Common Sense

I just happened to notice this weekend that several columns came through defending Ann Coulter’s right to say whatever it is she wants to say. This would be in response to the two newspapers who announced last week that they would be dropping her syndicated column. While I applaud the idea, I think these two journalists are confused as to what her intentions are.

The first column up is from my very own editor, Carlos Sanchez. Which is weird, because he’s my boss and I probably shouldn’t be second-guessing what he writes on my blog. But I am.

Sanchez writes about a hypothetical dinner he has with the “provacateur” which is a nice way of saying ‘that bitch on TV.’

I realized this the moment Deutsch told Coulter that she was the type of person who would make a wonderful dinner companion.

I agree. I could easily see Ann and me having a sumptuous four-course meal — with beer not wine — and having a soul-searching discussion about the state of our society.

During the appetizer, we would feel out one another’s positions on various topics.

By the time the entree arrived, we’d be conceding that each of us has a good point. With dessert would come a delectable moment in which we finally agreed on something and felt all the more enlightened at having arrived at our mutual moment of truth together.

I would walk away from the table not only with a full stomach but also with a full mind. Intellectual discourse can have that effect on a person.

Instead, however, what we typically get is a fast-food meal in which the Meal Deal #1 serves up conservatives for dinner and Meal Deal #2 serves up liberals.

I don’t want to point out the obvious, but a woman who is six feet tall and weighs 78 pounds has never had a 4-course meal. Sanchez compares his rich coversation to that of a fast-food meal. I would compare it to being intellectually anorexic, and the AMA describes anorexia nervosa as a severe mental disorder.

What Sanchez calls “intellectual” I call intellectual dishonesty. Because it is dishonest when you intentionally hide facts from your readers so that they are misinformed… or when you plagiarize.

Plus, of the few things in this world that I am certain, Ann Coulter could never walk away agreeing to disagree. People like her have to have the last word and she would do anything to get it. It wouldn’t be a civil dinner at all.

I take this column as being Sanchez’s way of saying that the Trib will continue to run Coulter’s column even though the evidence of plagiarism is pretty conclusive.

The other column is from the Asheville Citizen-Times and it praises Coulter. She is, after all, doing God’s own work.

To be sure, the intemperate language used by Coulter has provoked outrage in some, however, there is no way her astute observation would have received any mainstream media attention without such controversial verbiage. Truthfully, that’s what really infuriates liberal Democrats. Coulter had the gall to expose their scheme of victimhood as a political strategy and she did it in a way she knew they couldn’t ignore.

Yes, she exposed our dirty secret and that’s why we’re upset. I’m sure it is not the constant calls to have us arrested as traitors, to have us shot on site, that baseball bat statement or the implication that we are all godless communists. It couldn’t possibly be anything else.

Oppose gay marriage? You’re a “homophobe.” Oppose amnesty for illegals? You’re a “xenophobe” and a “racist.”

Well, yeah. Most of the arguments I’ve heard against gay marriage involve the claims that allowing gay people to marry would pollute the sanctity of marriage or encourage other people to be gay. That’s kind of the definition of “homophobe.” And we saw just the other week that those tireless Minutemen on the border here in Texas talk about illegal immigrants as though they are diseased cattle or fear that they will pollute American culture are the very definitions of “racist” and “xenophobe.”

Freedom of speech is great and I’m all for it, but what Coulter does is hate speech. She specifically seeks to incite people to hate. She doesn’t deserve our admiration, she definitely does not deserve encouragement in the form of monetary rewards for her column or her books. We shouldn’t be running her column, she should be standing on the street corner with a sandwich board like all the other lunatics with nothing usefull to say.

(Ed. note: I do not mean to imply everyone with a sandwich board is a lunatic. Some have very important information about the end of the world due to the evil machinations of Suri Cruise and those people should be heeded.)