Support This Website! Shop Here!

Monday, June 12, 2006

Sacred Cows and Deadly Intent

The New York Times is all in a huff about Ann Coulter’s newest book, “Godless.” Seems they don’t like how Ann points out the shameless celebrity-hustling undertaken by four 9/11 widows, or the shameless celebrity-hustling undertaken by Cindy Sheehan, for that matter.

Ann is a bomb-thrower who is only in it for the money, too smart to be taken in by her own rhetoric, but with fans too stupid to realize her rhetoric is completely unacceptable.

According to the New York Times editorial board, it is Ann who is just "one more nut" shamelessly hustling for money. The proof is easily demonstrated. When Hillary Clinton arose in righteous indignation to complain that Ann’s treatment of the “four witches of East Brunswick” was “vicious”, Anne was actually crude enough to remind Hillary that her own husband, Mr. Bill, was credibly accused of rape on multiple occasions. How dare she?

The New York Times, being the “newspaper of record,” would never stoop to that kind of nonsense. When, in 2003, they called The Da Vinci Code “An exhilaratingly brainy thriller… a gleefully erudite suspense novel” they were simply reporting the facts. When they insisted the novel was “…one that is by no means sacrilegious, though it sharply challenges Vatican policy” they were giving dispassionate analysis.

You see, asserting that Jesus is not God or making the claim that the entire Christian faith is false is “by no means sacrilegious.” But pointing out that Bill Clinton almost certainly raped at least one woman and probably raped several - well, that’s bomb-throwing. As far as any right-thinking person is concerned, Jesus is just another dead Jew, but Hillary Clinton is an untouchably sacred cow.

19 comments:

Justine said...

I hope by "credible" that you are not referring to the “rape” of Juanita Broaddrick. It was made up (a lie), she said so herself in a sworn affidavit in 1997, whatever she may have claimed on Dateline NBC was therefore (by her own admission) untrue.

That it was a lie of course does not stop Coulter who also feels the need to inform us that the 9/11 widows husband's were planning on divorcing them or that they enjoyed their husbands' deaths
and should appear in playboy. It's all GUBU (Grotesque, Unbelievable, Bizarre and Unprecedented). Maybe not the unprecented part, there as been a general trend in public debate that whoever shouts the loudest (even if they lie) will get to determine the extent of public discourse.

Nothing wrong with questioning the widows on their politics or disagreeing with their political views but lies and slander do not a debate make.

Jordan Potter said...

"It was made up (a lie), she said so herself in a sworn affidavit in 1997, whatever she may have claimed on Dateline NBC was therefore (by her own admission) untrue."

I'm afraid your logic is a little faulty. You're assuming her prior denial was true, and that her recanting that denial is a lie. But if she told the truth on Dateline, then it was her prior denial that was untrue.

In any case, even if Broaddrick is lying about the rape, there's a heap of other cases where we know Bill Clinton used and abused women. If I remember right, he even treated one woman like kleenex in the Oval Office, and then perjured himself when his perversions came to light.

Justine said...

Honest to god, if you care more about someone's sex more life than their skill and wisdom as a leader you got what you deserve in George Bush.

Oh by the way, do you think the current speculation that George Bush is drinking again (and perhaps abusing prescription medication) and that he and Laura aren't getting on is below the belt?

Either apply the same standard to republican leaders and officials as you do to democrats or get over the sex lives of democrats. The sex obsession on the right gay marriage, abstinance etc. is telling.

Patrick said...

Abhcóide,

I think you missed the whole Bill Clinton perjury event and the rape accusations (yes, even in the US, it is still illegal) while in public office. Though, I find it interesting that you see perjury and rape to on par with gay marriage rights.

Jordan Potter said...

"Honest to god, if you care more about someone's sex more life than their skill and wisdom as a leader you got what you deserve in George Bush."

How skillful and wise is it for someone to commit perjury and abuse women? Not to mention all the other follies of the schreckliche Zeit, Praesidentlose.

However, just so you know, I'm not a Republican. I'm actually a monarchist.

"Oh by the way, do you think the current speculation that George Bush is drinking again (and perhaps abusing prescription medication) and that he and Laura aren't getting on is below the belt?"

Of course it is, but there's a big difference between engaging in crude speculation and discussing news of actual misconduct.

"The sex obsession on the right gay marriage, abstinence etc. is telling."

Hey, if it weren't for the literal sex obsession of the left, I doubt the right would have any sex-related issues to make a big deal out of.

Justine said...

"if it weren't for the literal sex obsession of the left, I doubt the right would have any sex-related issues to make a big deal out of."

Most people have sex at some stage in their lives. It's how we procreate.

"You're assuming her prior denial was true, and that her recanting that denial is a lie. But if she told the truth on Dateline, then it was her prior denial that was untrue."

You are quite right, my apologies.
However, the corollary is also true. She may have lied on Dateline NBC (more weight would attach in court to a sworn affidavit). The fact that she has said both affects her credibility/reliability as a witness. The fact that no charges were ever made in relation to the accusation suggests that there was no evidence to back up her Dateline claim, and while this conjecture is not dispositive a reminder of the imperative innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is.

As for the "literal sex obsession of the left" - it was the Bush administration (the far right)which spent a paltry €15 million on the 9/11 Commission. Investigating the intelligence failures, structural failures of three buildings (had the lasted longer more people would have survived)and who financed the perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocity or aided and abetted those terrorists, seems (to me, on the center/left) more important (i.e. will save lives) than investigating consentual oral sex.

However, due to a fascination (held by certain people on the right) with the sex life of a President (what was really an attempt to remove him from office if possible - not surported by public opinion) some $40 million was spent investigating Bill Clinton's sex life (the total expenditures were estimated at over €65 million dollars).

Lying by a President is serious, less so when it relates to consentual oral sex than lies with result in wars. Do you think this President ought to be investigated over his lies? Or is lying only morally culpable when it's done by someone on the left.

Is sex only interesting to you when it involves someone on the left. If you were a New Yorker would you investigate Giuliani?

Back on topic...how do you feel about Ann Coulter's lies (husbands wanted to divorce them, enjoyed the death of their husbands).

Justine said...

"Though, I find it interesting that you see perjury and rape to on par with gay marriage rights."

Did I? Read what I wrote again.

Sure he perjured himself over a blowjob (dumb move) but it's something a lotta guys in his situation would do. Nowhere near as morally culpable as lying about WMD and launching an unnecessary war in which many people die.

Justine said...

"Of course it is, but there's a big difference between engaging in crude speculation and discussing news of actual misconduct."

My point exactly - crude speculation about Jaunita Broaddrick's claim is very different from news about actual misconduct.

Justine said...

Oh here's a quote from Broaddrick's sworn affidavit.

It pre-dates the original speculation but comes before Dateline NBC interviews her...(if I remember correctly).

"During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family’s privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family."

Jordan Potter said...

Wow. As a rule this weblog barely attracts much if any comment, but a single post about Ann Coulter and Bill Clinton managed to attract the attention of an Irish lawyer. Go figure.

Patrick said...

What's even more amazing is that there are still BJ Clinton defenders out there. It doesn't seem like even Hillary would go that far out on a limb.

Justine said...

I just find it alarming that political debate in the US has descended into a race to fling as many lies at the other side as possible, destroying any attempt at rational debate. When a country sits on as many guns as yours does the rest of the world hopes that you stay sensible.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Abhcoide, given the Irish propensity towards starting a fight, I find it humorous that you would enunciate such a position.

You don't seem to know much American or Irish history. American politics has always been rough and tumble, and today's commentary is nowhere near as harsh as the mid-1800's was.

As for your comments concerning the number of guns we have, it smells strongly of an ad hominem jibe. Certainly the Irish have handled guns and politics with no more skill than we have historically displayed, and we've done better than many.

Justine said...

" given the Irish propensity towards starting a fight, I find it humorous that you would enunciate such a position."

That's a racist sterotype, propagated in bigotted publications like Punch magazine (which in the 19th century frequently depicted Irish people in a manner not entirely dissimilar to the depiction of the jews by Streicher and Goebbels.) A convenient explaination for any rebellions against British rule in Ireland (which was never gentle) ah, it's just those Irish peasants starting fights again.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

And the IRA is really just a glee club.

Look, while I'm not a fan of the IRA, I don't discount the necessity of armed responses to certain political situations. America is enormously powerful militarily, true. But the American military is just about the last bastion of cultural sanity in the United States. Too few people recognize this.

Jordan Potter said...

". . . frequently depicted Irish people in a manner not entirely dissimilar to the depiction of the jews by Streicher and Goebbels."

My friend Dennis Lafferty is German on his mother's side, Irish on his father's side. One of his favorite jokes he likes to tell about himself is that he is always having to fight the urge to go out, get drunk, and invade himself.

Patrick said...

". . . frequently depicted Irish people in a manner not entirely dissimilar to the depiction of the jews by Streicher and Goebbels."

Wow! I haven't seen someone try to stop a thread with an inappropriately placed Nazi reference in a very long time. Congratulations on one of the more enigmatic posts ever placed against this blog.

Anonymous said...

Bill was lost his law liscense because he lied under oath.
I did not have sex with that woman.
It all depends on what the meaning of is is.
Bill and Hillary are both liars.

Anonymous said...

Ng Tri Hsu Huang

why so much chinese funny money

so many past business associates in prison

and why don't any one care?

Vicky