the accumulation of evidence. Call it critical mass. Call it the culmination of distortions, incoherency, cheap shots, inflammatory nonsense, preposterous assertions, exploitation of tragedy, baseness, baselessness, exaggeration, and, yes, SLANDER. The self-appointed prosecutor of Liberals/Democrats (AKA the Baby-Killing, Boy Scout-Hating, Adultery Party) has finally revealed herself to all but the most die-hard, self-delusional reader as a fraud. Coulter is a phony who doesn’t buy her own hype but expects her dim-witted audience not to see through it.
Wow. That sounds a lot like Bill Clinton.
Is she diabolical? Is she demented? Is she both? Yes, and more. Coulter is cynical enough to carve an extreme ideological niche in order to call attention to herself far more than the position she espouses. Statements such as “Liberals love to lie,” “Love of abortion is the one irreducible minimum of the Democratic Party,” and “The only moral compass liberals have is their own will to power” beg NO response. They speak not for themselves but for Coulter’s motives and tactics. Shock journalism devoid of substance warrants no space in my – in our – newspaper.
Of course, Coulter could have as easily taken the other extreme. She could have just as arbitrarily aligned herself with the far left (and, accordingly, adjusted her appearance to achieve the same contradictory effect), then tossed out such phrases as “war-loving, environment-trashing Republicans,” “The peasants are revolting; quick, throw them some crumbs,” and “The only moral compass conservatives have is their own will to power.” It would have been just as jolting, just as disconcerting, and just as offensive, regardless of one’s political inclinations. And it would have made the same difference to her since, as she is well aware, the absolute value of negative attention is attention.
Coulter’s “irreducible minimum” is to attack the other side’s ideology until she renders both sides moot. At that point all the discerning reader can hear is her screaming, “Look at me. Notice me.” This is outrage-mongering, not to be confused with thoughtful discourse. What she’s thinking is so loud we can’t hear what she’s saying unless, of course, all we want from her is a dirty bomb to drop on those dangerous, hypocritical lefties.
It’s pitiful, really, to behold the twisted mind exposed, which is no reason to continue to support her financially or otherwise. Which is why, after her “Democrats should change their name” column, I’m calling on the SJ-R to cancel Ann Coulter, effective immediately, to fire her on the grounds of disingenuous ugliness. To those who will object that there aren’t enough conservatives represented in our paper, I point out that we still have Robert Novak, Jack Kemp, William Safire, and George Will, all eloquent and sincere voices on the right, all with far superior writing skills.
Anyway, that’s not the point. The point is she has no political agenda. She’s not about truth but self-glorification. Meanwhile, the longer this and other newspapers continue to syndicate her column, the more emboldened she becomes. For my money, I say let readers of other newspapers watch her spin further and further out of control until she leaves the earth’s orbit entirely.
The farther she careens from reason, from reasonability, from sanity, the farther she ultimately falls. But we shouldn’t have to pay to see it happen.
Call it no new information but the accumulation of evidence. Call it critical mass. Call it the culmination of distortions, incoherency, cheap shots, inflammatory nonsense, preposterous assertions, exploitation of tragedy, baseness, baselessness, exaggeration, and, yes, SLANDER. The self-appointed prosecutor of Liberals/Democrats (AKA the Baby-Killing, Boy Scout-Hating, Adultery Party) has finally revealed herself to all but the most die-hard, self-delusional reader as a fraud. Coulter is a phony who doesn’t buy her own hype but expects her dim-witted audience not to see through it.
Wow. That sounds a lot like Bill Clinton.
Is she diabolical? Is she demented? Is she both? Yes, and more. Coulter is cynical enough to carve an extreme ideological niche in order to call attention to herself far more than the position she espouses. Statements such as “Liberals love to lie,” “Love of abortion is the one irreducible minimum of the Democratic Party,” and “The only moral compass liberals have is their own will to power” beg NO response. They speak not for themselves but for Coulter’s motives and tactics. Shock journalism devoid of substance warrants no space in my – in our – newspaper.
Of course, Coulter could have as easily taken the other extreme. She could have just as arbitrarily aligned herself with the far left (and, accordingly, adjusted her appearance to achieve the same contradictory effect), then tossed out such phrases as “war-loving, environment-trashing Republicans,” “The peasants are revolting; quick, throw them some crumbs,” and “The only moral compass conservatives have is their own will to power.” It would have been just as jolting, just as disconcerting, and just as offensive, regardless of one’s political inclinations. And it would have made the same difference to her since, as she is well aware, the absolute value of negative attention is attention.
Coulter’s “irreducible minimum” is to attack the other side’s ideology until she renders both sides moot. At that point all the discerning reader can hear is her screaming, “Look at me. Notice me.” This is outrage-mongering, not to be confused with thoughtful discourse. What she’s thinking is so loud we can’t hear what she’s saying unless, of course, all we want from her is a dirty bomb to drop on those dangerous, hypocritical lefties.
It’s pitiful, really, to behold the twisted mind exposed, which is no reason to continue to support her financially or otherwise. Which is why, after her “Democrats should change their name” column, I’m calling on the SJ-R to cancel Ann Coulter, effective immediately, to fire her on the grounds of disingenuous ugliness. To those who will object that there aren’t enough conservatives represented in our paper, I point out that we still have Robert Novak, Jack Kemp, William Safire, and George Will, all eloquent and sincere voices on the right, all with far superior writing skills.
Anyway, that’s not the point. The point is she has no political agenda. She’s not about truth but self-glorification. Meanwhile, the longer this and other newspapers continue to syndicate her column, the more emboldened she becomes. For my money, I say let readers of other newspapers watch her spin further and further out of control until she leaves the earth’s orbit entirely.
The farther she careens from reason, from reasonability, from sanity, the farther she ultimately falls. But we shouldn’t have to pay to see it happen.