The line between snarky and mean
threeknockdownrule.blogspot.com [1]
It pains me to post this because I used to really enjoy Ann Coulter's work, and still do enjoy some of it. For those who haven't heard yet, she managed to cross the line between cleverly snarky pundit and being pointlessly mean and crass at CPAC, by implying that she considered John Edwards to be a "faggot." I say implying, because she didn't actually come right out and say it directly, a distinction that seems relevant to some. I don't find the distinction to be at all meaningful. Whether she implied it or said it directly, her aim was clear. She was taking a spiteful and unfunny shot at Edwards over his reputed metrosexual ways.
Having fun with politicians and their foibles can be very entertaining. I've done it often enough (though I'm trying to decrease the frequency). In some cases, polemics can even be an effective means for shocking the reader into paying attention to the underlying argument being made. In this case though, no underlying argument was attached. She was just being mean for meanness sake, and did so in an unnecessarily personal and inappropriate way. Comments like that should never be endorsed or defended just because they come from someone "on our side." They only serve to lower the level of discourse and convince observers that conservatism has no genuine arguments to make. ...
Once we decide that those we disagree with are just bad rather than wrong, we guarantee that dialogue will never be possible. If there can be no dialogue, then how can we ever win others over? ... Ann Coulter needs to take a step back and remember what made her writing so entertaining and fresh in the first place. It wasn't the witty insults. It was the scalpel-like evisceration of left-wing arguments that her insults merely accentuated. ...
In defense of Ann Coulter
californiaconservative.org [2]
Many Republicans, especially heterosexual white men, appreciate Ann Coulter because she says things that would have gotten them pilloried for the past 30 years. Coulter's comment clearly referred to limp-wristed, spineless, whiney philosophical fags rather than homosexuality. Thoughtful Democrats understand that and so should Republicans.
As a former cop and marine, I've been the target of much so-called hate speech. But I know who I am, and I don't lose sleep over what people call me. Most grown-ups learned about sticks and stones when they were children. I know, just as thoughtful homosexuals know, what and who Coulter referred to. Coulter's comments were targeted toward a married heterosexual Democrat trial lawyer of questionable moral character and NOT West Hollywood gays.
Crouching columnist, hidden agenda
zenoferox.blogspot.com [3]
New York Daily News columnist Stanley Crouch has decided to offer his own analysis of Tim Hardaway's egregious "I hate gay people" comments. Crouch calls for us to be more understanding - of Hardaway.
"(I)t would be less than sensible to avoid trying to understand where Hardaway's opinions came from and where the attitudes that one can hear from Latin guys about homosexuals also come from. (I would also suggest that part of the problem is the result of the homosexual community being largely silent on certain issues.) ...
"Far more than a few assume that the tales of pedophilia that almost brought down the Catholic Church in this nation describe a norm among homosexuals. I think that we have not had much serious discussion of these heinous acts in or out of prison because few homosexual activists have found it necessary to make clear that the conventional - and dominant - homosexual morality is built upon consenting adults, not rape and not pedophilia.
"It seems to me that until homosexual activists clear this misunderstanding up, we will continue to have to deal with the physical attacks on homosexuals and the idea that homosexuals form a threat to the community in one way or another."
Yes, indeed, I think we can all agree in a loving way that innocents like Tim Hardaway will continue to hate gay people as long as homosexual activists keep refusing to announce that they don't want to rape children. We've all noticed how civil rights legislation being pushed by gay activists refers to things like marriage and nondiscrimination. When will they ever learn that they need to include disavowals of any inclination toward sexual predation of minors?
What did Congressman Barney Frank say when the Supreme Court issued the Lawrence decision to overturn the sodomy statutes in the state of Texas? He said, "The decision by the Supreme Court to protect the privacy rights of all Americans by striking down state laws which seek to criminalize the private consenting sexual behavior of adults marks an important milestone in the protection of individual liberty in our country." Sure, he mentioned "adults," but he failed to say "and not children"!
It's really all the fault of the gay activists. And because of that, people like Tim Hardaway are made to suffer. ...