Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
“I Hate Ann Coulter” showed up in the mail last night, in fulfillment of my Amazon order. It’s dedicated to Ms. Coulter herself, “whom we love like O.J. loved Nicole”; a teeny-tiny book with huge type written by “Unanimous” and I’m wondering if you can make a lot of money writing a book under the nom de plume of Unanimous. I don’t see why not. Maybe I should give it a try sometime.
I’m left with the impression that the bar has been lowered for writing books, although I must say pp. 35-40 were pretty funny. Nevertheless, the book’s fatal flaw is that it begins with a premise that Ann Coulter owes someone, perhaps everyone, some sort of apology for doing a lot of stuff…and then the book proceeds, with unintentional irony, to do exactly that stuff. So you can’t take it seriously by any means. But in all fairness, you aren’t supposed to take it seriously. Not completely. “Unanimous” does appear to labor under the delusion he’s got some kind of a valid beef here, and that’s a problem.
Anyway, the bathroom scale had said unkind things to me so I was taking a long, incendiary bath trying to melt the lard off my body. During said bath I chopped through half the book rather effortlessly. At the end of it, the radio guys explored in some depth Gloria Allred’s quasi-legal shenanigans with regard to the fellas who were oh so injured by Michael Richards, including quotes from the lawyer in red herself…and I was left thinking. I believe I know why the writer is “Unanimous.” It is impossible for me to track the guy down and find out what he thinks of Gloria Allred.
I would really like to know.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
If the author doesn’t know the difference between “unanimous” and “anonymous” – or if he/she thinks that’s hilariously funny – that might be a clue to the book itself, doncha think??!
- aup | 12/02/2006 @ 20:41It would appear to be the second of those two. The last sentence on the back cover is “Unanimous is all of us, stateside and abroad, who have come to our senses and want Ann Coulter out of our lives.”
And yet, it isn’t that. There are many passages throughout the book identifying those who “love Ann Coulter” as being part of the problem. There are lots of passages where Ann Coulter is unable to get a boyfriend; there are other passages calling out what a slut she is. Still others demonstrate that “Unanimous” has her all figured out — she’s a man.
“Unanimous” is hopelessly confused. Cognitive dissonance abounds.
It’s a jokebook. But it’s a little bit more than that. It’s instructions on what to think. Cherry-picked factoids. I’m guessing the mission statement is to disseminate anti-Coulter talking points to use in case a fellow Coulter-hater is cornered by (or corners) a Coulter fan. But it doesn’t quite succeed at this, because wherever an exhaustive review of the facts would make Ms. Coulter look good, or exonerate her…only the anti-Coulter bits of evidence are allowed to percolate through. If the Coulter fan happens to have a decent command of the facts in that given situation, the Coulter-critic is set up for failure and embarrassment. So in that sense, it’s almost a hazard.
Of my own views, I’ll only say this. Anybody who “hates” Ann Coulter but sees nothing wrong with Gloria, has some serious problems. Coulter’s mouth-brain connection may be the focus of legitimate debate, but Allred has a black, black heart, and no soul.
- mkfreeberg | 12/02/2006 @ 21:07