As you can probably tell by the fact that there hasn't been a new post on this site in two months, we're going on hiatus. It's a significant amount of work to research and write a response to Coulter every week. As this isn't our day jobs, this site is a considerable investment of time.
Frankly, it's also quite draining to constantly see Coulter consistently given a platform for her venom, in spite of her history of smears, distortions of fact, and character assassination.
Readership is also quite low. We never really figured out a way to advertise properly and get a consistent readership.
So if you find this site valuable, interesting, or even just thought-provoking, please drop us a quick email.
We are still of the opinion that there needs to be a rational counterpoint to Coulter's violent rhetoric that cheapens our national political discourse.
July 8th, 2007
Posted by
Eric |
one comment
Coulter's "faggot" comment at this year's CPAC ignited a media firestorm. She immediately began capitalizing on it. Three days after her comment, Coulter canceled her scheduled appearance on the possibly-critical CNN, but did appear on FOX News's Hannity & Colmes. The next day she also appeared on Sean Hannity's radio show, where she said this:
I don't think there's anything offensive about any variation of faggy, faggotry, faggot, fag. It's a schoolyard taunt. It means — it means wussy. It means, you know, Hillary giving a speech in a fake Southern drawl — that's faggy. A trial lawyer who weeps before juries is faggy. Lifetime-type TV, faggy.
Of course, what Coulter means by "wussy" is that it suggests the accused "fag" is feminine. In our culture, gays are constantly stereotyped as being un-manly and feminine, so accusing a man of being gay necessarily implies that he is, also, feminine. It's a standard tactic of the right-wing shock jocks, and Coulter is not new to it. She has previously accused Bill Clinton and Al Gore of being gay and Hillary Clinton of being a lesbian. This isn't so much an accusation about their sexual orientation as it is an attack on their fulfillment of traditional gender roles.
It is a sad irony that, the very day Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot," police released a sketch of a suspect wanted in a February gay-bashing and homicide. From the Advocate:
[Andrew] Anthos died February 23, 10 days after a fellow bus rider, spouting antigay slurs, paralyzed him with a blow from behind with a metal pipe.
It should not come as any surprise if the slurs that the assailant shouted while beating Anthos to death were very similar to Coulter's slur against Edwards.
Similarly, less than a week after CPAC, the Soulforce Equality Ride bus was vandalized.
Other vandalism of the bus included obscene drawings and "God does not love feary [sic] fucks." (At least Coulter can spell.) This continues a trend of vandalism of the Equality Ride. Last year, the bus was spray-painted with "Fags Mobile." There's that "unoffensive" word again.
Actions like this and the attitude behind them show why Coulter's choice of words matters. It was not just an attack on Edwards that Coulter made. She included him in one of the groups the right-wing despises the most. It was an attack on his dignity and his masculinity, all rolled up into one. It was an attempt to dehumanize him and rob him of the very thing that makes every person a person of value.
March 14th, 2007
Posted by
Eric |
no comments
|
Two more newspapers have dropped Coulter's syndicated column. Media Matters for America reports that the Daily Bulletin in Ontario, California and the Herald & Review in Decatur, Illinois have both dropped her. Editor Gary Sawyer from the Herald wrote:
…Coulter’s column has become a one note symphony. Every column is about how liberals can’t be believed, the New York Times is in bed with radical Muslims, the Washington Post is guilty of treason, etc. There are plenty of issues in this nation that should be discussed and we wish that Coulter would discuss more of them. Instead, her columns have become more and more frequently one issue rants.
We applaud Herald & Review for being the second Illinois paper to restore some modicum of civility to public debate.
March 13th, 2007
Posted by
Eric |
no comments
|
Four more newspapers have dropped Coulter's column, bringing the total to seven. They are: the Sanford Herald (North Carolina), The Times (Shreveport, LA), the American Press (Lake Charles, LA), and The DeKalb Daily Chronicle (Illinois). In the editorial that The DeKalb Daily Chronicle ran, explaining why they dropped her column, the editors said:
If she were an employee and referred to another human being as a “faggot,†her employment would be short-lived. As it is, the acerbic Coulter is a syndicated columnist whose material is distributed through Universal Press Syndicate. Universal President and Editor Lee Salem has responded to Coulter's remarks by saying, “She is not an employee, and we have no legal power to ‘fire' her.â€
That's a lot like the Chronicle saying, “She didn't say it in one of the columns we ran, so it isn't our problem.†Wrong. It is our problem, and not dealing with it is a cop-out.
So yesterday we called Universal Press Syndicate and “fired†Coulter. What she said was wrong and hurtful and stepped way beyond the line of human decency, much less political commentary.
We hope the rest of the papers carrying Coulter's column will drop her in support of restoring human decency to political commentary.
Sources:
March 10th, 2007
Posted by
Eric |
no comments
|
According to Media Matters for America, three newspapers have now dropped Coulter's syndicated column due to her "faggot" comment. They are: The Lancaster New Era (Pennsylvania), The Oakland Press (Michigan), and The Mountain Press (Sevierville, Tennessee).
They also have a list of the hundred-odd newspapers that carry her column, and contact information for each one. As CC.org is an Illinois-based blog, here are the newspapers in Illinois that carry her column:
Don't forget to send a letter to the head of the Universal Press Syndicate, asking him to drop Coulter as a columnist.
March 8th, 2007
Posted by
Eric |
no comments
|
Shortly after Coulter's "faggot" comment at this year's CPAC, John Edwards's campaign staff sent out a fund-raising mailer citing her statement, asking people to donate money. On Monday, Coulter claimed on her website that Edwards's campaign manager, David Bonior, is supporting terrorism. Coulter's website is currently down, but Editor & Publisher reports that the note on her website said:
It's always good to divert Bonior from his principal pastime which is fronting for Arab terrorists.
If this is true, it is very serious. A Presidential candidate having a supporter of terrorism on his staff would not only be a great scandal, but possibly a national security risk.
As such, I would like to ask Coulter to immediately contact her local FBI office and report this information. It's not clear if Coulter lives in New York, as she has said on Hannity & Colmes, or in Florida, where she voted, so here is contact information for both local FBI offices:
FBI New York
26 Federal Plaza, 23rd. Floor
New York, New York 10278-0004
newyork.fbi.gov
(212) 384-1000
and:
FBI North Miami Beach
16320 Northwest Second Avenue
North Miami Beach, Florida 33169-6508
miami.fbi.gov
(305) 944-9101
If she is unable to get in contact with the FBI at either of those locations, she can leave a tip for the FBI on their website. They have a contact form specifically for reporting criminal activity, especially if it's terrorism-related.
On the other hand, if she's just throwing around false allegations of criminal acts, well, let's just say she did write an entire book called Slander.
March 7th, 2007
Posted by
Eric |
no comments
|
The Human Rights Campaign has started a campaign to get the Universal Press Syndicate from carrying Coulter's column. From the release:
Last night, Coulter defended herself on Fox News by saying “faggot" isn’t offensive to gaysâ€. Wrong! We all know the truth is that “faggot†is a loaded word. It is a weapon used to demean and wound our community. And perhaps she should explain to the tens of thousands of gay kids, whose personal safety is too often threatened, that when they are called “faggot†in school hallways and playgrounds, it isn’t anti-gay.
Would so many of our elected officials and members of the news media be so indifferent if Coulter had gone on a racist, anti-Semitic tirade? Of course not. The fact is that everyone should be treating Ann Coulter as the equivalent of David Duke. Because she is.
Take action.
March 6th, 2007
Posted by
Eric |
2 comments
|
Interesting. The backlash from Coulter's "faggot" comment at this years CPAC seems to be maintaining its head of steam. A group of right-wing bloggers has written CPAC sponsors, asking them not to invite Coulter back next year. With the amount of publicity her slur has generated, perhaps this will show whether the old "there's no such thing as bad publicity" adage will hold true.
Possibly more importantly is the fact that three companies have pulled their advertising from Coulter's website in response to her attack on Edwards. From CNN:
At least three major companies want their ads pulled from Ann Coulter's Web site, following customer complaints about the right-wing commentator referring to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards as a "faggot."
Verizon, Sallie Mae and Georgia-based NetBank each said they didn't know their ads were on AnnCoulter.com until they received the complaints.
March 5th, 2007
Posted by
Eric |
no comments
|
At this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney introduced Coulter as a speaker. Here's what she said shortly afterward:
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, can’t really talk about Edwards.
At the last CPAC conference, Coulter referred to Middle Easterners as "ragheads." Apparently, she was still invited to speak this year. So I find myself speculating, what would Coulter have to do that would be so outrageous that she would not be invited back?
Howard Dean put out a press release denouncing Coulter:
While Democrats and Republicans may disagree on the issues, we should all be able to agree that this kind of vile rhetoric is out of bounds. The American people want a serious, thoughtful debate of the issues…
Republicans — including the Republican presidential candidates who shared the podium with Ann Coulter today — should denounce her hateful remarks.
There has been no response from Republicans about Coulter's remarks.
Sources:
UPDATE: (4 March 2007) Her comment has now been denounced by McCain, Giuliani, and Romney. It has had another effect, namely that everyone is talking about Coulter again, on the right and the left. Again, by cheapening our political discourse, Coulter has gained publicity.
Glenn Greenwald writes that the problem with Coulter's comments is not just that she made them, but that they were very nearly predictable:
But the single most prestigious political event for conservatives of the year is a place where conservatives go to hear Democrats called faggots, Arabs called ragheads, and Supreme Court justices labeled as deserving of murder — not by anonymous, unidentifiable blog commenters, but by one of their most popular featured speakers…
The more delicate ones will claim to repudiate her comments in the most limited terms, but their actions speak far louder than their cursory and reluctant words. Anyone who went to this event — and that includes Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Dick Cheney — knew exactly what they would be getting. Coulter's face was prominently plastered on the promotional material. The right-wing political candidates who accepted the invitations to speak there knew exactly the type of people would be there - namely, the type who continously cheer on Ann Coulter's bigoted and nakedly hateful screeds. Anyone who makes themselves a part of that event is purposely associating themselves with those sentiments. That is what this Conference is for…
This is not about a single comment or isolated remark. The more Ann Coulter says these things, the more popular she becomes in this movement. What this is about is that she reflects exactly what sort of political movement this is. She reflects its true impulses and core beliefs. If that were not the case, why would she continue to receive top billing at their most prestigious events, and why would she continue to be lavished with rock star-adoration by the party faithful?
David Niewert, the author of Strawberry Days: How Internment Destroyed a Japanese American Community, makes a disturbing prediction:
The reason Coulter is worth watching is that she serves as a kind of advance bellwether — watch how she forms her argument, because it will become a template for the rest of the right in the coming months and years. She made her bones promoting the Myth of the Clenis in the '90s, and her "treasonous liberals" meme is now a ceaseless favorite of her fellow movement ideologues. The underlying tenets of last year's "raghead" remark — that Muslims themselves are not merely "the problem" but The Enemy, and that they deserve not just our everlasting contempt but persecution — are now being eagerly bandied about on cable TV by the likes of Glenn Beck.
Watch what comes out of Coulter's mouth now, because you'll be hearing variations on it for the next several years. All slightly less noxiously, of course, but the underlying logic (or rather, the lack thereof) is the same.
March 3rd, 2007
Posted by
Eric |
no comments
| |