Sunday, March 9, 2014

Ann Coulter's 'not racist' death squads



Ann Coulter has, of course, made a career out of being crazy. Without a radio or TV program of her own, she's not even minimally limited in how crazy she can be (not even to the very, very limited extent of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck).

Her career, her celebrity, her notoriety are based on being not just outrageous, but completely over-the-top. She quite literally can't go too far. The only danger for her is if she's not noticed.

And this is CPAC, where crazy is standard. So Coulter really has to work on the crazy to stand out. Well, she did rise sink to the occasion, didn't she? She was so vile I couldn't ignore it (and I do prefer to ignore her).

Even at first, it's crazy enough. Yeah, if you don't celebrate the 'browning of America,' you're considered a racist. Actually, it's more like you're a racist when you have hysterics about it. Who the hell cares? Only racists.

Has she forgotten that we're all descended from immigrants? Arguably, even Native Americans are descended from immigrants, but certainly the vast majority of our ancestors came here from other countries. Did Coulter somehow miss the significance of the Statue of Liberty?

But she just gets worse and worse. Next, she argues that 'brown people' won't want to pay into Social Security and Medicare to support 'older white people.' First of all, if that were true, these right-wingers would be cheering. They don't like Social Security and Medicare anyway.

But second, what different does the color of your skin make? Younger people of all colors pay into these programs to support older people of all colors, and they do it because they can count on the same support when they get older. That's been the social contract in America, and the color of your skin has nothing to do with it!

Still, even that isn't the craziest thing Coulter says here. As I say, it's CPAC. That level of crazy is standard. So if the rest of this hasn't been crazy enough, how about death squads? Yeah, if immigration reform passes through Congress, "then we organize the death squads."

Gee, and people call her racist? Wow, that's hard to believe, isn't it? I wonder why?

Of course, the right-wing hits the ceiling when anyone does call them racist. And even at CPAC, they want minority votes. (They just don't want to do anything to piss off the racists in the GOP base, the people who applaud Ann Coulter, the people they deliberately wooed in their notorious 'Southern strategy.')

So how's that working out for them?



Heh, heh. But why should anyone be surprised at this? Ann Coulter got applause. That's what CPAC is all about.

The same people who think that immigrants won't ever become real Americans if they're not white, the same people who think that 'brown people' won't pay into Social Security and Medicare, because the current recipients are mostly white, the same people who applaud death squads as an appropriate response to immigration reform, those are the same people who think that racial minorities vote Democratic because Democrats give them free stuff.

Insane, isn't it?

12 comments:

jeff725 said...

Someone once referred to (M)Ann Coulter as a "political ambulance-chaser." Sounds right to me.

Coulter also validated a comment Bill Maher once made on "Real Time:"

"With the Republican Party, there is NO bottom."

About the "death squads" comment: I've still got that "Sword of Damocles" over Jody P's head (what would be his "final solution" to the "liberal problem?"). I'm just waiting for the right moment to drop it on him. But, it looks like Mistress Ann may have given me my answer.

BTW, have you seen any good basketball games lately? :)

Anonymous said...

Ann Coulter sees the whole of life through the lens of race and class and thus injects race into many scenarios. See Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory for more details, available at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

m1nks said...

I too have come to the conclusion that Ann Coulter is so desperate for media coverage that she will say anything and everything to get noticed. She must think of ways to be more and more offensive and then supposedly throws it out there in an off the cuff comment when I'm sure it's anything but.

I'm glad you don't normally talk about her. I heard she was going to come over here (UK) at one point and speak at a University until it was brought to the attention of the people who booked her just who she was and what she spoke about and she was denied permission.

She minged about infringement of speech and being afraid etc etc but the UK doesn't have the same sort of attitude to free speech that the US does. In my eyes it's better although I'm aware that not everyone would agree with me on that.

WCG said...

Not all conservatives applaud Ann Coulter, clearly. But is it just because of her personality, or do you have different ideas of what conservatism is?

To my mind, nothing is more conservative than defending America's separation between church and state, unless perhaps it's protecting our environment. (Conservation isn't conservative?)

Why is racism conservative? Why is giving tax cuts to the rich conservative, especially when it explodes the federal budget deficit? Why is opposing science conservative?

I don't like Coulter, but I also don't understand 'conservatism' as it's practiced by the right-wing in America. There's little about it that seems 'conservative' to me.

WCG said...

M1nks, I'm a strong supporter of free speech, even if I dislike that speech. But 'free speech' doesn't mean that you have to be invited to speak... anywhere. Whoever invited her to speak at that university can certainly uninvite her, for any reason at all, without making it a free speech issue.

I assume that she wasn't denied entry into the UK? I assume that her books are still available for purchase there? Then there's no free speech issue. Free speech doesn't mean that someone has to give you a soapbox, not even here in America.

As I say, I strongly support free speech. Well, my views - both political and religious - are very much a minority position here in Nebraska. If anyone's free speech rights were going to be violated here, it wouldn't be Ann Coulter's!

m1nks said...

It may actually have been London, Ontario not London, London. As I said, I don’t pay attention to Ms Coulter – I don’t feel like validating her existence even that much.

Re denying of Visa’s though it’s not inconceivable that she would be denied one if visiting the UK – as I said there are more restrictions over here. It’s still free enough as far as I’m concerned. I don’t believe people have a right to say anything they damn well please and get a free pass after they’ve said it as seems to be the case in the States. If it is designed purely to incite hatred and violence, if it’s slander or lies. Along with the right to speak your mind comes the responsibility to have some care with what you are saying. And I rather than the blanket ‘I might not like what you are saying but I will defend to the death your right to say it’. I prefer ‘I might not like what you are saying but I will defend to the death your right to say it so long as it has a basis in reality, isn’t a pack of lies and hasn’t been stated with the direct purpose of causing social disruption’. So long as it meets at least one of that list I’ll put up with it even though I might have to grit my teeth.

Here is an example of what I mean.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11201621

WCG said...

Note that there are restrictions on free speech in America, but there has to be a very good reason for them. Just disliking the speech isn't enough.

And when it comes to political speech, even a deliberate lie is protected (thus, the Republican Party). It's virtually impossible to slander or libel a public figure here (which is a lot better than the situation in the UK, from what I hear).

But plenty of people can't get visas to enter the U.S. That's a little different situation - not too much, since free speech is still considered to be a bedrock principle here, but that doesn't mean we have to let everyone in.

Most people here hate what I have to say. The majority of people here in Nebraska despise both my political and my religious opinions - especially the latter. And you'd be surprised at the number of people who claim that atheism is hate speech pretty much by definition.

Many countries have blasphemy laws, and some American Christians are envious of that. After all, it's 'hate speech' to make religious people feel bad, isn't it?

It's easy to think that speech you hate should be limited, but what if most people hate your speech? Freedom of speech was never meant to protect popular speech, because popular speech doesn't need protecting. And if you don't protect the vile stuff, you won't protect anything, because nearly all speech is vile to someone.

m1nks said...

That's the general reaction to that. But 'hate' speech isn't just 'speech I hate'. Having thought about it for a good few years and seeing the sort of people that seem to be cropping up like weeds in the States ‘freely’ spouting off all sort of hateful, hurtful shite, I am happy enough to be denied my right to walk into a mosque and scream ‘Towel heads are terrorists who worship a baby raping joke of a prophet’ if it spares me having to live in a country with the Westbourgh Baptist Church.

The penalties are mostly small fines anyway and I think of it more of a ‘play reasonably nicely’ rule. You live in a civilised society, act like it! You can really say anything you need to say; you just have to say it with a modicum of civility and not in the most inappropriate place you can think of. If I really thought that Muslims were nothing but terrorists then I would be able to say it. I would just have to be a tab more careful of my phrasing and chose a slightly less inflammatory place to speak out.

I know you are a died in the wool free speecher. I just don’t agree; there’s a time and place.

Oh, and our politicians have special protections as well (at least they do in NZ and as we mostly have the same laws/traditions as the UK I presume it’s the same here). But it’s only while they are speaking directly in parliament and they will have opposing members shouting them down/tearing them (verbally) to bits and the Speaker of the House will also call them to order if s/he thinks they are out of line. So even there ‘free’ speech is bound by 'some' rules of propriety.



WCG said...

We do have hate speech laws, M1nks, but they generally have to be a direct incitement of violence. (We've got trespassing laws, too, although people could picket outside mosques, if they wanted to - and weren't disruptive to mosque activities.)

And believe it or not, the Westboro Baptist Church can be nice to have around, since it demonstrates how crazy religious belief can really be (without actually killing people, which tends to occur in other examples).

After all, they believe by faith, just like every other believer. If that - and 9/11, admittedly - doesn't illustrate the problem with faith-based thinking, nothing will.

I must say, as an American, I think it's kind of funny how you can talk about the 'rules of propriety' in your parliament. Of course, in our news media, we only see the incidents where members of parliament seem to act like particularly disobedient grade school children. Those incidents make our congressmen seem almost adult. :)

And my knowledge of UK libel laws comes almost entirely from this incident. That was shocking to Americans.

But then, I suppose it all depends on what you're used to, huh? And both of us are only going to see the most outrageous examples from the other country, because that's what gets noticed. If it's not outrageous, it's not going to make the news.

m1nks said...

Oh my Dog! They are like squabbling children sometimes aren’t they?! That’s why I said a ‘modicum’ and ‘some’ :-) Shouting is allowed (or increased volume to be heard over the ‘contributions’ of your peers), but gratuitous insults and swearing aren’t. Not that it doesn’t happen but they’ll be called on it, told to sit down, asked to leave, fined in some cases, when they do. And if they deviate from the truth too much they’ll be loudly labelled a liar. So, that happens a lot…

PM QT (Prime Minister Question Time) is always good entertainment. And the weekly grilling, although loud, is good democracy. The government has a weekly accountability session to the entire parliament and through them, the rest of the nation. It also keeps their debating skills sharp; no prominent politician in the UK would ever be flatfooted like Pres. Obama was in the first presidential debate – they get way too much practice on a very regular basis.

Taking all for all I’d prefer a parliament that might shout at each other constantly but does manage to get things done and will actually work together like rational adults once they’ve bollocked each other out enough and gotten past the perennial ‘everything is this governments fault/this government is having to clean up the mess of the past administration' part of things. That really gets old…

I’m not remotely aware of the UKs libel laws although I think they may have changed a bit recently due to the EU giving a ruling that they were terrible and had to. And I am only aware of that because a few months ago I got interested in a fight an Australian town was having with McDonalds and one of my work colleagues asked if I was aware of the McLibel case and the outcome of that. Other than that in all the years I’ve lived here (not a decade in total yet but I’m getting there) I can’t remember reading a single thing about libel.

m1nks said...

Looks like there have been some changes:

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/defamation.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25551640

WCG said...

Yeah, that's the result of the Libel Reform Campaign - an internet campaign of the past few years. (I've been on their email list.)