 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 
|
Buy the Book
|
Brainless: The Lies and Lunacy of Ann Coulter Thursday, September 21, 2006 Torture, indeed I made the mistake of reading Ann's latest column on her Web site. It's about -- and is -- torture. In a nutshell, she's arguing against Article Three of the Geneva Conventions, the one affording certain rights to prisoners of war. And, like most people who don't understand the issue, Ann thinks it's OK that we torture prisoners -- in clear violation of international code. And again, as usual, her argument in favor of doing so isn't so much a set of reasons resulting in a conclusion, but rather another in a long line of red herrings, accusations and reminders that Ronald Reagan "vanquished the Soviet Union." Seriously. Anyway, Ann asks (in fact, it's the column's headline): Are videotaped beheadings covered by Geneva? Isn't that always the way? I mean, let's put aside the fact that torture doesn't work (and it doesn't -- go on, check it out), why do people like Ann always trot out the beheadings? Or even better, they go for some ridiculous hypothetical situation in which we have captured the only man in the world who knows where the weapon of mass destruction is, and it's in one of our cities. Do we torture him to save the lives of thousands of Americans? Firts of all, the situation is ridiculous. And basing our decision about torture on it is about as relevant as asking whether you would support the death penalty "if it was your mother who got killed." Simply put, we shouldn't decide public policy for 300 million Americans on a single, ridiculous hypotehtical example. And if you do, you should be voted out of office. Either way, here's a typical discussion I have with my conservative friends: Me: We shouldn't torture people. Friend: Why not? Me: It doesn't work and it's immoral. Friend: Oh, but it's OK for them to cut the heads off people. Me: You're an idiot. I realize my ultimate response is condescending and mean. But I can't help myself. Who in their right mind thinks it's OK for al-Qaeda, the Nazis or any other terrorist/military organization to behead people? I certainly don't. In fact, those of us who argue AGAINST torture are saying just the opposite. It seems to me, it would be far more valid to assume that someone like Ann Coulter thinks beheadings are OK. It just boggles the mind. 6 Comments:Previous Posts
Powered by
|
Annie is Torture
I used to refer to Mz Coulter as "Anvil Annie" because she represented to me someone who had a utilitarian head and could take a good pounding day and night. This was derived from all of the hours I used to watch for her on various "news" shows when she was the Wrongists' (usually and incorrectly referred to as "Rightists," adding confusion to their role given the multiple meanings and homonyms of "right"), the Wrongists' cutout, tool, and general utility worker, hence the anvil.
Geraldo was one who was good at ignoring her, allowing her to become even more attractive in that she could never get a word in edgewise except to gripe about how she could never get a word in edgewise. Oooo ... Mistress of Mental Mystery (and was Geraldo one of her chosen swarthy males?).
But, Lo! and Behold!, I looked up "coulter" in the dictionary like the inquisitive person I am and what did I find?!? "[N]oun: a sharp steel wedge that precedes the plow and cuts vertically through the soil"* Now, we have to imagine this in its real setting (and I didn't give anyone their names {except a critter companion or several}) where it is in the ground, breaking up the clods, hitting rocks, becoming fouled with clay and other assorted stuff (recalling that the horse or mule is out in front of the whole implement), becoming duller the more its gets exposed to the elements.
We don't criticise Mz Coulter for her role as the general purpose utility wedge among the various persons and issues among the Wrong Wing. (Something about them Ws that is reassuring ...) We only use her as the focus of her role as the protection of those who would
really bust up all of the sod and generally tear up what used to be pristine fields of grass and wild flowers, bringing Nature to heel ... or Hell. That may not be so bad except for the seeds they are planting (keep dreaming, AC!) that will further destroy the lush countryside. (Some square grapes for your Chardonnay, Mz C?)
She has adequate credentials for the credulous, able to use some historically vilified groups (such as the Commies) to indicate the applicability of the same methods to others in our own time. But her sources and references are not always reliable, perhaps expecting people to be as "brainless" as she wishes them to be.
While some may see her not as a piece of steel but as an airhead, that might be appropriate in that she kites ideas as one would check the winds with trial balloons. She gets her ego massaged and the message goes out. Unfortunately, as we've seen on many several of her public and television appearances, she's unable to stay aloft for long as the winds are changing if not swirling, disturbing her intended graceful and fanciful flights. Poor Annie! Everyone picks on her except when no one recognises her arm up, waving, salivating to get picked ...on.
Here, we take aim at her only because she's a messenger. She doesn't put the rocks and the clay in the field nor does she cause her own fouling. Yet, with the amount of work associated with maintaining her image and keenness, there are bound to be Annie-ful annoyances and discussions of disgustings.
* http://www.onelook.com/?w=coulter&ls=a
Joe,
Contact me. I'd love to talk to you about/promote the book over at my place. I'm the guy who started the whole recent blow-up about Coulter and plagiarism.
The Rude Pundit
rudepundit[at]yahoo.com
Stop being so angry! Life is way to enjoyable to go around calling people idiots when you don't understand their position.
You, too rude pundit. A "blow-up" about supposed plagiarism is right! Pshaaaw!!!
Wow, stalk much?
You wrote a whole book about Ann Coulter? How do you spell obsessed?
J-O-E M-A-G-U-I-R-E.
1) Torture does in fact work quite well in any number of situations (though not all); ask any expert and they will tell you this is true. Or, hell, just watch an episode of 24.
2) Waterboarding, the harshest treatment allowed, is not torture, it's just a psychological trick to make your brain think you're drowning. I've undergone it to see what it's like and it's very unpleasant, I imagine especially if its not voluntary. It leaves one shaken but unharmed, sort of like being yelled at. All of our troops undergo much worse in basic training, including being required to sit completely still while being gassed (one guy I knew had to be gassed several times because someone in his unit kept screwing it up).
3) The use of waterboarding on Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other terrorists broke up Al Qaeda plots and saved American lives.
So, in summary, people like you want to treat terrorists better than our troops and let Americans die... why, again, exactly? Because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Because you think it will make Al Qaeda stop sawing our people's heads off? Or just because it's something to feed your BDS?
As shrill as AC is, her critics seem even more unhinged.
In case anyone cares, guerilla forces like the Iraqi insurgents are indeed covered by the Geneva Convention, and they have the obligation to treat prisoners humanely and to respect the status of civilians. The beheading of hostages is an extremely serious war crime, I can't imagine why anyone would think it wasn't and it is to be profoundly hoped that at some point it will be possible to capture and prosecute the war criminals responsible.