To Jasmin Borhan, Executive Vice-President of Corporate Communications for Bertelsmann:
Dear Ms Borhan,
Fellow named "Sprague Dawley" has a "Diary of a Rat" blog entry blasting away at Ann Coulter, but really more bashing Random House for publishing her, and Universal Press Syndicate for publishing her weekly column. He lists you there as the corporate contact for her book publisher whom we should wag our fingers at in disdain for publishing the evil one.
See, that's because, "Her comments in her new book and on television that the widows of men who died in the World Trade Center are exploiting the deaths of their husbands and reveling in financial gain from the catastrophe." Perhaps readers could peruse her book and make such judgments for themselves. Wait, no, they don't need to do that. Sprague Dawley et al have already figured it out for us, and there's no need in making her writing available at all. As he titles his column, "Enough Is Enough."
Now, besides the delightfully Stalinist flavor of his spiel, that argument about Coulter exploiting the widows is so perfectly, perversely backwards- and it's not the first time I've heard it. Saying that they're full of crap isn't exploitative. John Kerry using them in campaign ads as the whores for his grief-pimpin' in order to try to get elected president — now THAT is exploiting widows and the national grief — which was exactly Coulter's point of criticism.
So then first of all, thank you for publishing Ann Coulter. She makes ME crazy about half the time, and makes me want to give her hell myself. But if she makes me a little crazy, she's REALLY gotten the goat of every pinko in the land. Where could she even keep that many goats? Does she own a farm or something?
However angry her detractors get, Ann Coulter is doing a good service for the public discourse. Indeed, the vitriol of the hatas is strong evidence of her virtue. In short, Ann Coulter is one of the most truly transgressive major political writers in the world today. She carefully and gleefully tramples routinely on the ground where more timid writers fear to tread. She's the most cheerful warrior around, and has never ever legitimized her opponents by appeasement.
What really tells me she's doing God's work though is when the right-wingers go ballistic on her, trying to prove that they're "compassionate conservatives." Really though, a "compassionate conservative" like President Bush is just a liberal who wants to be thought of as frugal. To me, her work is even more a rebuke of mealy-mouthed RINO conservatives than of liberals.
.jpg?t=20120209092158)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Monica
Appeasement?? She's a vile woman who uses her haterful comments to make some money. Someone shut her up with her pseudo-American values. Calling victims of 9/11 harpies and proclaiming the "fragging" of marines is NOT what American morals are about...that bitch.
2 - Al Barger
"Someone shut her up" Thank you Monica for re-confirming my point.
3 - ss
You know her and Bill Maher are old friends.
4 - Ira
What is a Harpie?
5 - Al Barger
SS- Coulter and Maher being pals makes perfectly good sense to me. Hey, Jesus dined with tax collectors and such- and even Ann wouldn't claim to be better than Jesus. The ridiculous grief they were both given for their public remarks shortly after 9/11 would be an obvious point of personal bonding.
You can't always guess who's going to get on socially based on secondary things like religion or personal beliefs. I've got a picture in my Coulter photos (from Ann's website, I think) with her making friendly with Al Sharpton. I'd love to party with Coulter and Sharpton. I bet that'd be really funny.
Notice that she seemed to get on just fine meeting George Carlin on Leno's show. People expected some big public fight that didn't happen. It might just have been that he didn't think it the time or place for such things, but I'd find it easy to believe that Carlin would find her to be a charming free speech radical.
For my part, I have often found myself getting on personally a lot better with crazy communists or nutsy religious fundamentalists rather than nice, soft spoken moderate people that I theoretically agree with a lot more.
6 - Al Barger
Ira- from Answers.com:
Har·py (här'pē)
n., pl. -pies.
Greek Mythology. One of several loathsome, voracious monsters with the head and trunk of a woman and the tail, wings, and talons of a bird.
harpy A predatory person.
harpy A shrewish woman.
7 - Some Little Monkey Girl
Hey, Al? Y'know... if Little Bitchy Annie has a right to say what she wants, then Ratty McRatterson there has just as much of a right to say what he wants, even to encouraging others to contact her publishers. That's just how the system works. If you want to promote everyone's right to say whatever they want, good or bad, then it has to be everyone's, and that includes "pressuring" (ha) Random House. At least Sprague whatever is discussing that line between decency and free speech. You're just yarking on whatever you think will burn you the most googles.
It's noble and good and all to point out hypocrisy wherever you see it, but sometimes you're just rather over the top, my friend. It's a guy who wrote a blog entry. It's not a f'n declaration of war on Coulter -- though maybe it should be. Stop sputtering indignantly about some guy sputtering indignantly on his blog.
8 - Sprague Dawley
OK, I'll bite...
Al, you write so well and so forcefully that you almost had *me* convinced that I called for banning Coulter's voice. But of course I didn't. I went out of my way to say that my complaint about her is that she's mercenary. The post was, basically, about decency in political discourse and how it's regulated (and everything is regulated to some extent) in a market economy. I asked (honestly) whether publishers and others who benefit from Coulter's vitriol have a responsibility to convince *her* to be more responsible, but you didn't address that.
I did see the word Nazi thrown around alot, though. You are familiar with Godwin's Law, right..?
You're always welcome at my place, even if you do think I'm a Nazi (really).
SD
9 - Al Barger
Howdy Sprague, welcome to Blogcritics- happy to see you.
Thank you for kind words, and don't fear my rightwing lunacy too much- I try to play nice. Nicer than Ann, anyway.
But let me clarify and apologize if I miscommunicated. I do not mean to conflate all critics of Coulter, or to accuse you of the offenses of others. I particularly hate being on the wrong end of that kind of thing. I try to be careful that way. Note for example how I specifically went out of the way NOT to presume you'd be in the camp with the Dixie Chicks defenders.
The Nazi reference was nothing about you. You weren't going there at all. That was a reference to some of the specific pictures in the Badges of Honor stuff, which do absolutely go on and on with Ann the brownshirt and such.
A little more subtle, but I'm not trying to misrepresent you, and I didn't say that you want to BAN Coulter specifically. You didn't advocate any kind legal, government censorship- nor did I mean to imply that you did.
However, trying to pressure her publisher to drop her IS attempting to suppress her viewpoint. That's still not good, but it's not the same thing as censorship. Note that I didn't use that word. I would, by the way, take a similarly dim view of people trying to pressure Michael Moore's publisher in the same way.
Rather, my point is that you should be combating her peceived pernicious influence with better ideas. If you think she's that wrong, take apart her book, or one chapter or argument and break down just exactly where she's wrong or dishonest.
10 - George
You sound calm and fair-minded, Sprague, as does your suggestion that publishers be called to pressure their authors to be "responsible."
However, if I were to switch the subject of the suggestion and say that, for instance, museum curators should pressure their artists to be "responsible" by not dunking images of Christ into pee, would you then support the suggestion?
11 - George
(finishing my thought) ...or would that now begin to sound more like "suppression?"
12 - Sprague Dawley
Al, fair enough. When I wrote the first post I was all fired up (hey, it's a personal blog). I updated with more about corporate responsibility because I wanted to better explain (to myself as well) what was getting my goat and not make it so much about Ann (who's just doing what she does): that decency in public discourse seems to be a matter of what's better for the bottom line to media outlets. I don't want to call for pressure to censor, but I want them to be responsible, for God's sake. Maybe you're right -- it's a slippery slope we don't want to get on.
George -- your museum example is a good one, I lived through the Piss Christ thing in NY. I guess I'd say that if the statement was sincere (not mercenary) I'd be more sympathetic to the offending of sensibilities. But I would oppose suppression of expression, whether it's Andres Serrano or La Coulter.
13 - George
Good on ya both for a nice chat.
We need more dialogues between the Als and the Spragues in the blogosphere--the amity and thoughtfulness amid disagreement is almost jarring. I'm feeling troll withdrawal--quick, someone mention jackboots!
14 - Sprague Dawley
Thanks George. And thanks to you, Al. I've updated the original post on my site based on our exchanges here. Lots to think about...
And George, sorry I don't own a single brown shirt -- but I do have some old Doc Martins if that works for ya'. ;)
SD
15 - Mohjho
Ann is a contrary. Her logic and conclusions go against all normaly accepted rules of media engagments. Just when you think Ann scores points for your 'side', she will push your buttons you didn't think you had.
I would not call it a good gig, but it works for her.
16 - Al Barger
Oh yes, Mohjho, Ann Coulter loves to try to get EVERYONE'S goats, friends and enemies alike. It's part of her charm. Personally, I was about ready to throttle ol' girl over the Schiavo nonsense.
17 - SteveS
Ann Coulter Haters and Tolerance
talk about a broad use of the term tolerance. You tolerate human beings, you do not have to be tolerant of hate speech.
Of course nobody is suggesting forcing her to shut up, but you have the absolute right to advocate she shut up. Nice try, but your rationale for acceptance of Ann's hate speech doesn't work with me.
18 - Scott Butki
So it's ok to criticize the Dixie Chicks, as you
and others did, for their speech but if people criticize Ann then they are being intolerant?
Your solution on how to respond to intollerance
by her is what exactly? To ignore it? To encourage others to ignore it?
If her hate speech is acceptable to you than what
about the hate speech I write about Fred Phelps doing?
19 - Al Barger
Well there SteveS, I say you're just wrong here: "you do not have to be tolerant of hate speech." Yes you do. The First Amendment doesn't say that you have the right to speak unless SteveS has a truthy feeling down in his gut that your speech is hateful.
Mr Butki, you do make a reasonable point that deserves answer. First, I don't see much "intolerance" in Ann Coulter. She's got a sharp tongue, and she'll call you out, but I don't see her actually leading movements to oppress anyone.
Your weakest part though was invoking my criticisms of the Dixie Chicks. Not alike at all. It's not that someone criticizes Coulter that's bad- I do some of that myself. Where some people are going wrong is in advocating against them being able to make their speech in the first place. Advocating government censorship would be far worse, but even consumer pressure to get voluntary co-operation in this manner is still bad. I'll tell you the Dixie Chicks are full of shit, but I would never in life try to pressure the record label to drop them.
Ann Coulter is hard to ignore, and I wouldn't advice it. The proper response is countering her bad ideas with better ones. If you think she's so bad, tell us why, other than just that you think she's a dirtbag.
Break it down. Actually get one of her books, or perhaps more bite-size, one of her columns that you find particularly pernicious, and explain it.
Fred Phelps is a different situation. For starters, it's not just that Phelps is hateful, but that he insists on directly showing up and physically imposing his nonsense on the most vulnerable people he can find- grieving mothers at funerals. That's a lot different than writing a newspaper column that you can skip over if you don't want to play. Phelps just flat needs an immediate beatdown showing up with his foolishness at someone's funeral. That's not free speech, that's physical harassment. There can be a fine line in such things, but not with this guy.
Beyond that though, how to handle Phelps is a different question. I used to have a link to Phelps up at MoreThings under the head "Scoundrels and Damned Fools." But really, I was just helping the jerk, and giving him attention and Google juice that he doesn't deserve.
Ann Coulter is obviously making much better, more thoughtful arguments than an idiot like Phelps, even if you don't agree with her. Plus, she's legitimately attracting attention and influence on the strength of her actual writing. You need to answer her.
Fred Phelps on the other hand is a big nobody. He doesn't particularly influence anyone. Is there a single person outside of his family speaking up in support of Phelps? He's certainly not writing NYT best-sellers.
In short Scott, you're welcome to cuss Phelps out. He's got it coming. But that's what he wants, bad attention. Unlike Coulter, he has no legitimate basis of popular support or significant teaching to argue. The absolutely only reason this guy has any juice at all is because folks like us take his bait and give him attention.
Like a troll in one of our comment threads, the most effective way to deal with the likes of Phelps is simply to ignore them.
20 - Anselm
SteveS: "You tolerate human beings, you do not have to be tolerant of hate speech."
Yes, you do, and anyone who says otherwise is a totalitarian in the making--for "hate speech", in practice, simply means "speech I hate". You ought not to censor hate speech; people ought to have a legal right to hate speech. On the other hand, you have, and ought to have, a legal right to say just what you did--that hate speech is not to be tolerated. Just as Coulter has a right to insult 9/11 widows, to her heart's content, in any of her books.
I can say this coherently, only because I disagree with you. Since you won't tolerate hate speech, you can't coherently advocate free speech. I can coherently affirm your right to advocate censorship because I say you're wrong to advocate censorship. You're wrong to advocate it, but you have a right to be wrong. It's only when you act on your expressed conviction that I must move to stop you. Even totalitarians must be free to speak their minds, until they actually try to put totalitarianism into effect.
"Of course nobody is suggesting forcing her to shut up, but you have the absolute right to advocate she shut up."
Ideas have consequences, SteveS. Advocating that she shut up commits you rationally to actually trying to shut her up. If you advocate it and do nothing to achieve what you advocate, you're being inconsistent, no? And what do we call it when you try to shut someone else up? Why, censorship, of course. To say what you have said is exactly as illogical as saying, "Coulter should die, and I have the right to say so; on the other hand, of course, no-one is suggesting that she be killed." Can you see the incoherence yet?
I am, of course, happy that you are inconsistent here. The fact that you haven't actually tried to shut her up is evidence that you're better than your convictions. But it would be better yet if your convictions conformed to your actions--because sooner or later, intolerant thoughts are likely to become intolerant acts. (That, incidentally, also applies to much of Coulter.)
21 - SteveS
Al and Anselm, you are wrong. When I say I don't have to be tolerant of hate speech, I'm not talking about putting forward a constitutional amendment banning her from talking. I'm talking about I don't have to tolerate it in my life. Period.
Advocating that she shut up commits you rationally to actually trying to shut her up.
I didn't advocate she shut up. I said I don't have to tolerate hate speech. Somebody can go on and on about how bad I am, about how I am harmful to society and you're telling me I have to sit there and tolerate it? Wrong.
I am, of course, happy that you are inconsistent here. The fact that you haven't actually tried to shut her up is evidence that you're better than your convictions.
I'm not inconsistent at all. I never advocated that somebody try to shut her up.
That's what's wrong with hardline fundamentalist right wingers like Ann and a few here. I say I don't have to tolerate a speech and next thing you know people start throwing out analogies of Nazis, socialism, civil rights, whatever.
To a right winger, everything to the left of them, is socialism and totalitarian. Whatever.
Here's a clue, saying I don't have to tolerate something doesn't mean it can't still occur. Duh.
22 - SteveS
And Anselm, explain again how Ann's hate speech has a 'right' to exist, but someone's speech advocating she shut up, doesn't.
Advocating that she shut up commits you rationally to actually trying to shut her up.
Ah yes, could it be because words have consequences? All except for right wingers hate speech. There's no culpability for that now, of course.
23 - SteveS
Not being tolerant of something does not mean actively working to stop it.
24 - Andy Marsh
I was looking up intolerant on thesaurus dot com and found that one of the synonyms is conservative...kind of amusing...although...another one was communist!
25 - SteveS
When I said I do not have to be tolerant of her speech, I was talking about as an individual not some society wide thing trying to shut her up.
HOWEVER.....there are perfectly legal ways to get her to shut up. Boycotts of her speeches, boycotts of universities that pay her to speak. Boycotts of cable news channels that put her on the air, counterspeeches, getting a bigger megaphone, etc.
These tactics are perfectly legal ways to get her to shut up and do not violate her rights. These tactics are used by her side all the time.