Skip to comments.(Vanity) Newspeak and the Pipsqueak, or Light in the Briefs
Posted on 03/08/2007 9:26:17 PM PST by grey_whiskers
By now, everyone has had their say on the most recent Ann Coulter brouhaha. I say most recent because she has had a history of saying things which offend many on the left, scare away moderates, and allow easy stereotyping of those on the right. Earlier examples of such quotes include her remarks on the proper reaction to 9-11: We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. Or her opinion of a certain set of 9-11 widows (conveniently chosen by the left to attack President Bush): "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." The latest quip, in its entirety, was this: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot', so I so kind of an impasse, cant really talk about Edwards." And this has raised a lot of peoples ire.
Various theories have been proposed about Ann. Either shes a hatemonger, or she is single and angry about it, or she has a schtick which she promotes to gain publicity and sell books, or she is attempting to overcome politically correct speech codes by frontal assault. I will make no attempt to distinguish between any of these alternatives, since they seem to miss the point. The best way to consider Ann Coulters remarks is to use one of the liberals favorite techniquessituational ethicsagainst them. That is, with regard to the kill their leaders and convert them remarksaccording to the liberals, killing is bad (except when done by members of oppressed indigenous people). And convert them to Christianity is worsebecause religion is the enemy of peace. (Cambodia, Angola, Prague Spring, Tiananmen Square, and Afghanistan notwithstanding.) Considering the 9-11 widows remarkhas anyone noticed that they have not been heard from after Anns broadside? If they were genuine, instead of focus-grouped Trojan Mares, wouldnt we have heard more from them afterwards? And as for Jonathan Edwardsface it, the reason she made the remark is that he does come across as effeminate: otherwise Rush Limbaugh would not have called him The Breck Girl. Just as political humor about Gerald Ford focused on pratfalls, and both President Bush and Ted Kennedy have had to endure comments about drinking.
But there is one more important point about Ann Coulter and Jonathan Edwards. In fact, there are two important points. The first is that Ann did not actually call Jonathan Edwards a faggotshe implied she would like to. Why didnt she? The fear of re-education, as she said, recalling the recent teapot tempests about Tim Hardaway and Isaiah Washington. In fact, her technique was a brilliant verbal demonstration of a technique used in chess called forking (no puns, please!): taking advantage of the rules of movement of your piece to simultaneously endanger multiple enemy pieces with a single chessman. She was able to reinforce the public notion of Edwards as effeminate (since he is a lawyer, shall we call him light in the briefs?), take the oxygen out of the room for Hillary, gain fame for her books, and take a slam at political correctness, all in one sentence.
So what is the second point I mentioned? It ties in to the line light in the briefs. We all know that the homosexual movement is aggressively moving to destigmatize homosexuality, and to render impolite or even criminal, any opposition to homosexuality. But the movement does not mean to stop there. Consider for example the drive towards gay marriage, and the attempts by some on the left to cast the homosexual movement in the same light as the civil rights movement.(*) Is this done merely to couch things in familiar tunes, or something more sinister? Recall the liberals favorite remedies for past discriminationbusing and affirmative action. Imagine if the lavender lawyers have their way, and redress (sorry, it wont happen again!) of past wrongs against the new protected class of homosexuals becomes the order of the day. We could face mandatory immersion of straight students in homosexual-majority classrooms, mandatory set-asides for homosexual companies, and the appearance of another protected class in the workplace. Stretching a point, one could see things getting to the point where a female employee propositioned by a male manager can get him fired, but a male employee cannot even engage in whistleblowing (sorry, last one, I promise!) when solicited by a male supervisor. And all because of the PC speech codes, enforced by lawyers who are light in their briefs.
Ann, dont ever let them force you into Newspeak, or accuse you of crimethink!
(*) This attempt is absurd on its face. Even if homosexual tendencies are genetic in nature (which is unproven), there is little comparison between that and race relations, for three reasons. First, one can suppress ones sexual impulses by an exercise of will; but no matter how hard you try, you cannot increase or decrease the pigmentation in your skin. Second, one of the reasons civil rights are so important is the historical fact of slavery in the US, which was across racial lines. There has been no history of the gay trade (even in San Francisco). Finally, there are no cross-cultural institutions, such as marriage, the family, and the raising of children, which are affected by civil rights.
Excellent post! You made some very good points!
"And as for Jonathan Edwards..."
Jonathan Edwards, the Colonial minister, is running for President? You mention Jonathan several times. Freudian slip?
Just one more reason for my tagline...
Full Disclosure: IIRC, Catherine Marshall did a small biographical sketch on the Edwards you refer to, it seems his children for several generations were *quite* influential.
Michael Jackson seems to have found a way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.