 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 
|
Buy the Book
|
Brainless: The Lies and Lunacy of Ann Coulter Sunday, September 24, 2006 Guest Blogger -- Tara Fosbre I had the priviledge of reading an advance copy of Brainless -- The Lies and Lunacy of Ann Coulter. Prior to doing so I felt it would only be fair to read at least one Ann Coulter book to have a frame of reference. Now, I am ashamed to admit that I actually purchased Godless so that I could read it. I am a voracious reader, but this book was an extremely difficult read for me. I was unable to get through an entire chapter -- much less a few pages -- in one sitting, which made the whole process even more painful. I found that Godless has no narrative structure and read like a subway station lunatic ranting about completely random topics. I believe that we are all entitled to our own opinions and to be treated fairly. Along with that right comes the rule I thought we all learned in kindergarten: "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all." I believe that there are more appropriate ways to share opinions without hurting the feelings of others, as in the case of the Jersey Girls. I also believe that if you are going to be bold enough to assert an opinion, it should hold up -- and that if you don’t like something, rather than rant like a lunatic, you should try and rectify the problem rather than just contribute to it. Even though this is the author’s debut book, it reads with experience, wit and confidence. He tactfully examines and undermines Ann’s opinions, delivering to the reader a more accurate understanding of just how insane she really is -- and that rather than taking steps to improve problems, she is just contributing to them. Joe did a brilliant job seeking truth where little can be found. 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. Wednesday, September 20, 2006 Guest Blogger -- Doug Kasper, a/k/a Ike Principle So, my buddy decides to write this book on Ann Coulter. Being his pal, I'm obligated to read it, right? So I do. Now, I'm neither liberal nor conservative -- call me "consiverable" -- but I like to stay up on things. Meanwhile, my wife, being the logical, step-by-step clear-thinker she is, says, "I can't read Joe's book with an unbiased opinion if I don't read some of Ann Coulter first." She's a teacher. She makes sense. Now, she didn't make a herculean effort to find "Godless," Ann Coulter's latest book, but a few attempts to no avail. So she settles for "Treason." While she's reading it, I'm nearby perusing more high-brow material. (It was either Sports Illustrated, old Charlie Brown comics or pornography, I forget which.) Anyway, after about eight minutes, she flings the book to the floor and says, "I'm only on page 7, and I can't handle this anymore." Subsequent to that, she tells me she thinks she's gotten the general idea about Coulter and where she stands on things. Now, I'm not going to defend Ann Coulter, but she's got the right to her opinions, and I occasionally fall in line with some conservative thinking. But these days, it should be noted, even conservatives distance themselves from her. Her vitriol, while often lacking substance (or proper footnoting), is sophomoric and intentionally hurtful at times. Joe's book, meanwhile, takes arguments that she starts and at least puts some actual substance behind them, while exposing them as off-base. I've seen enough of Ms. Coulter to know that she doesn't often back up arguments with facts -- it's just a "my voice is louder than yours" yellfest or a slew of name-calling. Joe's tack involves logic, evidence and a pertinent dose of humor. "Political pundit" is nowhere on my resume, nor should it be. But I know enough to say this country has its share of problems. The way to solve them is not by widening the gap between ideologies, as Coulter tries to do, but to try and find some common ground to set up the basis for level-headed mediation and compromise. It's my hope that Joe's book sheds more light on the sham that Ms. Coulter is, and puts people like her out of the media spotlight. Buy the book. Tuesday, September 19, 2006 I Prefer the Term "Catchy" Following up on my first blog entry, in which I mention that I wouldn't necessarily have picked "Brainless: The Lies and Lunacy of Ann Coulter" as the title of my first book, I thought I would respond to the suggestion that the title is "nasty." I prefer "catchy." Brendan Nyhan, Coulter-critic extraordinaire, disagrees. Writing for the online edition of American Prospect (in what was later mentioned in Howard Kurtz's Media Notes column in the Washington Post) he calls the title "annoying and offensive." Nyhan goes on to say that "Coulter is not 'brainless'" and that the terms "'brainless' and 'lunacy' implicitly reference cultural stereotypes of women as dumb or crazy." Frankly, I don't see the sexism in calling someone brainless (in an obvious joke) or in the contention that she's a lunatic. Neither of those is an inherently female characteristic. We all HAVE brains, after all. And while women's menstrual cycles can be affected by the moon, it hardly means that lunatics are solely female. (That's why they picked Michael J. Fox, and not Justine Bateman, for "Teen Wolf.") I could better understand his contention if I had called her "hysterical" -- a term derived from the Latin word for "uterus" and implying that hysteria was the result of some problem with the womb. Or maybe if he had said the joke was too broad. (And that is NOT a Freudian slip, thank you very much.) In any event, Nyhan writes that he "hope(s) the book is more constructive than the title suggests." I have no doubt that he, after reading "Brainless," will agree it is -- especially given that I point out in the book, a number of times, that Ann Coulter is anything but dumb. Dangerous, yes. Dumb, no. Tuesday, September 12, 2006 September 13, 2006 An awful lot gets written about Ann Coulter, much of it on the Internet -- and therefore much of it unverifiable, or at least refutable. (A dangerous thing to assert in a blog, I grant you). But occasionally, something so insightful, so prescient comes along that it's difficult to dismiss. Kristen Breitweiser's September 6 posting on The Huffington Post (www.huffingtonpost.com) is among them. At last count, "A Letter to Ann Coulter" had drawn 367 comments from readers, the vast majority of them (or so an unscientific count suggests) praising the most recognizable of the "Jersey Girls." If there were any justice in the world, there would be 10 times as many. Setting the record straight on the 9/11 Commission and conservatives' politicization of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, Breitweiser defends herself without being defensive, asserts herself without being an *sshole and makes her point without pointing fingers. "A Letter to Ann Coulter" is required reading for anyone who cares about the state of our country's political discourse. Sept. 11, 2006 Brainless. Not exactly the title I had expected for my first book. As is typical for most writers, I had imagined something more … I don’t know … literary, I guess. Not that I’d change the title if I could. The old saw that you can’t judge a book by its cover doesn’t really apply here. I just wonder what people will think about it, that’s all. I worry that bookstore browsers will simply dismiss it as an opportunistic hatchet job on a defenseless easy target. But given that you’re curious enough about the book to be reading this, my guess is I don’t have to worry about such a thing with you. And, at the risk of self-promotion, the fact is that Brainless is anything but an unwarranted attack on a harmless celebrity. To begin with, Ann Coulter’s harmlessness is a matter of intense dispute – just ask 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser … or Bill Clinton, for that matter. Ann is an attack-dog for the right. Not a guard dog – an attack dog. The kind loosed not on burglars and gun-wielding trespassers but rather on unwitting passersby. Secondly, Brainless is not a simple collection of pot-shots. Armed with a decade of journalism experience and a B+ in freshman-year Logic (don’t ask about the Latin course), I’ve used what I have at my disposal to deconstruct and expose Ann’s lies and lunacy, as the book’s subtitle would have it. I’ve separated fact, such as it is, from fiction and held Ann’s rhetorical feet to the fire as best I can. Lastly, this book is an entreaty to those of us who care enough about the future of this country’s politics to stand up and say the emperor has no clothes. It’s time to question the so-called conventional wisdom being spouted by advocates of the current administration. It’s time to make sure that truth overrides wit, that sound bytes bow before information and that those with something important to say aren’t drowned out by the shrieking heads that these days pass for political pundits. To this last point, the only thing I ask of you is that you tell me what you think about Ann Coulter, the Bush Administration or whatever it is you have on your mind. Post your comments, read other readers’ postings and exercise the brain you’ve been given. Some people aren’t lucky enough to have one. Previous Posts
Archives Powered by
|
