Is The Outrage That She Was Hired Or Fired? (Joe Gandelman)
Joe Gandelman
USA Today this week quickly dumped conservative writer Ann Coulter as its slated columnist for the Democratic convention. Coulter's only real counterpart on the left is writer/filmmaker Michael Moore -- who USA Today is going to have as columnist for the Republican convention (figure that one out).
But there are some other issues here...and ponder them for yourself.
First, go to this link and read the link and consider the view presented. Make sure you read Coulter's nixed column.
Then go to this link and read the final column by the conservative writer who replaced her.
Which column would get you to keep reading if you were not a hard-core conservative? Which one would likely impact you if you were considering issues or trying to arrange your thoughts on the convention or the Democrats?
Which one could actually get you to read all the way through -- and perhaps change your mind? Which one seemingly required more WORK in both material presented, organization and thoughts presented?
And does any of this matter to you, and why?
Is the outrage her firing or her firing? And why?
But there are some other issues here...and ponder them for yourself.
First, go to this link and read the link and consider the view presented. Make sure you read Coulter's nixed column.
Then go to this link and read the final column by the conservative writer who replaced her.
Which column would get you to keep reading if you were not a hard-core conservative? Which one would likely impact you if you were considering issues or trying to arrange your thoughts on the convention or the Democrats?
Which one could actually get you to read all the way through -- and perhaps change your mind? Which one seemingly required more WORK in both material presented, organization and thoughts presented?
And does any of this matter to you, and why?
Is the outrage her firing or her firing? And why?
On the balance, Goldberg is much more persuasive because he actually talks about real issues with Kerry's record that even liberals must acknowledge.
In contrast Goldberg is incredibly coherent and entertaining. The only problem is the fact that he is presented opposite Moore ... not even the same species.
Every one of us knows that Michael Moore will throw bombs that are just as big, use barbs that are jut as pointed, and rant just as incoherently, but there's no chance on this Earth that he'll get canned.
Jonah Goldberg is an excellent writer. He can be barbed when he wishes to be, but he's not nearly the level nor intensity of either Coultre or Moore. "Balancing" Moore with Goldberg is a joke.
One of my pet theories is that most of the people who read her are, in fact, loyal Democrats, who just can't help but read her, or read her to prove themselves that Republicans are evil.
And then there's the indies who just happen to think she's amusing. ;]
Sorry to hit the metaphorical "dimmer switch" on yas, Joe, but that's not a "yes/no" question. I read both Coulter and Goldberg, one for humour and razor-edged barbes and one for more sober commentary. And no, Goldberg isn't a counterbalance for Moore. Lileks or Neal boortz might be.
The outrage is both: the Hiring *and* the Firing.
The Hiring because it seems that someone didn't do their research well and determine what they were getting, and when they discovered it, they had an "OMFG!!!" moment. They're probably more comfortable with Moore's hysterical bombthrowing at the Republicans and Goldberg's rather genteel knifings of Dems than they are with Coulter's take no prisioners attitude aimed at the Dems.
The Firing, because I don't buy their stated reasons. I think they didn't have the nads to come straight out and say "We don't appreciate Coulter's humour, and we didn't research well enough to realise what we were getting, so we're changing our minds". That would have gotten snickers, but it's more forthright, and it would have garnered more respect as well.
So make that a "Yes" and "No" response. *snicker*
Actually she made some good points regarding how Dems normally treat police officers, letting Carter speak, and so on. I found the column very sharp-tounged, but not in the "hater" category. Sarcastic, yes, very.
In fact, it reminded me of H.L. Mencken or Ambrose
Bierce.
"If I weren't a hard-core conservative?" I think Goldberg is more persuasive: you get the sense that even you disagree with him, were you to meet him in person, you could just have a beer with the guy and talk about something else. If you met Coulter in person and disagreed, you'd probably be in for a long and painful evening.
I'm not outraged by either the hiring or the firing. Her USA Today column was disjointed - just poor writing. Incidentally, she left NRO reportedly because she didn't like being edited there either. I'm not saying she likes casting herself as a martyr, merely implying it. :)
Goldberg is much more likeable. I like him. Pairing him with Moore does create a definite imbalance. I hope, though, that enough people see through Moore's anti-Americanism and are persuaded the other way.
Coulter wrote a lot of things about the Democrats in that column, most of which I agree with. She was nicer to Jimmy Carter than I would be.
But, anyway, she said something about women that was fascinating to me:
"My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie-chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention."
That's a question I have very often pondered: Which type of women are more beautiful and sexier on the whole, women of the Left or women of the Right?
It has oft been observed that women of the Right tend to be more beautiful. The young Goldwater Girls were very lovely, so I've heard tell. Conservative women work to beautify themselves, wear more more stylized coiffures and and clothing, they strive to be The Eternal Feminine. The very repressedness of their sexuality turns me on. "Harder to get", as they used to say. Tight. Catholic girls especially. I find that Rightists tend to have higher libidos, and especially so the more they rant against the "sins of the flesh". Girls I knew in high school (Class of 1973). When I saw them again at our reunion last year, they were as pulchritudinous as ever.
On the Left, by contrast, the lower libido, the asexual neuterism, and, especially, the campaign against "lookism", definitely decreases the beauty and increases the ugliness of the women as well as the men. The anti-"lookism" movement is the reducto ad absurdum of the Left's egalitarianism: since we can't all be equally beautiful, we must all be equally ugly. I'm against that!
I remember seeing an old conservative, a Bircher, on TV back in 1967, one of my very first exposures to Rightist thought. He said that the basic difference between liberals and conservatives was that liberals emphasized the collective, while conservatives emphasized the individual. The _style_ of that! Asked what he thought about miniskirts, he replied: "I think they're very attractive." My kind of man!
By contrast, there was a fad among the female "hippies" of wearing long "granny skirts". I never liked that.
However, many of the "hippie chicks" I knew back then were very beautiful and sexy even in spite of that. There a still a few women of the Left I find very attractive. I'm thinking of Eleanor Clift and Susan Faludi. My friend Robin Georg Olsen is turned on by Naomi Wolf, as well as by Ann Coulter. I must say for myself, though, that, while I was turned on by Coulter when I first saw her picture in the Jewish World Review, I am no longer so after seeing more of her.
I would love to do a study of women's ideological orientations and see how this corresponds to their attractiveness. Holy Dawn and her holy Negro wife Norma on the Far Right vs. wicked Wanda and her women on the Far Left. Interesting questions about it all....
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.