Ann Coulter is a Dangerous Bitch

There's a reason why Ann Coulter is dangerous. It's not because her name calling makes her a horrid role model for anyone in the public eye, or because her neo-anorexia is a potential health hazard for young women. It's not the snarky dismissive attitude to facts - it's because she promotes a false version of reality through her books and tv appearances. She's like a demented tinkerbell - all you have to do it "clap" and she continues to live in a lie and do everything she can to drag the rest of us into a world of bullshit. From Thinkprogress:

Last night on Hannity and Colmes, guest host Kirsten Powers confronted Ann Coulter about President Bush’s failure to capture Osama Bin Laden and the rapidly deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.

Coulter responded, “As for catching Osama, it’s irrelevant. Things are going swimmingly in Afghanistan.” Powers blasted Coulter for her answer. Coulter then abruptly decided to end her participation in the middle of the segment, saying, “OK, well, good night! It was nice being here.”

For Ms. Coulter’s benefit, here’s an update on the situation in the last couple of months in Afghanistan:

– Security situation is “close to anarchy.” Last month, a senior British military commander said “the situation is close to anarchy” in Afghanistan, and warned western forces were “running out of time” to meet expectations Afghanis have for their security.

– Discontent among Afghans is “boiling.” “After months of widespread frustration with corruption, the economy and a lack of justice and security,” the New York Times reported that “doubts about President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, and by extension the American-led effort to rebuild that nation, have led to a crisis of confidence.”

– Opium production is at record levels. “Opium cultivation in Afghanistan has hit record levels - up by more than 40 percent from 2005 - despite hundreds of millions in counternarcotics money,” the Associated Press reported. “The increase could have serious repercussions for an already grave security situation, with drug lords joining the Taliban-led fight against Afghan and international forces.”

Crooks and Liars has more.

Video-WMP Video-QT

I think the view that "Osama is Irrelevant" is very interesting considering we just had a British Plane Bombing plot foiled that is identical to one sponsored by Osama in 1994. What a coinky-dink? More from Media Matters:

In her August 23 column -- "http://townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=what_part_of_the_war_on_terrorism_do_they_support&ns=AnnCoulter&dt=08/23/2006&page=full&comments=true">What Part of the War on Terrorism Do They Support?" -- Coulter repeated the false claims that Democrats "oppose the National Security Agency listening to people who are calling specific phone numbers found on al-Qaida cell phones and computers" and "oppose the Patriot Act." Introducing Coulter on Your World, Buttner stated: "You do a great job in your editorial of ... listing it all out, and when you do, it's very interesting to see -- they're really good at saying what they're against, aren't they?" Buttner later appeared to concur with Coulter's false assertion that Democrats are "against every part of the war on terror," saying: "You've said it well. The problem is that the administration doesn't always go out there and sell this. It doesn't always go out there and say, 'What are the Democrats for in this war on terror?' " Buttner then asked Coulter: "Do you think the getting out there and selling themselves and fighting against the Democrats -- that finally we're going to get the Republicans out there to fight?"

There isn't a single Democrat in the House or Senate who doesn't support eavesdropping on terrorists - name one, I DARE YOU - all they want is for the President to abide by the law, and the constitution and request a FISA warrant first. Probable Cause and all that shit. In the 90's President Clinton sought the abilty to implement roving wiretaps to track terrorist, and other tools to track money launders, who finance terror but the Republican Controlled Congress tried to block these initiatives.

Clinton Anti-Terror Initiatives/ Republican Obstruction -

-- Republicans blocked 1995 bill provisions to allow swifter deportations and court viewing of sensitive evidence
-- Republican controlled congress blocked roving wire taps and new powers to monitor money laundering; Phil Gramm and others lead the effort
-- John Ashcroft and others rejected initiatives to tighten controls on encryption software (encryption used by 1993 bombers and 2001 terrorists)
-- Clinton created the FBI Counter terrorism Center and increased the counterterrorism budget from $78 million to $609 million in four years
-- Clinton signed a National Security Directive in 1998 to destroy al-Quada and seize or assassinate Bin Laden. Multiple assassination attempts were made
-- Clinton's CIA al-Quada unit thwarted bombing attempts in Los Angeles, New York, the UN, and the Israeli embassy in Washington DC. They also neutralized dozens of al-Queda cells overseas -- all of this without any fanfare, then or post 9/11.
-- Clinton was labeled by the Right's Robert Oakely as having an "obsession with Osama". Yet now Republicans attempt to claim Clinton, not Bush Jr, was soft on terrorism and ultimately responsible for 9/11

And even more detailed list of Clinton Era Terrorism success was recently posted Truthout by William Rivers Pitt.

Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently.

In America, few people heard anything about this. Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the massive non-secret actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The TV networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag The Dog" to accentuate the idea that everything the administration was doing was contrived fakery.

The difference is that Clinton didn't try to manipulate the populace through fear - he didn't trump of phony threat warnings every time something embarassing happened to his administration. (If fact, attacking Bin Laden as he did during the midst of the impeachment trial should have been called taking advantage of a "target of oppurtunity" or "decapitation strike" instead of an attempt to "wag the dog".) He simply did his best to get the job done - despite virilent Republican opposition to everything he attempted. The resistance of modern Democrats to George Bush initiatives - even the illegal ones - can hardly be called more than a mild speedbump.

There's a reason why Ann Coulter is dangerous. It's not because her name calling makes her a horrid role model for anyone in the public eye, or because her neo-anorexia is a potential health hazard for young women. It's not the snarky dismissive attitude to facts - it's because she promotes a false version of reality through her books and tv appearances. She's like a demented tinkerbell - all you have to do it "clap" and she continues to live in a lie and do everything she can to drag the rest of us into a world of bullshit. From Thinkprogress:

Last night on Hannity and Colmes, guest host Kirsten Powers confronted Ann Coulter about President Bush’s failure to capture Osama Bin Laden and the rapidly deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.

Coulter responded, “As for catching Osama, it’s irrelevant. Things are going swimmingly in Afghanistan.” Powers blasted Coulter for her answer. Coulter then abruptly decided to end her participation in the middle of the segment, saying, “OK, well, good night! It was nice being here.”

For Ms. Coulter’s benefit, here’s an update on the situation in the last couple of months in Afghanistan:

– Security situation is “close to anarchy.” Last month, a senior British military commander said “the situation is close to anarchy” in Afghanistan, and warned western forces were “running out of time” to meet expectations Afghanis have for their security.

– Discontent among Afghans is “boiling.” “After months of widespread frustration with corruption, the economy and a lack of justice and security,” the New York Times reported that “doubts about President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, and by extension the American-led effort to rebuild that nation, have led to a crisis of confidence.”

– Opium production is at record levels. “Opium cultivation in Afghanistan has hit record levels - up by more than 40 percent from 2005 - despite hundreds of millions in counternarcotics money,” the Associated Press reported. “The increase could have serious repercussions for an already grave security situation, with drug lords joining the Taliban-led fight against Afghan and international forces.”

Crooks and Liars has more.

Video-WMP Video-QT

I think the view that "Osama is Irrelevant" is very interesting considering we just had a British Plane Bombing plot foiled that is identical to one sponsored by Osama in 1994. What a coinky-dink? More from Media Matters:

In her August 23 column -- "http://townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=what_part_of_the_war_on_terrorism_do_they_support&ns=AnnCoulter&dt=08/23/2006&page=full&comments=true">What Part of the War on Terrorism Do They Support?" -- Coulter repeated the false claims that Democrats "oppose the National Security Agency listening to people who are calling specific phone numbers found on al-Qaida cell phones and computers" and "oppose the Patriot Act." Introducing Coulter on Your World, Buttner stated: "You do a great job in your editorial of ... listing it all out, and when you do, it's very interesting to see -- they're really good at saying what they're against, aren't they?" Buttner later appeared to concur with Coulter's false assertion that Democrats are "against every part of the war on terror," saying: "You've said it well. The problem is that the administration doesn't always go out there and sell this. It doesn't always go out there and say, 'What are the Democrats for in this war on terror?' " Buttner then asked Coulter: "Do you think the getting out there and selling themselves and fighting against the Democrats -- that finally we're going to get the Republicans out there to fight?"

There isn't a single Democrat in the House or Senate who doesn't support eavesdropping on terrorists - name one, I DARE YOU - all they want is for the President to abide by the law, and the constitution and request a FISA warrant first. Probable Cause and all that shit. In the 90's President Clinton sought the abilty to implement roving wiretaps to track terrorist, and other tools to track money launders, who finance terror but the Republican Controlled Congress tried to block these initiatives.

Clinton Anti-Terror Initiatives/ Republican Obstruction -

-- Republicans blocked 1995 bill provisions to allow swifter deportations and court viewing of sensitive evidence
-- Republican controlled congress blocked roving wire taps and new powers to monitor money laundering; Phil Gramm and others lead the effort
-- John Ashcroft and others rejected initiatives to tighten controls on encryption software (encryption used by 1993 bombers and 2001 terrorists)
-- Clinton created the FBI Counter terrorism Center and increased the counterterrorism budget from $78 million to $609 million in four years
-- Clinton signed a National Security Directive in 1998 to destroy al-Quada and seize or assassinate Bin Laden. Multiple assassination attempts were made
-- Clinton's CIA al-Quada unit thwarted bombing attempts in Los Angeles, New York, the UN, and the Israeli embassy in Washington DC. They also neutralized dozens of al-Queda cells overseas -- all of this without any fanfare, then or post 9/11.
-- Clinton was labeled by the Right's Robert Oakely as having an "obsession with Osama". Yet now Republicans attempt to claim Clinton, not Bush Jr, was soft on terrorism and ultimately responsible for 9/11

And even more detailed list of Clinton Era Terrorism success was recently posted Truthout by William Rivers Pitt.

Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently.

In America, few people heard anything about this. Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the massive non-secret actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The TV networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag The Dog" to accentuate the idea that everything the administration was doing was contrived fakery.

The difference is that Clinton didn't try to manipulate the populace through fear - he didn't trump of phony threat warnings every time something embarassing happened to his administration. (If fact, attacking Bin Laden as he did during the midst of the impeachment trial should have been called taking advantage of a "target of oppurtunity" or "decapitation strike" instead of an attempt to "wag the dog".) He simply did his best to get the job done - despite virilent Republican opposition to everything he attempted. The resistance of modern Democrats to George Bush initiatives - even the illegal ones - can hardly be called more than a mild speedbump.

Vyan

(Note: When this was posted yesterday on DKOS it caused quite a bruhaha over the use of the word "Bitch" in reference to Ann Coulter - I'm suspecting the response here might be different, but then again...)

With that adam's apple of hers she just might be a bastard.

You'll have the Crossgendered all on your ass for that one.

Besides, Men can be bitches 2. It's the 21 Century - free your mind.

Vyan

Now that is gender specific. To call a man a bitch is a subtle put down of what it means to be female. There are actually better insults then this for a nasty guy.

but that usage has changed with time. Calling a man a "Bitch" doesn't just mean he's "like a woman" - it more specific means he's weak, a person that caves in to pressure. I think women today are stronger than that, in fact the use of the word "Bitch" against a woman generally means she's "stronger than a man".

Vyan

It has nothing to do with gender.

Jerk/Arsehole...

perhap a "Jackal"?

her type of rhetoric was developed, no?

Beer houses in Germany in the 1920's and 30's.

Why would you come over here withe exact same title, knowing the response you got yesterday?

Why did you insist on calling her a bitch again? Seems to me like you are just looking for that reaction.

or possibly not. I'm wondering if that was purely a feeling at Kos, or is it more widespread?

Also, not all the response was negative - only at the beginning and as I said in the Update, my opinion of her and the use of the word hasn't changed. Dkos had rules against it, so I removed the word, I didn't agree with the critics. Still don't.

Do those rules exist here? Not sure. If they do fine - I've learned something about both places. If not? Same thing.

Vyan

unfortunately. Your point about Ms. Coulter can be made just as easily with different language. As it is, I won't even read your article, I tuned out when I saw the gender slur in the title.

but should it be?

Isn't that censorship?

Also I'm still amazed that people are that thin-skinned. I probably shouldn't be, but I am. I'm talking about a public figure here - and according to Falwell v Flint she's effectively fair game. It's the same thing with people going around and calling Tom Cruise "Crusazy" - (which I disagree with ) but it's open season.

It's not like she doesn't have a platform to defend herself.

Vyan

cry "censorship" when you get called on it. You may be free to write it, I'm just as free to criticize it.

I welcome it, both positive and negative. It's challenging and interesting.

I don't know if we really get into enough substantive discussions on these boards - it's all predominantly left wing people who generally agree on things. None of us agree with Coulter on anything - But what don't we agree on?

Meredeth Brooks released her song "Bitch", which took the word to mean female empowerment over 9 years ago - and this is still an issue? That's amazing to me.

I still think Coulter herself would consider it a compliment.

And went to #14 on the Adult Top 40, #34 on Hot/Dance Charts, #4 on Modern Rock, #2 on the Billboard Hot 100, and #1 Top 40 Mainstream.

You had to really not be listening to miss it.

Vyan

(Had to make a correction - the first chart was the "ADULT" Top 40)

was nearly 40 when she released this song, what makes you think her audience were all "maleable teens"?

I've got a song on my Radio Station by Meredeth Brooks called "Bitch" that says otherwise.

I know people that say otherwise, yes women.

Vyan

I have a feeling they wouldn't agree with her.
Does she also have a song telling us why it's OK to be called a 'ho'?

domestically abused by her first husband 20 years ago. So she's lived through exactly that scenario and dealth with an abusive bastard first hand.

You're presuming something that simply isn't true - YOUR view is the only view that is true or matters. There are other points of view on this subject. I'm not saying you're wrong - that the word can be used to hurt, but my view is that it's not the word that hurts, it's the intent and meaning that someone imparts it with and that can be reapplied to *ANY* word at any time.

Trying to cut certain words out of our language doesn't take away the hurt or the hate.

Vyan

to write a song to 'empower' herself, does not mean the rest of us have to agree.

But a lot of people clearly did. Enough to me make it a Number #1 HIt -- like "Who let the dogs out". (OK, real bad example...anyway..)

I think the point is this : There are those who are offended, and there are those who are NOT offended. Whose opinion do you think should have sway?

Vyan

:sarcasm:

I posted this on my own board a little while ago:

Yesterday I placed my latest Anti-Ann Coulter rant on Dkos - and because I refered to her as a "Bitch" - All Hell Broke Lose. Here's the update I had to include after changing the title.

Hm, I wrote my post, took a nap and while I was gone a shitstorm happened. Ok, people - I have CHANGED THE TITLE. Obstensibly because of Rule 7. That one word was not the reason I got up a 5am to write this diary. I personally happen to use the word often in a gender neutral way, have been married happily for 15 years - to a female. I express here my thoughts on re-contextualization. Something that singer songwriter Meredeth Brooks explored in her song "Bitch" in 1997, still HER biggest hit ever.

The debate of gender roles and gender rules is a good one, not the point of this diary - but a good discussion none-the-less. I think much of the overreaction to the original dairy title is missplaced and frankly, sad. I tend to agree with Brookes as well as Ice T (when he wrote that Men could be "Bitches 2") that words only have meanings within context and usage. It should be about what idea the person is trying to convey, not simply because the listener has a negative connotation to one particular word that was used because of it's historical meanings. If that's not what they mean, it's not what they mean.

Words change over time, and trying to exlude certain words from usage will never work because people will simply recontextualize other words to make the same point.

About 15 years ago I was member of the Black Rock Coalition and was in attendance of a meeting in UCLA when Living Colour came to town on tour with Rolling Stones. Guns N Roses had been added to the L.A. show dates at the Coliseum and while on the air at KROQ FM two members of LC were asked about the GnR song "One in a Million" which has the line...

"Police and Niggers - that's right - get out of my way. Don't need to buy none of your gold chains today.

While on the air they pretty much trashed the song, and Axl Rose who wrote it - but things weren't that simple at the meeting - which was almost entirely black, except for my wife and stepson) I happen to be black and male. The truth is that black people use the word "Nigger" also, frequently. They have for a very long time, both in a negative context and a positive. Vernon Reid's position was that you can never escape the historical meaning of the word and that ANY usage is inappropriate because it will always have the weight of history attached, no matter who is saying it.

Others disagreed and felt more like the members of Body Count. I was with those others and also sided with Guns N Roses (there was an apology on the cover of the album explaining that that song was "highly generalized" - the song was actually about overcoming racial and ethnic strife by finding a bond with some, but needed some rework to make that point clearer). If you attempt to exclude certain words, you may believe something has been accomplished - but all you've done is short circuited the listening process.

(At one point Vernon apologized for his own language use (lot's of "fucks and mother-fuckers" were flying) because of the presence of my 12 year old step-son, who then responded with "I've already heard all that stuff at middle-school, don't sweat it")

People may not use those words, but they'll still feel the same way and will simply swap in news words to say the same thing. The entire "Macaca" experience shows us this.

I feel it's better to speak your mind openly and honestly rather than self-censor. If people are at least listening to what you say rather than what they want to hear, they probably won't need to decoder manual to understand you.

Yo Nigga, Vyan

Even after making the title change, there were still complaints - because I simply refused to agree with their premise that using such an epithet should always be offlimits because it can be hurtful to women.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Look, I agree that some people are clearly made of candyglass, but my advice to those people is to stay home and stock up on a shitload of bubble-wrap to sleep in. The world is a cold hard place sometimes, if you don't have toughskin to deal with it, it'll deal with you. Whining and crying that somebody hurt your feelings by calling someone (not you personally, someone else) who frankly really is a bitch - a Bitch - is ridiculous IMO.


When I discussed this with my own wife, she said "Bitch" is an empowering word for her. It's almost like what you do when you've lost the arguement... like petulantly tossing the gun when you've run out of bullets. I get that. To some extent calling Coulter a Bitch is actually a compliment, she succeeded at her goal of being a "media whore" (Don't fucking start with me, ok- you know what I mean) and drawing attention to her demented ideas. But my original post wasn't really about her anyway - it was about those ideas, which is the real issue.

Was I thinking of the female-dog version of "Bitch" when I wrote what I wrote? Not really. I honestly didn't think about it for more than a half second. I thought it might make people look at the dkos version of the post, but I really didn't spend that much time on the entire thing in the first place. Reformating it for dkos - removing all [] tags took longer.

And they were mean too. (Lol) Check out this irony, their complaint was that I was insulting women - in general, not just Coulter, all women - and it was inappropriate. Unacceptable. EVER. I changed the title, then explained that they hadn't changed my mind about how words can and should be used (as explained in the update above) and some of them said - "Bullshit". "That's a load of crap" and "idiotic pop philosphy."

So I can't say Ann Coulter is a bitch - but I'm an Idiot? A Bullshitter? Full of Crap? What kinda double-standard shit is that?

My direct - and somewhat more measured - response was this:

I have yet to call anything you've said to me either "crap", "Idiotic" or "bullshit" - I've simply disagreed civily and explained my reasons. What I think you've done is give a great example of why the Political Correctness movement has failed so dramatically. Sensitivity is good, but regimented obedience isn't.

Pardon me while I do a Rumsfeld:

Do I think certain words can hurt viciously? Yes. Do I think those certain words should be banned from use always - regardless of context and usage? Hell, no! I think people will just replace them with new words, and then we'll all be in the dark - several steps behind until we finally figure out what they're really saying. (I.e Macaca)

My position remains: Fight the ideas with better ideas, not just the words.

Thanks for your comments.

The thing that still really bothers me is how familiar this is - it took a minute and then I realized what it was. This is exactly the same thing that David Brock (of Media Matters for America) went through in college - and was a key moment in turning him from a Liberal to a Neo-Conservative.

In his sophmore year at Berkeley, Brock was a cub reporter for the Daily California scheduled to cover an on campus speach by Reagan UN Ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick, architect of much of Reagan's anti-communist policies in El Salvador and Nicaragua.

It was a near riot, with dozens of protestors chanting "Fourty Thousand Dead" and "U.S. Out of El Salvador". They completely drowned Kirkpatrick out. She attempted several times to speak, but was shouted down - eventually giving up and departing. Brock describes the incident in his book "Blinded by the Right."

The scene shook me deeply: Was the harassment of a unpopular speaker the legacy of teh Berkeley-campus Free Speech Movement, when students demanded the right to canvas for any and all political causes on the campus's Sproul Plaza? Wasn't free speach a liberal value? How, I wondered, could this thought police call itself liberal? The few outspoken conservatives on the faculty, and the Reagan (appointed) regents, raised their voices in support of Kirkpatrick's free speech rights. The liberals seemed to me to be defending censorship.

That was the moment that set Brock on a path rejecting the hypocracy of the radical left - and into the waiting and willing arms of the radical right. He wrote about the Kirkpatrick incident and was vilified for it. It became a game to him, a constant struggle of "us vs them", eventually the fight itself became his primary moral compass - he would adapt and contort himself into any position simply to "get them" - to "take some scalps" as he later became a writer for the Moonie Times, and Scaif funded American Spectator. Brock is the man who exposed Trooper Gate, and gleefully trashed Anita Hill during the Thomas confirmation hearings. ("She's a little bit slutty and a little bit nutty") It was years before he came to his senses and realized he had essentially betrayed himself, and his own values in the battle to "get those lefties".

The truth is many of today's Neo-cons are Ex-Liberals like Brock. Coulter herself was once a birkenstock wearing Grateful Dead devotee. There's also people like former consumer rights advocate David Horowitz, who went being hard left to becoming a rabid dog (bitch!) for the hard-right.

The second thing that struck me is the fact the Coulter is a public figure. This wasn't a face-to-face conversation, it's not about someone I know personally and the rules really are different, particularly when it comes to the issues of slander and libel. As was shown by the case of Falwell v Flint (Where Hustler Publisher Larry Flint was sued for making a parody that alleged that Jerry Falwell had been conceived in an Outhouse - or put another way - "he was a peice of shit") the First Amendment protects those who would use even the most vile speech against a public figure.

Sure, peoples feeling might indeed get hurt, I tend to feel that's life in the big city - but if I'm talking to someone directly, not a public figure, but someone I know and have some type of relationship with - they'd have to drive me pretty damn far to drop the B-Bomb on them. I probably wouldn't do it to someone in that context.

That's just common courtesy IMO. But in relation to a well known sociopath wing-nut shill like Coulter? Fouggedaboutit! Bombs Away.

Bottom Line: Liberalism has a ways to go still. True Free Speech is painful. People will definatley say shit you really don't want to hear, but trying to shut them up or shout them down isn't the solution. The hypocracy of Radical PC-ites tends to inflame and embolden those on the hard right who push back by becoming profane simply because they can - I would argue that Coulter's own make-up is strongly driven by exactly this reaction.

There has to be a better way. Censorship isn't it, but perhaps - just maybe - better speach is.

I'm just saying...

Vyan

Now, I honestly don't expect a lot of people to agree with me on this - but I think it's important that they know where I'm actually coming from, rather than make assumptions (as you have several times so far).

PS. That was cute - almost funny too.

Funny how women must always accomodate.

Or grow up and take responsibility and control of themselves? People can only hurt you with words if you let them. Period.

Should people not try to hurt, ok yeah - sure. Of course. But how likely is that?

Here's the thing, if men "accomodate" by not using the word - they'll do so by adopting or transforming another word - like say - "Feminazi!". Problem not solved. The real way to Make Men accomodate, is to take the power away from all the words by making them irrelevent and moot, not just one.

That's just my opinion - so sue me.

Vyan

"Bitch" itself can be used as an utterance of digust, frustration, shock, etc... Of course, that's just using it as a cuss-word without person as a target... (which is a use as something other than derogatory towards females)(please disregard if I misinterpreted your sentence).

Main Entry: bitch
Pronunciation: 'bich
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English bicche, from Old English bicce
1 : the female of the dog or some other carnivorous mammals Female/Non-Human
2 a : a lewd or immoral woman b : a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman Female/Human -- sometimes used as a generalized term of abuse Not Gender Specific/May or May Not Be Directly or Indirectly Defamatory to Females
3 : something that is extremely difficult, objectionable, or unpleasant Non-Personal/No Human Reference/No Gender Implications At All
4 : COMPLAINT Non-Personal/No Human Reference/No Gender At All (Understand that the content of a complaint might include a reference to a person, place or thing--the person of which would likely have a particular gender, one or the other, but it's not relevant)

And we haven't covered the verb... but I hope there's no need to 'bitch'(v; to complain) about it... Of course, if you can't get the root out of your head and only consider the usage, it will invariable appear to involve the casting of an aspersion on the totality of the female sex. Then again, insistently demanding that all uses of a word whose original form/meaning had some relationship, no matter how small, to some creature that shared some characteristic with some identifiable group, becomes more and more strained... and begins to suggest someone has a chip on their shoulder. On the other hand, if they simply can't imagine that another person could actually think a word has a different meaining than themselves, and use it accordingly, a narrow mind rather than a chip on their shoulder is suggested. Merely suggested, not certain...

Hmmm. Just for fun... Now that you have me considering the potential "sexist" meaning behind word roots? Maybe I can "imagine" a few new words to fit? A "Mare" is a female horse. Does that mean if I complain of a "Nightmare" I'm casting an aspersion on females? Or am I riding a female horse at night? Nightmare(n - obsolete) an evil preternatural being causing nightmares..., but Nightmare comes from Anglo-Saxon nicht (night) and mara (incubus or succubus), and incubus means an evil spirit that lies on persons in their sleep; especially : one that has sexual intercourse with women while they are sleeping, while succubus means a demon assuming female form to have sexual intercourse with men in their sleep--so I guess any sexual aspersion depends on who's riding the horse at night (obviously -mare doesn't come from mare as in female horsie, rather it comes from 'mara' from the verb merran, literally means a ‘crusher’)--um, I mean who's having the nightmare. Then, I found this: in Newfoundland, a night terror is known as the "Old Hag," "The Hags," or "Hagging." The terms harken back to an old belief that these are witch attacks, "witches" traditionally depicted as ugly old women or hags... in this case, it would depend on where you are or come from... So, Egad... it's apparently another female aspersion (fairly rare, though, being the Newfoundland meaning and all). Perhaps, I may as well give up.

In Conclusion... sure, the word does generally (though not necessarily always) involve a negative aspersion on femaleness, if only very indirectly--as when used as a general complaint. However, referring to the pragmatic communication as defined by the intent, if properly understood, it can indeed be free of, or have no (none, nada, zilch, zip) gender reference. What that sentence means is that if it's used to exclaim a complaint, and the person exclaiming such is not thinking about some negative thoughts about females, human, dog or otherwise, and the hearer (if one exists) correctly understands what the exclaimer means (that they're unhappy about smashing their thumb, or the car breaking down), then gender did not become involved. In that happenstance, the fact that the word normally has a gender reference is simple happenstance. If a woman hears this and wishes to take offense, then it's really her misinterpretation of the meaning of the speaker's utterance. Alas.

On the other hand, if it must be a terribly sexist word... so be it.

Yes, DU permits the use of the word, but I think the OP is trying to provoke something since he/she hasn't changed the offending--and easily substituted--terminology.

Yeah, discussion. I thought that was why everyone posted here?

Vyan

Your main point is valid, but you've allowed this part of the discussion to not only take over, but thrive simply because you insist on using a word that many have told you is offensive. And you cut and pasted it in multiple locations. Now, why would you do that unless you weren't planning on starting another flame war? You clearly enjoy it, under the guise of a "discussion."

I think there's been plenty of valuable statements made here - both off topic and on.

I also think there's stuff that's been said about her that's a lot worse than my comment, and that I don't neccesary agree with - but I'm not really going to shove my view down their throats about it - that's the moderators job, although I don't want to make their job more difficult or have the thread deleted. One comment has been deleted, already. Hopefully that's all.

Vyan

All these presidential powers that Annie has been calling for will then fall into the hands of Hillary, giving her the legal groundwork to declare Coulter a terrorist, and shipped of to Guantanamo. No trail, no due process.

And why in gods name does the MSM still promote her books. She should be on TV about as often as Lyndon Larouche.

Good work and a good rap about her more dangerous quality of appearing to have 'mainstream' rightwing thoughts but being an racist extremist.

I don't have any problem with the 'bitch' title (huge diff between acknowledging gender and sexism)...but I do wonder since you came up with a much more 'catchy' description "demented tinkerbell!!!"...maybe you should go for that in the title next time.

It's funnier...


D'oh,
not that tinkerbell with her dog...

The other Tinkerbell with her castle!!



Good work as usual and one of the better researcher posters...I like your stuff Vyan!!!

my expectations of people being able to handle even that are sinking by the minute. (How dare you insult the poor defenseless Fairies!)

Ok, ok... I'm joking - I keed, I keed...

Stop with the pixie dust firehose all ready.

Vyan

Republican spokesperson Ann Coulter has stated that Osama is irrelevant. Really!!!!!!

She'll be laying low while her wounds heal after that beating.

Jus like Rush, Sean, and the Rest.

Ya would think she could afford a more diverse wardrobe...

coulter's ugliness is so clear in the side by side pictures of her and powers. Powers is beautiful. Must gall coulter immensely

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Welcome to DU!1!!1 Seriesly!1111!!!! Is your name Hugh Moran, by any chance?

:rofl:

I wouldn't be surprised if you did by the dumb mess you just posted

n/t