Michael's Reviews > Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right

Slander by Ann Coulter
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
1036930
's review
Aug 30, 10

did not like it
bookshelves: 2000s
Read from August 18 to 26, 2010

THE SLANDER REVIEWS.

Review the first: An Appeal to Those Who Take Her Seriously

This first review is specifically for those who take Ann Coulter’s ideas seriously. If you do, I really hope you’ll read this review and seriously think about the arguments I’m making.

Here’s a quote from the first paragraph of Coulter’s last chapter: “Like all propagandists, liberals create mythical enemies to justify their own viciousness and advance their agenda. There is no bogeyman that strikes greater terror in the left than the apocryphal "religious right." The very phrase is a meaningless concept, an inverted construct of the left's own Marquis de Sade Lifestyle.”

To give you an idea of how this quote sounds to a liberal, here’s the same quote with just the quote’s political direction changed: "Like all propagandists, conservatives create mythical enemies to justify their own viciousness and advance their agenda. There is no bogeyman that strikes greater terror in the right than the apocryphal "godless left." The very phrase is a meaningless concept, an inverted construct of the right’s own “Holier than Thou” Lifestyle.”

Does this make any sense to you? Or does it just sound like a mean blanket statement being thrown over roughly half the people in the country?

It’s impossible to take someone seriously who insists the ‘religious right’ is some vague, meaningless concept, yet insists liberals are all rich, snooty, atheistic hipsters who never make any sense when they talk. This is the equivalent of saying, “Those liberals are all the same! And they’re so mean with their stereotyping, too!”

Ann Coulter assumes the following things: (1) Her readers aren’t going to notice she pulls all of her quotes about the ‘liberal media’ from the same five newspapers and the same two news stations all the time. (2) Her audience won’t notice that she is doing the exact same thing throughout this book that she is accusing liberals of doing: glossing over all of the facts that don’t fit in with her narrow and paranoid view of the media, and (3) she intentionally takes sources out of context in a way that no one who really wanted to debate would.

Lets look at that last one real quickly, because I don’t want it to appear that I’m saying all of this just because I’m some ‘angry liberal’. . . actually, before we even get , let’s talk about the word ‘liberal’ real quick, because it has multiple meanings. We could be talking about someone who supports higher taxation for the haves in order to provide for the have-nots. Or, we could be talking about those who are liberal about individual rights, such as giving homosexuals the same rights as straight people. These are two different meanings for the word liberal, and those who consider themselves liberals don’t necessary agree on these. Similarly, some conservatives are more concerned with economic conservativism, but aren’t all that concerned with homosexual rights or certain other hot-button issues; it depends on the particular conservative.

Back to what I was saying before that tangent, though: she takes quotes out of context. Want specifics? Citation 33 in chapter 2. Ann Coulter says: “Schlafly is preposterously demeaned with articles reporting that she is trying to remain 'relevant.'” This is in support of Ann’s argument that the press is constantly picking on conservatives. However, all of the quotes picked from this article by Coulter are insults coming from conservatives, actually (a member of Republicans for Choice and a GOP consultant). The author of the article itself is, if anything, positive towards Schlafly. Through my reading, it looks like this is what Ann does a lot: she doesn’t outright lie, but she misleads her audience into thinking something is happening that simply isn’t.

We’ll do one more example, because I want to show that it is possible to research this stuff and see how insincere it is, but I don’t want to bore either of us with going overboard with examples. If you are curious, please do some investigating on your own. Sources can be bad, or can be taken out of context. This next one is just a lame attempt at argument on Coulter’s part: on page 15, she uses a LexisNexis search to see how many times the New York Times (a liberal publication) uses the terms “far right wing” (109 times) and “far left wing” (18 times). Clearly, the publication favors referencing a far right wing; therefore, this publication is definitely a far left wing propaganda piece. However, she doesn’t mention that a LexisNexis search for the same time period in the Washington Times, a journal that she even admits leans conservative in this book, shows almost the exact same proportions (37 for FRW, 7 for FLW). The NYT has a very slightly higher ratio of “far right wing” uses, but a very comparable one. So, first off, this brings into question whether the usage of these terms is evidence of anything. Secondly, it brings up the question of whether this term is used as condescendingly as Coulter would like us to believe: she even refers to the “American right” in her book’s title, although she avoids the word “far.” So, does adding “far” make it a negative comment? I’m skeptical, since I saw a bumper sticker this morning that said “Extremely right-wing.”

I felt the need to address a review to you (those who think they’re in agreement with Coulter) because I don’t want anyone to think I’m some angry liberal calling conservatives stupid. I genuinely want conversation. In contrast to Coulter’s explanation of how liberals react to argument, I’m giving facts and not just rhetorical sophistry. If you pay attention to the way Coulter uses quotes, you’ll realize her books are sound and fury signifying almost nothing.


Review the Second: Coming Soon to a Bookstore Near You.

As we all know, Ann Coulter is a polemicist for the conservative movement. Polemic is of course from the latin word “polemas,” meaning “annoying hack.” But, not everyone knows that her bestselling books are written under very specific conditions: on Saturday nights (Sunday mornings) after extensive partying (i.e. sitting at martini bars and arguing about whether liberals are stupid assholes or merely ignorant fuckmuffins). Her writing process, usually beginning at four in the morning on Sunday, begins with a few sniffs of coke and a quick shot of jagermeister, and then she lets the spirit move her.

However, the tone she takes in this state is often one that yellow godless liberal assholes don’t like reading. That’s why Random House is releasing this all-new version of her classic original: Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right, the Sober Edition. This is the exact same book, except it has been edited by Coulter on Saturday morning. Saturday mornings are punctuated by smoking a joint and having lots of sex, so the tone is markedly different. For instance, here’s the original version of a paragraph from Slander:

“The liberal catechism includes a hatred of Christians, guns, the profit motive, and political speech and an infatuation with abortion, the environment, and race discrimination (or in the favored parlance of liberals, “affirmative action”). Heresy on any of these subjects is, well, heresy.” (page 2, no sources cited.)

Now, here is the same paragraph, from the sober edition:

“Liberals’ chief positions include caring for our planet, restrictions on the actions of businesses, restrictions on the kind of weapons people can carry, preserving women’s right to choose whether to have a baby or not, and preserving religious freedom in our country. If you don’t value all of these positions, some liberals will disagree with your opinions.”

See how much more calm and reasoned she sounds now? Now, all of your friends who are liberal fuckmuffins won’t give you that derisive look when they see you walking around with one of Coulter’s books. Here’s another section from the original, full of those numerous citations everyone loves:

“What happened to (Bob) Packwood is a stunning example of the media’s power both to destroy and protect. It’s absurd enough when the media describes Teddy Kennedy as a man of principle and Jesse Helms as a pandering bigot. In the case of Packwood, the media’s good dog/bad dog descriptions were applied to the exact same human being.

When they needed him......Packwood was destined for “political stardom,” according to the New York Times. He was called “a successful lawyer and bright young man.”

As soon as he became dispensable....Packwood was a man who “might have been successful selling insurance or probating wills back in Oregon.”

When they needed him....He was the grandson of “a member of the 1857 Oregon Constitutional Convention.”

As soon as he became dispensable...He was the “nerdy son of a timber lobbyist in the state legislature.”.........(continues for six more quotes)” (citations 16-25)

Now, here is the same passage, revised just after rolling off of Bill Maher:

“I’ve located two articles that say neutral things about (Bob) Packwood before he was charged with sexual harassment, and two articles that reflect negatively upon him from after this controversy came to the public’s attention. Amazingly, it seems that at least a handful of democrats turned against him after these allegations came up. Here are some quotes to illustrate this. . . .”

And, finally, we realize in her final chapter that this revision has changed the thesis of her book slightly. Here’s the original:

“Only people who are grounded in a sense of their own value and who do not think the good life consists of being able to sneer at other people as inferior can resist the lure of liberal snobbery. If liberals couldn’t exercise their adolescent sneers through their control of the mass media, there would be no liberals at all.”

And now, the same section, this time from the sober version:

“I, Ann Coulter, am a liberal.”

Your communist socialist far left wing liberal friends who spend all their time showing off their wealth by helping the poor might take some time out of their busy, elitist schedule to give this new version a read. So, if you know any liberals who haven’t already migrated to an even more socialist country like Canada or Switzerland, consider buying them this new edition for CHRISTMAS. And remind them it’s CHRISTMAS TIME in the city, and all those foreign holidays can fuck off.
31 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Slander.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

08/22/2010 page 110
31.0% "Damned liberals. Grumble grumble grumble."
08/25/2010 page 175
50.0% "Bah-bah-bah-bah-bah-bah-bah-bah-BAH, the bitch went nuts."
08/25/2010 page 180
51.0% "Okay, this paragraph is a gem: "Like all propagandists, liberals create mythical enemies to justify their own viciousness and advance their agenda. There is no bogeyman that strikes greater terror in the left than the apocryphal "religious right." The very phrase is a meaningless concept, an inverted construct of the left's own Marquis de Sade Lifestyle." Oh, irony, I love you so." 4 comments

Comments (showing 1-43)




dateUp arrow    newest »

message 43: by Caris (new)

Caris Why the shit are you doing this to yourself? Some books just aren't worth it for the snarky review alone.


Michael 1: This is a dare situation with Jacob; he's going to be reading Sarah Palin's Going Rogue. I wanted to do Left Behind, but the library was out of copies on the day I went.

2: Now that I've started this book, I agree: this is gonna be a miserable experience, and will probably kill braincells. But I have some hellish willpower.


message 41: by Caris (new)

Caris More power to you then. I've got Sheriff Joe's book on my to-read, but I don't think I ever actually will.


message 40: by Eh?Eh! (new)

Eh?Eh! Go, Michael, go!


Michael Oh, snap! He has a book? Maybe it will reveal how he got so mentally fucked up. Paint chips? Bricks to the side of his head? Who knows?

Thanks, Eh! Whenever I get to a part about those Rich, Patronizing Liberals who only want to help the poor so they can lord their wealth over them, I'll think of you.


message 38: by Eh?Eh! (new)

Eh?Eh! Heh! That's me. Why wasn't I interviewed for this book?


Michael Don't take it personally, Eh! I'm pretty sure her research consists of LexisNexis searches, google and things Bill O'Reilly says while drunk and off camera. You know, when Bill REALLY lets his inner asshole come out.


message 36: by Eh?Eh! (new)

Eh?Eh! Michael wrote: "when Bill REALLY lets his inner asshole come out."

Off camera? I thought that happened when he was ON camera.


message 35: by Caris (new)

Caris You fuckin' lefties. Leave Billy alone.


Michael No, Eh!, I assure you, when Billy's on camera, he's just come out of his daily hour of meditation, and chased that immediately with a joint. What you are seeing is Billy in his 'relaxed,' 'giddy' mood.

But if you catch him in the morning, he's usually tied to the bed, projectile vomiting, spinning his head around completely and supporting the 1070 bill.


Michael Gay republicans? Is that kind of like anti-environment polar bears? Anti-war gun manufacturers?


message 32: by Eh?Eh! (new)

Eh?Eh! Is she really attending? Or will it be a fabulous lookalike?


Michael I visiting Atlanta not too long ago and the car driver was a young African American man listening to GLEN BECK!

Hopefully it was his first time, and he was listening out of curiosity? maybe NPR was having a commercial break. I guess it's no weirder than Coulter thinking women should have their vote revoked.

If she said that about Tina Turner's legs it's official: she's Norman-Bates, yellow-wallpaper crazy.


message 30: by Jacob (new)

Jacob So...I'm still reading Going Rogue. Which one are you gonna pick up next?


Michael Uhhh, sorry to tell you this, Jacob, but the deal isn't I'm gonna keep reading Ann Coulter books until you finish reading Sarah Palin. If that were the case, I would be messaging you every two or three hours asking, "What page number are you on?"

One book by Coulter is more than enough to get the gist. If one can call it a gist, and not a frying pan upside the head.


message 28: by Jacob (new)

Jacob Well, it was worth a try.

Now I kind of want to read her...


Michael this was a cornerstone concept of her views expressed in a scheduled interview on a Canadian news program, taped in Canada.

Yes, and if the interviewer hadn't been so certain, I'm confident she would've just bowled over him and used this "fact" as the basis for some broader, uninformed point. Good thing the interviewer shot her down when he did.

Now I kind of want to read her...

You know what they say: try everything once except incest and line-dancing.


message 26: by Jacob (new)

Jacob I...may have tried line dancing already...


message 25: by Jen (new)

Jen ...fuckmuffin?


message 24: by Caris (new)

Caris Through my reading, it looks like this is what Ann does a lot: she doesn’t outright lie, but she misleads her audience into thinking something is happening that simply isn’t.

Have you read Frankfurt's On Bullshit? He suggests that instances like these are, in fact, more harmful than outright lies because the bullshitter doesn't actually care what the truth is, so long as what he/she says advances his/her goal. Frankfurt's is a concise little book that adds depth to the reading of any political text like this. It kind of exposes the agenda behind the agenda.


Michael The whole line of thinking that believes it's okay to do something ethically wrong because you're frickin' sure you're right about the larger issue is stupid. It's the same flawed logic that put is in Iraq. Of course, corporate interests are the real reason, but the notion that America is somehow an enlightened country full of goodguys is the line of thinking that justifies evil actions. Anyway.

Did you see the fucking Arizona Governor Debate? Did it make you cry when you found out that, according to the media, Jan Brewer "won" this debate?


message 22: by Caris (last edited Oct 19, 2010 11:44AM) (new)

Caris "We have did what was right for Arizona."

We should count ourselves lucky. Name one other state that features even one reanimated corpse in a major position of power. And we've got two!

I love that she plays up the border killings and the drug cartels and how she implies that the violence has spread all the way to the capitol. Kristin was reading this months Parents magazine, which featured the top cities in the U.S. to raise babies. Scottsdale, Tuscon, Mesa, and Phoenix all made the list. And safety was one of the primary criterion.

I wish they'd hold the microphone a bit farther back when she talks. It's not like she says much of anything anyway, and I would like to miss the sound of her sucking her dentures between breaths. It kind of grosses me out.


message 21: by trivialchemy (new)

trivialchemy Caris, I loved On Bullshit. I just looked at the page for it here on GR, and I was shocked to see that MFSO, Ben Harrison, and Jon Bruenning all gave it 2 stars or less. From going over the reviews, it seems like some people took it completely seriously, and objected that the analysis was not entirely self-sufficient; when, of course, it was in fact meant to be as much satirical word-play as honest analysis.


message 20: by Caris (new)

Caris Isaiah wrote: "Caris, I loved On Bullshit. I just looked at the page for it here on GR, and I was shocked to see that MFSO, Ben Harrison, and Jon Bruenning all gave it 2 stars or less. From going over the reviews..."

I noticed that it didn't really go over well. I didn't care for it the first time I read it (if I remember correctly, I dismissed it as a Hallmark marketing gimmick), but the second time, I thought it was great. We used it in one of my undergrad classes as a tool for analyzing political nonfiction (specifically Ann Coulter and Al Franken). Have you read On Truth? I think they should really be published as one petite volume.


Joshua Nomen-Mutatio On Truth is better. I still like Frankfurt and plan on reading more of his work. I thought On Bullshit was a let down and it just, I dunno, made me feel very little beyond a resounding "Yup, that's right."


Joshua Nomen-Mutatio Sometimes, believe it or not, I hate philosophy. Even the good stuff.


message 17: by trivialchemy (new)

trivialchemy I will have to look for On Truth. I found myself nodding along to On Bullshit as you've described, MFSO, but I also thought it was fucking hilarious. I remember exactly where I read it, by the Deep Eddy pool in Austin on the lawn, giggling like a little girl. And that moved it from 3 stars to a solid 4.49 for me.


message 16: by Caris (last edited Oct 19, 2010 12:52PM) (new)

Caris Yeah, that second time, you would have thought I was actually reading Ann Coulter because of the girlish giggling. I found the text illuminating because I haven't studied extensively in philosophy. I've taken a couple of absurdly boring introductory courses, but this was one of the first philosophical texts that actually spoke to me.


message 15: by Jen (new)

Jen WOW. Jan Brewer? That's your governor? Hugs, man. Hugs.


message 14: by David (new)

David Katzman I salute your review, sir. I could not have stomached reading this myself.


message 13: by Manny (new)

Manny Nice review. Except, uh, why do you think Switzerland is socialist? A lot of people consider it the most reactionary country in Europe. I still can't quite figure out how I ended up here.


Michael Yup, Jan Brewer is the one in charge of making the important decisions about where I live. And I'm represented to the Fed Gov by John McCain. My voice is being heard like crazy. *Shoots self, dies.*


Michael I salute your review, sir. I could not have stomached reading this myself.

I won't say it was easy, but I will say this: it was hard.

Except, uh, why do you think Switzerland is socialist?

I'm using Coulter logic. Here's how it goes:

1. USA = good.
2. Not USA (i.e. "foreign") therefore = bad.
3. Socialist = bad.
4. Switzerland = not the USA.
5. Switzerland, therefore, = foreign = bad.
Therefore, Switzerland is socialist.

Now, if you wanna get picky, I'm SURE there's a hole in this theory SOMEWHERE, but just like Coulter, I'm not listening *puts fingers in ears, goes NA-NA-NA-NA-NA very loudly*


Joshua Nomen-Mutatio Isaiah wrote: "I will have to look for On Truth. I found myself nodding along to On Bullshit as you've described, MFSO, but I also thought it was fucking hilarious. I remember exactly where I read it, by the Deep..."

Cool! I remember very clearly where I read it as well, which also happened to be in Austin. I was waiting for the bus after a long day at the office (literally) after making my stop at the Randall's on Manchaca (somewhat perplexingly pronounced by locals as man-shack) and Redd. My general angst and sour mood at the time may have a lot to do with my not so terribly enjoyable reading experience, though I do remember chuckling out loud a few times. However, sometimes I couldn't tell if I was laughing with the author or at him. In any case, cool coincidence. Austin is a great town.


message 9: by trivialchemy (new)

trivialchemy Maybe we even read it on the same day! At the same time! We could be in love!

Austin is my hometown, if you don't know, so I've read any vast number of books there. And just to let you in on a little secret, the Manchaca/man-shack thing is how we weed out the for'ners. If you say "man-shock-uh," or god help you, "man-CHock-uh" we immediately tag you as a non-local, wanna-be, imposter, fraud, know-nothing; and even though we may not mention it, from that moment on we will have no respect whatsoever for your opinions on tacos, barbecue, the political rights of minority groups, or human sexuality.


message 8: by Joshua Nomen-Mutatio (last edited Oct 20, 2010 09:44AM) (new)

Joshua Nomen-Mutatio I didn't know that. I think I knew you lived in TX at some point but nothing beyond that. There was a little Austin reminiscing going on the other day on GR, mainly about bars, over here, within the bottom half of the thread: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...


Phil Dear Lord...

This is, like, the fourth, separate instance of a leftist of some sort attempting to persuade me that I should not take Ann Coulter seriously. The first three were at least as dishonest as they claimed Ms. Coulter to be. I do check the Coulter quotes they claim are inaccurate, but I check the critics' sources as well. So far, the left is not faring well.

And this one is no better.

Nobody wants to hear a point-by-point rebuttal, so let me simply tell you what I found about "Michael's" first example of Ms. Coulter's "taking quotes out of context." Here is what Michael says:

Citation 33 in chapter 2. Ann Coulter says: “Schlafly is preposterously demeaned with articles reporting that she is trying to remain 'relevant.'” This is in support of Ann’s argument that the press is constantly picking on conservatives. However, all of the quotes picked from this article by Coulter are insults coming from conservatives...


Um... no, Michael, this has nothing to do with "constantly picking on conservatives." Coulter has spent some 6 pages at this point comparing the press' treatment of Phyllis Schlafly, an example of a woman with genuine achievements, with their treatment of feminists who have achieved very little, specifically Gloria Steinem. In this particular paragraph, she's quickly listing a handful of examples illustrating the general treatment of Schlafly, pretty much as a recap of treatment she's already demonstrated. It's not a central part of the argument, just a quick recap. The passage reads:

Revealing true facts about Schlafly would inevitably result in unfavorable comparisons with inconsequential feminists. Not one of Schlafly's books has ever been reviewed by the New York Times. Schlafly is preposterously demeaned with articles reporting that she is trying to remain 'relevant.' After two decades of smearing and slighting Schlafly, in 1995 the New York Times denounced Schlafly as "part of an attack machine."


So we're dealing specifically with the press' treatment of Schlafly, not conservatives in general. And one of three instances she names happens to be an article by an apolitical staple of American journalism named James Salter in the Chicago Tribune, a newspaper that is rather famously, moderately Republican.

So?

I'm scratching my head here and trying to imagine why this constitutes "taking a quote out of context." Is Michael trying to claim that the Tribune is not an instance of the mainstream press? Did Ms. Coulter ever claim that the designation "mainstream press" cannot possibly apply to Republicans, or that the few Republicans in the press corps are any less shot through with snobbery than Democrats? Does the fact that Mr. Salter filled his article with insults from conservatives mean that his article does not constitute an example of a "mainstream press" source publishing demeaning things about Ms. Schlafly rather than highlighting her achievements?

Worse, Michael refers to "all of the quotes picked from this article by Coulter..." as though Coulter was cherry-picking the article. I scanned the chapter in which this citation occurs. Salter's article is not quoted again, and no quotes are lifted from his article by Coulter, not even one. I quick-scanned chapter 1, thinking maybe she used him there. Nope, not there. I scanned chapter 3. Nope, not there. Chapter 4? Nope...

What the hell was Michael talking about???

Suffice to say, I am still, after four, equally serious attempts by leftists to sour me on Ms. Coulter, not impressed by their arguments. Ann Coulter's research, so far as I can tell, is at least 3 orders of magnitude more believable than anything I've ever read from a leftie.

I am a lot more impressed by their efforts, though. I can't imagine any figure on the left inspiring this much wasted effort by half-baked amateurs to "prove" that they were doing their research poorly. Most of what comes from the left is alarmingly simple to debunk simply by quoting the newspaper. All I can say is, Ann Coulter must truly be some serious problem for the left, that they have to spend such energy trying to discredit her -- so completely ineffectually.


message 6: by trivialchemy (new)

trivialchemy lol


message 5: by Eh?Eh! (new)

Eh?Eh! tl;dr


message 4: by Sparrow (new)

Sparrow Phil wrote: "Coulter has spent some 6 pages at this point comparing the press' treatment of Phyllis Schlafly, an example of a woman with genuine achievements, with their treatment of feminists who have achieved very little, specifically Gloria Steinem."

wow.


message 3: by Michael (last edited Nov 01, 2012 09:54AM) (new) - rated it 1 star

Michael Are you there, God? It's me, Michael.

Thanks for the conservative you sent to my Ann Coulter thread. I tossed the bait out there years ago, and sadly it had not been sufficiently slandered up until this point. However, I wish you could've sent one better capable of creating an engaging argument. This Phil guy said the following (just in case the comment is mysteriously deleted later):

Dear Lord...

This is, like, the fourth, separate instance of a leftist of some sort attempting to persuade me that I should not take Ann Coulter seriously. The first three were at least as dishonest as they claimed Ms. Coulter to be. I do check the Coulter quotes they claim are inaccurate, but I check the critics' sources as well. So far, the left is not faring well.

And this one is no better.

Nobody wants to hear a point-by-point rebuttal, so let me simply tell you what I found about "Michael's" first example of Ms. Coulter's "taking quotes out of context." Here is what Michael says:

Citation 33 in chapter 2. Ann Coulter says: “Schlafly is preposterously demeaned with articles reporting that she is trying to remain 'relevant.'” This is in support of Ann’s argument that the press is constantly picking on conservatives. However, all of the quotes picked from this article by Coulter are insults coming from conservatives...


Um... no, Michael, this has nothing to do with "constantly picking on conservatives." Coulter has spent some 6 pages at this point comparing the press' treatment of Phyllis Schlafly, an example of a woman with genuine achievements, with their treatment of feminists who have achieved very little, specifically Gloria Steinem. In this particular paragraph, she's quickly listing a handful of examples illustrating the general treatment of Schlafly, pretty much as a recap of treatment she's already demonstrated. It's not a central part of the argument, just a quick recap. The passage reads:

Revealing true facts about Schlafly would inevitably result in unfavorable comparisons with inconsequential feminists. Not one of Schlafly's books has ever been reviewed by the New York Times. Schlafly is preposterously demeaned with articles reporting that she is trying to remain 'relevant.' After two decades of smearing and slighting Schlafly, in 1995 the New York Times denounced Schlafly as "part of an attack machine."


So we're dealing specifically with the press' treatment of Schlafly, not conservatives in general. And one of three instances she names happens to be an article by an apolitical staple of American journalism named James Salter in the Chicago Tribune, a newspaper that is rather famously, moderately Republican.

So?

I'm scratching my head here and trying to imagine why this constitutes "taking a quote out of context." Is Michael trying to claim that the Tribune is not an instance of the mainstream press? Did Ms. Coulter ever claim that the designation "mainstream press" cannot possibly apply to Republicans, or that the few Republicans in the press corps are any less shot through with snobbery than Democrats? Does the fact that Mr. Salter filled his article with insults from conservatives mean that his article does not constitute an example of a "mainstream press" source publishing demeaning things about Ms. Schlafly rather than highlighting her achievements?

Worse, Michael refers to "all of the quotes picked from this article by Coulter..." as though Coulter was cherry-picking the article. I scanned the chapter in which this citation occurs. Salter's article is not quoted again, and no quotes are lifted from his article by Coulter, not even one. I quick-scanned chapter 1, thinking maybe she used him there. Nope, not there. I scanned chapter 3. Nope, not there. Chapter 4? Nope...

What the hell was Michael talking about???

Suffice to say, I am still, after four, equally serious attempts by leftists to sour me on Ms. Coulter, not impressed by their arguments. Ann Coulter's research, so far as I can tell, is at least 3 orders of magnitude more believable than anything I've ever read from a leftie.

I am a lot more impressed by their efforts, though. I can't imagine any figure on the left inspiring this much wasted effort by half-baked amateurs to "prove" that they were doing their research poorly. Most of what comes from the left is alarmingly simple to debunk simply by quoting the newspaper. All I can say is, Ann Coulter must truly be some serious problem for the left, that they have to spend such energy trying to discredit her -- so completely ineffectually.


So, Phil, by honing in on one specific example in my two-page rant, you are trying to show that I'm taking quotes out of context. Are you going to ignore the fact that the article Coulter is quoting here is actually ABOUT the amount of negative press Schlafly had been getting from those.... on the political Right? If you're gonna ignore them apples, I'm not quite sure you're worth even talking to, especially if that's the best argument you have to go against the broader points I'm making in this review.

And if you can't imagine those on the "right" wasting their time trying to debunk the research of the "left"--two terms I objected to in this review by the way--perhaps you should look at your "currently reading" shelf. That Darwin guy did a lot of research that has held up remarkably well, despite centuries of people trying to disprove his theory.

Anyway, god, thanks for your effort, even though it was kind of a half-assed gift. Since I don't believe in you, I guess it's as much as I could expect, right? Anyway, that's it for now, God.

Oh, and I finally got my period. It wasn't nearly as fun as everyone made it out to be.


Phil Michael, you really need to go away and read everything you can get your hands on regarding the concept, "relevance." You do not appear to be aware of the concept.

A snooty article in a mainstream newspaper is a snooty article in a mainstream newspaper. It means absolutely nothing that the snooty article was attempting to smear Ms. Shlafley with quotations from conservatives. That is not a relevant detail. Ms. Coulter's characterization of the attack on Ms. Shlafley was precisely correct, and you have once again demonstrated that you cannot think to save your life.

Do come back when you've graduated high school, though, and we'll take another crack at it.


Michael soooo.....yeah, phil, you kinda ignored the point. the article is neutral, and all of the negative quotes came from conservatives in other sources. so, i guess you're saying those conservatives are snooty? or is it still the media who is snooty, since the media had the audacity to print the dumb crap that conservatives say?

if you enjoy reading (and defending) texts that villify roughly half the country and discourage any kind of meaningful conversation, that's technically your right. but it is a sad, hateful practice, and i hope for your sake that you grow out of it.


back to top