Ann Coulter gets it. And as far as I can tell, she's the only one who does.
Years ago I heard someone say about Rush Limbaugh that he disagreed with fully fifty percent of everything Limbaugh said -- but that, after years of the Fairness Doctrine and the resulting lockstep liberal media, it was a refreshing fifty percent. I'm the same way with Coulter: I'm not really a fan, but I don't find her to be a hate-monger, either, and a lot of what she writes is funny.
And true. And that's the problem.
Lately I see a lot of dancing chimps "commenting" on the latest Don Imus flap, in which the Rutgers girls (ladies?) basketball came to be described as consisting of "nappy-headed ho's." Oh dear. How evil Don Imus is. We must reject him and all his works. But, last night on Hannity and Colmes and today at FrontPageMag.com, Ann Coulter shows that she really does get it:
The reason people don't like what Imus said is because the women on the Rutgers basketball team aren't engaged in public discourse. They're not public figures, they don't have a forum, they aren't trying to influence public policy.They play basketball – quite well, apparently – and did nothing to bring on an attack on their looks or character. It's not the words Imus used: It would be just as bad if he had simply said the Rutgers women were ugly and loose.
People claim to object to the words alone, but that's because everyone is trying to fit this incident into a PC worldview. It's like girls who say, "It's not that you cheated on me; it's that you lied about it." No – it's that you cheated.
If Imus had called me a "towheaded ho" or Al Sharpton a "nappy-headed ho," it would be what's known as "funny." (And if he called Anna Nicole Smith a "flaxen-headed ho," it would be "absolutely accurate.") But he attacked the looks and morals of utterly innocent women, who had done nothing to inject themselves into public debate.
I don't mean to besmirch, begrudge, or belittle Ann Coulter, nor to insult her in any way. But she's created her career, and her public persona, and she is what she is. She's a bomb-thrower. And that is exactly my point: When Ann Coulter is the only voice of reason in a public debate, then what you have is not a debate. It's a circus. *
* The actual word describing such a situation, courtesy of the United States Marine Corps and heard to amusing effect in Heartbreak Ridge, is not "circus," but rather, begins with "cluster" and rhymes with "firetruck."
Ms. Coulter? I'd like to intruduce you to Kettle. Kettle? Here's the pot named Coulter.
[I'm almost afraid to use the word black in today's climate.]
With all my love,
Aunty Em
No, what Imus said is not offensive because it attacked a group of "innocent" and private women, it is because he is a white man and he used a derogatory slur against black women. That is the key problem, and it is what all the people now saying "but what about black rappers who use the 'n-word' all the time" and screaming "double standard" just don't understand about offensive language and the need for a certain measure of restraint in what we say. It is not the word alone but who says it and in what context. Words only have meaning in context. And words have consequences. As a white man, I have to watch what words I use in what situations because, frankly, I have a special responsibility to try to redress (or at least not perpetuate) the inequalities of my society.
But I don't expect a Rand lover to understand a subtle point such as this. Subtle thought--the very basis of real "reason"--was not exactly her strong suit.
Posted by: A white man who you won't like at April 14, 2007 01:17 PMYeah, gratuitous insults from an anonymous coward just cut me to the core of my soul.
Posted by: Craig at April 14, 2007 04:22 PM