Ann Coulter's Demonic

[WIP]

I heared a serious rumour that Maher was into The Sistas...

That's not a bad gig if you can get it...

Ms. Coulter is the antithesis of that,however...

Yes, Maher is pretty notorious for trying to live out the playboy lifestyle, having lots of girlfriends and dissing marriage. Coulter never married either, and has dated some other interesting characters like Bob Guccione jr. -- which made it a hard sell five years ago when she started doing the god talk all of a sudden.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, but his cautious language, especially when he talks about one "glaring exception," makes it something less than the ringing endorsement that usually gets handed out by these flaks.

No...."99.99 %" is still a strong endorsement.

The problem here is that her book sales are dropping with each bombastic offering, and less than enthusiastic reviews will push her further back in the pack of conservative celebrities...and eventually in to total obscurity.

Yet she is still able to attract lots of attention in....Canada. I wonder why?

They referred to themselves as "freepers," and there is a small Canadian sub group that runs Free Dominion Forums. I'm not up on what's going on in these places of late; I try to avoid these lunatics nowadays.

I agree...you are not up on such things at all.

[jacee]

Yet she is still able to attract lots of attention in....Canada. I wonder why?

"Lots of attention" is overestimating SunNews' viewers who number only about 5000 on a good day.

Coulter could have been a passable comedian with her over the top mocking of supposed "liberals". Unfortunately she takes herself too seriously.

[bush_cheney2004]

"Lots of attention" is overestimating SunNews' viewers who number only about 5000 on a good day.

The reference was to her campus tour in Canada last year....which got plenty of attention.

Coulter could have been a passable comedian with her over the top mocking of supposed "liberals". Unfortunately she takes herself too seriously.

Agreed...she takes her significant book sales very seriously.

[jacee]

The reference was to her campus tour in Canada last year....which got plenty of attention.

Yeah, a few hundred protesters and some very vocal freepers and a lot of bored media.

Agreed...she takes her significant book sales very seriously.

Sales that are bolstered by wealthy republicans that buy them all up to hand out free to the membership. :-]

Edited July 3, 2011 by jacee

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah, a few hundred protesters and some very vocal freepers and a lot of bored media.

Attention is attention...she got plenty on this forum as well. This thread is about one of her books.

Sales that are bolstered by wealthy republicans that buy them all up to hand out free to the membership. :-]

Amazon.com indicates otherwise.

Edited July 3, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

And that's a big problem for Ann Coulter, since she is crafting her books for the hard right lunatic audience, not the average reader. I suspect that the writer is well aware that Coulter has written almost the same story in each book, with changing bogeymen.

I haven't read her other books - at most flipped through one or two - but she has an original thesis in this book. And inadvertently, you and Jack Weber seem to provide more proof of its veracity. The two of you would look good in a mob.

[bush_cheney2004]

I haven't read her other books - at most flipped through one or two - but she has an original thesis in this book. And inadvertently, you and Jack Weber seem to provide more proof of its veracity. The two of you would look good in a mob.

Indeed....attacking her physical appearance and gender won't work in the face of strong book sales!

[WIP]

I haven't read her other books - at most flipped through one or two - but she has an original thesis in this book. And inadvertently, you and Jack Weber seem to provide more proof of its veracity. The two of you would look good in a mob.

You're forgetting that we're not liberals! I won't speak for Jack, but I would be classified today as a radical, because I want a new economic paradigm that works within the parameters we have today: an overpopulated planet that has dangerously altered the planet, and depleted natural resources available for the future. And liberals just want to tweak the dials of the system we have now. One other difference is that liberals are pacifists, and I'm not a pacifist!

That's what's made Coulter's screeds about liberal academic tyranny in the book I'm most familiar with - Godless, a laughable example of vilifying a weak adversary for exactly what the right wing is doing - grabbing more and more power, and denying the rights of others. In his book:"Death Of The Liberal Class" former NY Times foreign correspondent Chris Hedges explains what has been a mystery to many outsiders looking on, like where are demonstrations against the wars, the closing of factories and union-busting...back in the 60's, there were people in the streets every time something big was happening, but aside from the reaction against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, the response has been anemic. And the reason is because the right has pretty much gotten everything on their wish list! They have destroyed the liberal institutions by underfunding the state universities, coopting the big unions, cutting the funding for public radio and television while allowing six corporations to create a rightwing media oligopoly...so what the F(*& is Ann Coulter complaining about? It's just simple minded propaganda to distribute to simple minded tea party activists!

But, the shift to the right over the last 30 years may come at a high price if things start to get ugly in the future, because those moderate liberal voices have been cleared out of the way and a leftwing backlash will be a lot more ugly than what the oligarchs have been used to dealing with so far.

[bloodyminded]

You're forgetting that we're not liberals! I won't speak for Jack, but I would be classified today as a radical, because I want a new economic paradigm that works within the parameters we have today: an overpopulated planet that has dangerously altered the planet, and depleted natural resources available for the future. And liberals just want to tweak the dials of the system we have now. One other difference is that liberals are pacifists, and I'm not a pacifist!

Ann Coulter--and August, for that matter--are far closer to the Establishment liberal worldview than is what I would deem "the Left." That's why whenever they talk about "liberals" or "the left," there is a simpleton conflation that goes on, a tribal reflex in which all "enemies" are painted alike...even though many of these "enemies" are, at bottom, true allies of the world's Coulters.

For an example, read the writer you mention, Chris Hedges; or read Noam Chomsky, or Howard Zinn; now, go read Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

One thing that jumps out to me (but never to fans of Coulter and limbaugh, tellingly enough, since being a fan of these two is akin to being a fan of "Entertainment Tonight," and demands a lack of sophisticated thinking) is that one side is fully and defensively supportive of monumental Establishment Power...and the other side is not.

This is not an argument between Democrats and Republicans.

It is an argument between Democrat/Republicans--Coulter--and those who have fierce, principled opposition to that roughly single entity, the TwoParties: Chomsky, Hedges, Zinn, Cockburn, et al.

Establishment liberals despise these Lefties, mnostly because these Lefties go after the mainstream liberals as often, or more often, as they go after conservatives.

[sharkman]

I haven't read her other books - at most flipped through one or two - but she has an original thesis in this book. And inadvertently, you and Jack Weber seem to provide more proof of its veracity. The two of you would look good in a mob.

Good point. The only book from the American right I have ever read was Dubya's, and it was a solid telling of the tale. But I think I'll search this one out. She does have a level of intelligence and is sharp witted. Oh wait, I read one of Limbaugh's books back in the day.

[WIP]

It is an argument between Democrat/Republicans--Coulter--and those who have fierce, principled opposition to that roughly single entity, the TwoParties: Chomsky, Hedges, Zinn, Cockburn, et al.

Establishment liberals despise these Lefties, mnostly because these Lefties go after the mainstream liberals as often, or more often, as they go after conservatives.

That's why the so called liberal media is so nauseating to listen to. This will get worse as the Obama re-election campaign starts to get underway. They toss a few crumbs off the table and call it reform, and are more harsh with voices on the left who criticize them, like the piling on against Cornel West for having the audacity to criticize Obama's weak efforts to end the wars, restore civil rights lost to the Patriot Act and other intrusive measures etc.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's why the so called liberal media is so nauseating to listen to. This will get worse as the Obama re-election campaign starts to get underway. They toss a few crumbs off the table and call it reform, and are more harsh with voices on the left who criticize them, like the piling on against Cornel West for having the audacity to criticize Obama's weak efforts to end the wars, restore civil rights lost to the Patriot Act and other intrusive measures etc.

What made you think this American president would be "liberal" enough for you or the American "liberal media"? Is this the root of your disatisfaction...from Canada? The "voices" on the left are still American.

[Oleg Bach]

What made you think this American president would be "liberal" enough for you or the American "liberal media"? Is this the root of your disatisfaction...from Canada? The "voices" on the left are still American.

People hear voices from the left and from the right - Those that pay heed to all those voices should go see a doctor.

[bush_cheney2004]

People hear voices from the left and from the right - Those that pay heed to all those voices should go see a doctor.

I agree....sometimes they just hear what they want to hear, ignoring the obvious. Alas, such people are doomed to a life of disappointment. American presidents govern for the entire Yankee spectrum, and certainly not for pipe dreams in Canada.

Wish and hope at your own risk.

[Oleg Bach]

I agree....sometimes they just hear what they want to hear, ignoring the obvious. Alas, such people are doomed to a life of disappointment. American presidents govern for the entire Yankee spectrum, and certainly not for pipe dreams in Canada.

Wish and hope at your own risk.

Disappointment has been the bane of my existance most of my life. Being brought up in this liberal democracy did me a great dis-service. I was led to believe that everyone was equal - of equal worth and intelligence...so I gave everyone more credit than deserved and ended up broke...If I had only known that most people are fairly base and not capable of the higher ways of existing - I would have been more gentle and not as truthful - I would have conned the dumbies out of all their money and lived like a king...but no - I really thought that they could be reasoned with - I was wrong - they all hear voices and are all quite nuts. So as was said above the entrance of hell "leave all hope behind" - Hope that you could change the world...they are hopeless.

[bloodyminded]

What made you think this American president would be "liberal" enough for you

He didn't.

[Pliny]

You're forgetting that we're not liberals! I won't speak for Jack, but I would be classified today as a radical, because I want a new economic paradigm that works within the parameters we have today: an overpopulated planet that has dangerously altered the planet, and depleted natural resources available for the future. And liberals just want to tweak the dials of the system we have now. One other difference is that liberals are pacifists, and I'm not a pacifist!

You haven't noticed, in your radicalism, any transitional drift toward what could be defined as the dictatorial far right, have you?

Edited July 5, 2011 by Pliny

[WIP]

You haven't noticed, in your radicalism, any transitional drift toward what could be defined as the dictatorial far right, have you?

NO, because I haven't offered solutions or strategies; just an honest confrontation with the problems we are collectively facing today...and the closer we get to societal breakdown, the more determined a lot of people are to just shut out the bad news and escape -- why else would more people be interested in following the latest celebrity trials than take a look at something that has significance for everyone living on the planet, like the latest IPSO Report on the World's oceans.

What's offered up as solutions for our problems by both conservatives and liberals, are just slightly different versions of doing the same things over again and expecting different results. Both liberals and conservatives are arguing about how to restore economic growth. They take it as a given that economies must keep growing and people must have more and more products in their lives, even though sociological evidence compiled by people like Richard Wilkinson show that in present dollars, the peak income for raising quality of life stops in relatively equal societies where average income is about $12,000 per year! After that, there is no increase in lifespan, health, or perceived satisfaction with life. And, especially in more unequal societies, these numbers drop in spite of rising average income levels. We do know that modern technology played a big part in creating the consumer-driven economy that's eating up the planet's resources at an ever increasing scale. As a side note, when the subject of the Great Depression is mentioned, one of the causes that's never taken into account is that advertising and impulse-driven consumption were not big economic factors back in 1930 -- and the technological improvements of newer methods of steel production and assemblyline manufacturing that came of age in the 1920's, flooded the existing markets with too many products. It took a few decades before corporate marketing and television created the modern, borderline ADHD consumer!

Yet the discussion going on by what we are told are the 'two sides of the debate' do not even recognize, let alone speak to the core problems. And there is that fundamental problem of how to square the demands for economic growth with the natural limits to growth that are already being imposed on us with increased energy costs, higher food prices and rising resource costs....the conservatives and the liberals have nothing to say to deal with these limits, so we may just continue merrily along until nature imposes a solution similar to the one the Mayans, the Easter Islanders, and many past empires suffered....the problem is that in our globalized world, the collapse will also be global this time, and it's anyone's guess what will emerge from the other side.

Edited July 5, 2011 by WIP

[cybercoma]

I first heard of Ann Coulter from this forum, then I saw references to her on Mark Steyn and youtube. To me, she seems anorexic.

But to be honest, I don't know her. In a Chapters once, I looked at her books. They all seem to be the same: She doesn't like American "Liberals".

----

While recently driving on the 401 to Ontario, I heard Coulter talk about civil rights legislation on an America radio station, and talk about her new book. I recently bought a new eReader (Kobo) and received an online book credit. Intrigued, I chose her book.

I've been reading her latest book (Demonic) on an eReader. (It's my first Coulter book.) Wow!

----

First, her description of the French Revolution must be translated. Everyone must read this chapter.

Second, she says that only Anglo-Saxon law, English people, are right. In this, she's wrong.

I haven't read this thread past the OP, so forgive me if this has already been talked about.

Ann Coulter is not a journalist or academic. She's an entertainer. There has been a dangerous blurring of the lines between information and entertainment. Coulter puts on the perception of being informative, her books are considered non-fiction, but she's really putting on an act to entertain political junkies. Like all performing arts, her act is designed to elicit a response: ie. love or hate. There is no between. She needs to be considered in this manner, rather than taken as either a serious intellectual or journalist.

[bloodyminded]

I haven't read this thread past the OP, so forgive me if this has already been talked about.

Ann Coulter is not a journalist or academic. She's an entertainer. There has been a dangerous blurring of the lines between information and entertainment. Coulter puts on the perception of being informative, her books are considered non-fiction, but she's really putting on an act to entertain political junkies. Like all performing arts, her act is designed to elicit a response: ie. love or hate. There is no between. She needs to be considered in this manner, rather than taken as either a serious intellectual or journalist.

That's just it. She's reasonably talented at what she does (although her popularity is apparently declining with each successive publication). What she does not do is offer serious commentary on political matters. I don't think this is a criticism, because I don't believe it's really her intent to do so.

Edited July 14, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

You haven't noticed, in your radicalism, any transitional drift toward what could be defined as the dictatorial far right, have you?

WIP sounds like a zealous fellow - Over population of the planet hugh? Maybe WIP should get the surgery...or even take a dive off a bridge and assist the planet? This attitude about over population is dangerous. People who think this way have no quams about destroying everone - but themselves of course - If earth was a space ship running out of food and water - who makes the decision on which passenger should be jettisoned?

[cybercoma]

That's just it. She's reasonably talented at what she does (although her popualrity is apparently declining with each successive publication). What she does not do is offer seriosu commentary on political matters. I don't think this is a criticism, because I don't believe it's really her intent to do so.

That's what I think too.

[August1991]

I haven't read this thread past the OP, so forgive me if this has already been talked about.

Ann Coulter is not a journalist or academic. She's an entertainer. There has been a dangerous blurring of the lines between information and entertainment. Coulter puts on the perception of being informative, her books are considered non-fiction, but she's really putting on an act to entertain political junkies. Like all performing arts, her act is designed to elicit a response: ie. love or hate. There is no between. She needs to be considered in this manner, rather than taken as either a serious intellectual or journalist.

Cybercoma, IMHO your point was not discussed above (so have no fear, you have an original point) but I think you're wrong. True, Coulter has entertaining turns of phrase.

However, her description of the French Revolution should be included on the reading list of all courses in 18th century European history. It's remarkable, and cybercoma you should read it. Coulter is no left-wing late night American TV show: she's not entertainment. She has a good point.

----

I object to Coulter's description of the American Revolution. She pretends that it was equivalent to Canada's confederation. I disagree.

In 1867, we Roman Catholics and Protestants, French-speaking Canadians, British and Scottish people, various mobs, managed to find a way to manage our own affairs without a revolution, and without a Civil War.

And south of the border, the American English mob?

Edited July 14, 2011 by August1991

[Oleg Bach]

What do you need a revolution for when we have colonialist style suppression that is so intense you can't even think let along consider a revolution.