House of Eratosthenes

Anyone else notice how difficult it has become to simply make a point, and have that point considered on its merits? Or, when someone else makes a point, to consider that point on its merits alone? Sure you can still do it, but not while remaining tuned in to the broader debate-at-large; somehow you need to wear earplugs. It seems distraction, consternation, theatrical indignation are more the order of the day.

In her new book, Ann Coulter has pointed out some of the 9/11 widows who would like to point out what a doddering dunderhead our current President is, and are using their widowed status to give some extra boost to that message, seem to be enjoying their newfound celebrity status a little too much. Many an attack has followed against Coulter none of which, to the best I can ascertain, have to do with the merits of what she said. NBC Anchor Brian Williams introduced a segment with,

“just when you think that it seems that there are no limits on anything, someone comes along and makes a comment that goes over the line � the line that is shared by just about everybody because some things are, it turns out, still sacred.”

The Hartford Courant intoned in an editorial that Coulter should apologize, leaving unmentioned exactly what might happen to anyone, Coulter included, should she fail to do so:

To make such cruel and tasteless statements offends the memory of all who died in the World Trade Center attacks. Republicans and Democrats across the country been quick to condemn the remarks. Ms. Coulter should apologize for her outrageously insensitive comments.

Clearly, there’s some kind of line that can be crossed, and to suppose that such a line remains static throughout the decades would be ludicrous. Yet if there’s some kind of process by which we get to vote on where that line is, I must be missing the registration forms and sample ballots. No, this line is for the elites to draw…in such a way as to serve the whims of the aristocracy.

In 21st-century America. Who’d have thunk it.

And now two assemblywomen in New Jersey, home state of the women so described in Coulter’s book, have called for a boycott. That’s right, a boycott.

Assemblywomen Call For Boycott Of New Coulter Book

Two state lawmakers are calling on New Jerseyans to boycott a book by conservative commentator Ann Coulter that calls some outspoken nine-eleven widows “The Witches of East Brunswick.”

Democratic Assemblywomen Joan Quigley and Linda Stender say Coulter’s characterizations and remarks are motivated by greed and her desire to sell books.

In “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” Coulter writes that a group of New Jersey widows whose husbands perished in the World Trade Center act “as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them.”

Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza have spent the years since the 2001 terror attacks supporting an independent commission to examine government failures. During the 2004 presidential race, they endorsed Democrat John Kerry.

This is exactly what I was writing about here and here. What do we have here, four 9/11 widows who happen to be Kerry supporters, or four Kerry supporters who happen to be 9/11 widows? Those are two manifestly different situations.

Some three thousand people were killed on September 11, 2001. It ought to be pretty damn easy to find someone who a) supported George W. Bush right up to and including 9/10/11; b) lost a close relative during the attacks; c) learned something in those attacks, or subsequent attacks, causing them to change their mind. That should be easy. I’m sure there’s someone like that somewhere.

Those who seek to proliferate the message, have chosen not to do that. Chosen not to do that. We are left wondering about my question: What’s the real motive? Could it be this is just an innovative way to spread the message?

Coulter has offered a sound theory as to why this choice was made: To make the designated victim bullet-proof. The women about whom Coulter was writing, and their supporters, seek a monologue in the disguise of a dialogue. They have something to say, and they want zero challenges, zero disagreement, zero discussion. So to promulgate the ideas, spokesmen are selected who bear stories of grief, and with them, auras of invincibility. The spokesmen speak, and in our “quasi-free-speech” society, anyone with any reputation to protect whatsoever, is for all practical purposes prohibited from saying anything in reply.

The theory makes sense. And now energy is spent to keep it from resonating. The New York Times — refusing to consider Coulter’s message on its merits — says “Without the total package, Ms. Coulter would be just one more nut living in Mom’s basement. You can accuse her of cynicism all you want, but the fact that she is one of the leading political writers of our age says something about the rest of us.” Leonard Pitts writing for my local newspaper The Sacramento Bee, says “The nation’s political discourse has never been as polite and decorous as we like to think…When, however, even widows become fair game for a viperous harridan with an ax to grind and books to sell, maybe decent people should wonder at the lines we have crossed and the type of nation we have become in the process.”

Ah…so “news” isn’t about telling me what’s going on in the world, now it’s about rapping me on the knuckles if I choose to learn of these events from the wrong people.

To the extent that the effort to silence Coulter involves the free exchange of ideas, I support the effort. I even support their right to boycott, to the extent it involves an exhortation to others to join the boycott. The thing of it is, and it’s a big thing: Logically, in order to support this, I must also support Ann Coulter’s right, and her ability, to say what she said. As well as the ability of others to hear what she has to say, should they so choose.

In other words, supporting Freedom of Speech up to, and including, the point where it actually leads to a reasoned discussion of ideas. And whether or not someone lost somebody close to them in the attacks, or in the war, or in anything else, does nothing to diminish this. If this crosses some kind of “line”…let me be the first to state that obvious. Lines have been crossed. Decorum has been lost. People have been made to feel bad to make other people feel good. Products have been sold, involving excruciatingly personal events that certain people might find offensive.

People have eaten bugs on television in order to get ratings. Couples have been sent to islands with good-looking studs and strumpets on said islands, so that temptation can split them up. The parents of our war casualties — the ones that are pro-war — have been ignored, methodically, while Cindy Sheehan preaches on her soapbox endlessly. We have consumed things that raise reasonable questions about what kind of society we really are. All this stuff is “line-crossing,” and it has been going on for a long time now. It’s a little late to be taking ourselves to the woodshed over things like this; if Ann Coulter has awakened somebody somewhere, I have to ask what kind of a nap they have been having.

So let her have her say. If this is disreputable talk, it is reflects on nobody except her. If she’s wrong, let her talk all the more freely, for this would be the best way to point out how wrong she is.

Yeah, that’s pretty radical. Pretty looney-tunes on my part. Heady stuff.

We could call it my nutty little “Freedom of speech is for everybody” idea.

I’m wondering, in fact, why anyone would disagree. Why use the phony outrage to duct-tape Ann Coulter’s mouth? Sure her voice is shrill, but the same is true of many other pundits, some of them even more prominent than Ann. Why boycott this? What are you hiding?

MKF,
Dumb and dumber.
In a joint press release issued Friday, New Jersey Assemblywomen Joan Quigley and Linda Stender say they want New Jersey retailers to “ban the sale of [Coulter’s] book throughout the state.” They went on to say �”No one in New Jersey should buy this book and allow Ann Coulter to profit from her hate-mongering. We are asking New Jersey retailers statewide to stand with us and express their outrage by refusing to carry or sell copies of Coulter’s book. Her hate-filled attacks on our 9-11 widows has no place on New Jersey bookshelves.”

Well now, since that proposal met with a rather cold reception, we in NJ now have these two Libs calling for a general boycott of the book. Screw them. I just ordered my copy, thank you.

You see here is the problem with these two banana heads; PROFIT. The tactic of the left in creating unassailable victims, who can say or promote any thing they want, is getting too transparent and a little to old. But that�s just OK with the left. Look at the fauh outrage all over the soon to be extinct legacy media over this book.

I live in NJ. I knew a number of people who were killed in the attack on the WTC. My son, who lives a block or two away, just off Liberty Street, lost his car and most of his stuff in his apartment. These facts give me no voice in promoting my views around here, nor should they.

You know, when I think about Cindy Sheehan, the only thing that comes to mind is �ugly�. Now, granted, she can�t do a whole lot about her physical appearance without a lot of surgery, the problem is that she is ugly from her skin to her soul. I can�t condone her hiding behind the loss of her son to promote her mindless attacks on the President and our guys and gals in uniform. What the hell would her son say?

It�s no different for �The Jersey Girls�.
RR
- RunningRoach | 06/12/2006 @ 09:38

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Outrage! IIMonday, June 12th, 2006

Outrage! II
Monday, June 12th, 2006