Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Civil Discourse Watch: 6/26/07 Edition
Cultural detritus item one: John Edwards is whimpering about Ann Coulter, leading Ben Smith to ask:
Is Ann Coulter good for anything other than Democratic fundraising any more? It's the only context in which I ever see her name.
Here's what's harshing Edwards: A video in which it sounds
like Coulter is ululating for his murder by terrorists.
Look, Edwards is being unfair to Coulter. She was making a joke
about her "faggot" gaffe. Here's the
whole bit:
Oh yeah, I wouldn't insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. That would be mean, but about the same time—you know—Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished [Vice President] Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson. If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he has been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.
If John Edwards was still running for president this would look really bad for his... wait, he's still in it? Nevermind.
UPDATE: On Hardball just now, Elizabeth Edwards called in to challenge Ann Coulter not to use any more "personal attacks" against her husband. Yes, that's the way to rebut charges of wimpery: Send your wife to beg people to stop hitting you.
Item two: Video of Michael Savage doing stand-up. Your brain
will melt.
By no means watch all of it, but check out the bit at the end when
Savage asks "Does anybody in this crowd give a shit about the
Iraqis?"
|6.26.07 @ 5:41PM|#
I unwisely watched a bit of the Michael Savage video. I feel like someone has shit on my soul. I'm going to lie down now.
|6.26.07 @ 5:42PM|#
Someday, it will be revealed that Savage was a plant by some radical left-wing organization. I really believe that, too.
thoreau|6.26.07 @ 5:45PM|#
Weigel, you've got to find a beat other than partisan politics.
Reading a post that includes John Edwards, Ann Coulter, and Michael
Savage is enough to make me cry.
The only way such a post could be amusing is if it included the
sentence "The production crew for the new reality show lost the
keys to the house, at the same time that a freak storm cut off
power to the house and cut the video feed."
|6.26.07 @ 5:45PM|#
Pro Liberate-
The most likely candidate for a left-wing plant to make
conservatives look bad is probably Fred "God Hates Fags"
Phelps.
Minion of URKOBOLD|6.26.07 @ 5:47PM|#
For other mortals -
The terror of JasonC's beshitted soul is nothing next to the
awesome horror of a whithered soul!!!!!
bohahahahahahahaha!
(or a whithered taint, for that matter)
|6.26.07 @ 5:48PM|#
I think I'll email Savage and let him know that as a homo helping to bring down America, I strongly support his choice of the totally hot (male) piece of ass who introduced him.
David Weigel|6.26.07 @ 5:48PM|#
Weigel, you've got to find a beat other than partisan
politics.
Good timing: Monday is my first day on the Missing White Woman
beat!
The most likely candidate for a left-wing plant to make
conservatives look bad is probably Fred "God Hates Fags"
Phelps.
Unless he's changed his registration recently, Phelps is actually a
Democrat.
|6.26.07 @ 5:50PM|#
Unless he's changed his registration recently, Phelps is
actually a Democrat.
Thats exactly why I think hes a bit of a plant. He was a liberal
civil rights attorney in the 60s and supported Gore for president
in 88.
Mike Laursen|6.26.07 @ 5:51PM|#
I've always suspected both Savage and Phelps are undercover liberals. Or maybe Phelps is just undercover in a different way.
|6.26.07 @ 5:54PM|#
I don't understand why anybody pays any attention to anything
Ann Coulter has to say.
Michael Savage is a...fake? Phony? Whatever he is, he's not
coherent about it. But I don't know who's worse- him, or the
grinning idiots in his audience.
|6.26.07 @ 5:59PM|#
Oh, I get it. Shiite Shrines. Has an extra I. Shit Shrines. Comedy gold, Mr. Savage.
|6.26.07 @ 5:59PM|#
Let's face it Ann Coulter is a dumb blonde. In the world of dumb blondom, Ann Coulter is considered the slow one in the group, the "retarded stepsister" as it were. As for Michael Savage, not funny, not relevant and not welcome on MY television screen. Phelps is just too fucking evil to discuss. Another conservative, right wing rant brought to by, J sub D.
highnumber|6.26.07 @ 6:00PM|#
I read or heard something about a conservative media figure who
was quite a liberal privately, but knew he would make the money as
a conservative. Could it be Savage?
I've flipped around on the AM dial before, and stopped on his show.
I've never felt like I was anywhere near agreeing with him on
anything I've heard, but it's weirdly engrossing at times, almost
hypnotic. Then I'll snap out of it and get upset.
|6.26.07 @ 6:03PM|#
Didn't Savage used to be a liberal? I believe he has written a
few liberal books, no?
He seems to me like a guy who has no real ideology except making
money. Conservative radio is lucrative if you are willing to serve
red meat to the masses, and thats what he does.
Personally, I don't think any of those guys (Rush, Savage etc)
believe half the tripe they are spewing -- they just know it brings
in the money.
|6.26.07 @ 6:03PM|#
Phelps loves to have people hate him, and I think that's his
motivation for all the hatred he spews now. It's also why he was a
civil rights lawyer in Kansas during the 60's: It was a guaranteed
way to get the white population to hate you.
Or maybe he just does hate gays.
|6.26.07 @ 6:06PM|#
I think there's something wrong with my browser.
I clicked on the Ann Coulter video, and all I could see were the
words "Pay Attention to Me" repeating endlessly across my
monitor.
Randolph Carter|6.26.07 @ 6:09PM|#
Although Michael Savage is a grade-A moron (Red diaper doper
baby? What the hell is that?), I think Rush Limbaugh is pretty
interesting. He obviously lives in a fairly libertine manner, and
used to changes wives like pairs of socks.
What's his deal? He even endorsed Reason... what's holding him back
from the inevitable slide into Blue Druidry?
|6.26.07 @ 6:11PM|#
I don't really listen to any of the AM radio shows anymore, but
I used to crave talk on the way home from one of my previous jobs.
I listened to Savage for a brief time, kind of perversely
fascinated by his weird and awful statements. Almost from the
beginning, though, he sounded to me like a far-leftish nightmare of
right-wing discourse. He's a fake--I'm almost completely sure of
it. Maybe he originally intended to reveal himself only to later
find gold in dem thar hills.
That said, there appear to be people who listen to him and nod
their heads in agreement. Humanity is nuts, that's for sure.
As for Coulter, Malkin, or Limbaugh, I think they're pandering, but
I think they are all at least somewhat legitimately "conservative",
whatever that means. Malkin is very likely a libertarian in her
personal beliefs, which makes her heresy all the worse. Burn
her!
|6.26.07 @ 6:15PM|#
As for Coulter, Malkin, or Limbaugh, I think they're pandering, but
I think they are all at least somewhat legitimately
"conservative", Republican whatever
that means. Malkin is very likely a libertarian in her personal
beliefs, which makes her heresy all the worse. Burn her!
Fixed that typo.
There is nothing "conservative" about them. If the GOP tomorrow
decided that their platform was going to include a huge welfare
state and universal health care and gay marriage, they would be the
first ones applauding and explaining how it isn't an about face at
all.
|6.26.07 @ 6:18PM|#
ChicagoTom,
Fair enough. The greatest shill of them all is Hannity, though. Is
he capable of disagreeing with anything Republican™? At least I've
heard Limbaugh criticize the GOP on occasion. And some of his stuff
is over the top on purpose. Hannity is neither entertaining nor
honest. How useless.
Randolph Carter|6.26.07 @ 6:19PM|#
ChicagoTom,
True, they are more or less party hacks. But how to explain the
recent immigration fooferaw? Is it just a play to make talk radio
seem independent of the regime?
Every time I'm thoroughly convinced that talk radio people are just
roving White House Press Secretaries, someone throw a little curve
ball.
Randolph Carter|6.26.07 @ 6:22PM|#
Pro Lib,
Mucho agreeance on Sean Hannity. I've never seen a someone so
incapable of independent thought. Although, for those of you in the
New York area, Mark Levin. Yes, Mark Levin. How can so many people
who claim to be constitutional lawyers have such a strong desire to
shred the constitution?
|6.26.07 @ 6:22PM|#
I agree with ChicagoTom. Obviously there are similar types on the Dem side. All of them are like those sports fans who always think the guy on their team should have been MVP, every close call that goes against their team was due to a blind umpire, and throws things at the other players. I think "classy" and "thoughtful" are the words I'm looking for.
|6.26.07 @ 6:31PM|#
Anyone else here watch Glenn Beck on occasion? You can make a pretty good drinking game out of it by taking a shot every time he predicts the end of the world.
|6.26.07 @ 6:31PM|#
But how to explain the recent immigration
fooferaw?
This is a case of putting profits over party.
They know their audience and what their audience believe on issues
of race. What do you think would happen if the typical
Savage/Hannity/Coulter listener heard the host talking about the
merits of foreigners being allowed to immigrate here legally?
They would fucking flip out. I think immigration is an issue where
lots of people's passion runs higher than many other political
issues.
I also think the immigration issue is a tricky one for the GOP --
the base is at odds with the corporate wing of the party wants. I
don't think the base wants guest worker programs etc. since once
"they" get into the country the can easily disappear if they choose
to.
Talk radio, in turn, caters to base.
|6.26.07 @ 6:32PM|#
spoken like a true Eric and Kathy listener
Moose watch it pal, that's my wife you're insulting :)
|6.26.07 @ 6:34PM|#
Moose watch it pal, that's my wife you're insulting
:)
Upon further review, I believe clarification is order.
I did not mean to imply that ProLib is my wife, but rather that my
wife is an Eric And Kathy listener.
|6.26.07 @ 6:40PM|#
I, too, am strongly denying wifehood, being in fact a husband of
a wifely woman. Though I thought VM was talking to highnumber, so
I'm not sure how I got involved.
Boortz used to be libertarianesque. Haven't listened to him in a
long while, though.
|6.26.07 @ 6:44PM|#
Though I thought VM was talking to highnumber, so I'm not
sure how I got involved.
My inability to read, that's how.
Apologies to ProLib.
And for the record, highnumber is not my wife either.
|6.26.07 @ 6:51PM|#
ChicagoTom, you really need to make an honest man out of ProL, highnumber, or whoever else you are stringing along on this board.
highnumber|6.26.07 @ 7:00PM|#
I'd like to see any one of you make an honest woman out of
me!
(No. No, I really wouldn't like to see that. Not at all.)
BTW, although I have never listened to Eric & Kathy, but I met
them once briefly at some sort of promo event. He looks even
toadier in person, but she's pretty cute.
miche|6.26.07 @ 7:17PM|#
oops, sorry, just go here:
http://www.lastfreevoice.com/2007/06/13/henry-rollins-had-a-proposal-for-ann-coulter/
|6.26.07 @ 7:36PM|#
This is why Democrats lose elections. Instead of sending Liz
out, he should have said:
"Who? Ann who? Oh right, that hate mongering tart who thinks she's
a conservative. She's just precious isn't she?"
|6.26.07 @ 7:48PM|#
There is nothing "conservative" about them. If the GOP
tomorrow decided that their platform was going to include a huge
welfare state and universal health care and gay marriage, they
would be the first ones applauding and explaining how it isn't an
about face at all.
The reaction to the immigration bill contradicts you.
Xanthippas|6.26.07 @ 7:49PM|#
Wow, defending Ann Coulter and attacking John Edwards. Is this what passes for a call for "civil discourse" on this blog?
|6.26.07 @ 8:24PM|#
"Does anybody in this crowd give a shit about the
Iraqis?"
I sure don't. To anyone who does claim to "care," please list what
you're actually *doing* (emoting and writing crocodile tears don't
count):
dhex|6.26.07 @ 8:38PM|#
man the appropriation of the language of victimhood is, forgive me, savage. holy fuck.
dhex|6.26.07 @ 8:41PM|#
"Yes, Mark Levin. How can so many people who claim to be
constitutional lawyers have such a strong desire to shred the
constitution?"
familiarity breeds contempt?
Randolph Carter|6.26.07 @ 8:59PM|#
Mr. F. Le Mur,
I put on a rambo get-up and take weekends in Baghdad killing
insurgents. WTF? What can one actually do to prevent the US
military from killing civilians besides agitating to end the
war?
|6.26.07 @ 10:35PM|#
"Yes, that's the way to rebut charges of wimpery: Send your wife
to beg people to stop hitting you."
Awesome.
|6.26.07 @ 11:08PM|#
Xanthippas, when Edwards' camp is throwing a hissy fit over something Coulter did not quite say (but apparently was said by Bill Maher about Cheney), then: yes it is.
|6.26.07 @ 11:14PM|#
I spent the last half-hour treating my younger son's oozing,
scabby rash. Those videos were much grosser. Thanks guys. It'll
take five years of doing nothing but staring at kittenwars to get
that image out of my head.
^#, I used to listen to this wacky Christian right guy named Marlon
Mattox on my commute home. (The Christian AM station was the only
place on the dial that gave South Mopac traffic reports.) Anyway,
he was mind-blowing in his insanity, wayyyyy weirder than Alan
Jones. I remember one brilliant show in which he asserted that the
New Age movement was going to re-establish human sacrifice. It was
like being drunk, but without the headaches. Sorta was like the way
three margaritas made the dimwit at the end of the bar seem
fascinating, though.
|6.26.07 @ 11:22PM|#
There is nothing "conservative" about them. If the GOP
tomorrow decided that their platform was going to include a huge
welfare state and universal health care and gay marriage, they
would be the first ones applauding and explaining how it isn't an
about face at all.
Immigration, same deal; if a credible study came out tomorrow
claiming that the overwhelming majority of fence-jumpers would vote
Republican, it would be Tancredo and not, say, John McCain who
would be a pariah in his own party.
highnumber|6.27.07 @ 12:05AM|#
Damn, Karen. I just looked to see if I can find a podcast to check out. Nothing. The guy hardly exists, according to the internet.
|6.27.07 @ 8:04AM|#
Ann Coulter makes money for Dems because she says such stupid
and hateful things, that Americans want to punish her in the only
way they can...help get the people she hates elected! Just to make
her seeth!
Elizabeth was attacked as well, consider the bumper sticker remark,
she has every right to stand-up for herself and her DEAD SON!
|6.27.07 @ 8:44AM|#
highnumber, I think he died in '99 or 2000, long before the podcast thing was available.
Xanthippas|6.27.07 @ 9:10AM|#
Xanthippas, when Edwards' camp is throwing a hissy fit over
something Coulter did not quite say (but apparently was said by
Bill Maher about Cheney), then: yes it is.
Seems like selective attention to me. In the times I've visited
this blog, I have not seen many calls for Ann Coulter to engage in
more civil discourse. I have however, seen quite a few cracks about
Edwards and his hair. So, forgive me if I don't quite regard the
blogger who wrote this as an impartial fellow.
highnumber|6.27.07 @ 9:24AM|#
I have seen a lot of calls for Coulter to STFU. Does that count for something?
|6.27.07 @ 9:32AM|#
Xanthippas,
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28545.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36692.html
|6.27.07 @ 11:25AM|#
Coulter's funny, and smart. Her style of political wit is over the top and in your face. You (all) should read her stuff.
|6.27.07 @ 11:36AM|#
Wayne,
I very much appreciate your absurdist humor.
Next you'll tell me that Michael Savage's ph.d. means he knows what
he is talking about...and you'll have this dead-on straight face
that makes it impossible to read whether or not your are being
serious. :^|
|6.27.07 @ 11:48AM|#
Coulter also has a great personality and she is an excellent dancer. Ignore the Adam's Apple. She really was born a girl, I swear!
|6.27.07 @ 12:01PM|#
NM,
I tried listening to Savage on talk radio. He is a bore and a loon.
I did not know he was PHd'ed. Adam's Apple?
Have you read Coulter's editorials?
|6.27.07 @ 12:11PM|#
de stijl,
Sorry. I know what an Adam's Apple is, I just did not know that
Coulter has one. I enjoy snarky, ad hominim attacks as much as the
next guy, but I don't think Coulter was a man at some previous
point, and even if she was, her writing would still be amusing.
|6.27.07 @ 12:17PM|#
de stijl,
And look at the hands on her too:
http://www.ttlms.com/vhosts/proudliberals.com/images/1217/anncoulter_man.jpg
|6.27.07 @ 12:17PM|#
Wayne,
See that is why I like your schtick.
You are committed to it.
You deliver it like you believe it.
See, you are saying that people don't like what AC says only
because they don't know what she says. They don't like what she
writes because they don't read what she writes. It's like
DADA.
Funny stuff.
Funny because it turns things on its head. In reality people don't
like what AC says when they hear it, and they don't like what she
writes when they read it. Then they form an opinion of her.
Based on her speaking and writing, I can say that AC is not overly
stupid (I like how you turn that into "smart" it's like calling
John Stewart tall because he isn't a midget).
AC is only funny when compared to Michael Savage, or, perhaps,
Larry the Cable Guy.
|6.27.07 @ 12:20PM|#
In this one she does not appear to have large hands? Maybe it is
just the camera angle.
http://www.cpl.net/~carville/ann_coulter-lingerie.jpg
|6.27.07 @ 12:27PM|#
NM,
By recommending her writing, I don't mean to imply that I agree
with every word, just that she is funny, and often very accurate in
a hyperbolic way. She is a syndicated columnist, so somebody is
reading her stuff.
Judging from the reactions of people on this board, it is obvious
that she strikes a rather oddly exposed nerve in some of you;
perhaps you, NM.
|6.27.07 @ 12:39PM|#
"UPDATE: Yes, that's the way to rebut charges of wimpery: Send
your wife to beg people to stop hitting you."
That should read, "Send your wife to beg a GIRL to stop hitting
you."
And someone really needs to hand Elizabeth a dictionary and
introduce her to the word "context".
|6.27.07 @ 12:43PM|#
Wayne,
I am just yanking your chain, mainly.
No exposed nerves.
I have read enough of AC's columns to know that I don't need to
read any more of them. I thought that was pretty clear from my last
post.
In my opinion she is the Paris Hilton of political discourse...but
lots of people enjoy Paris's shtick too, so there ya go.
|6.27.07 @ 12:51PM|#
NM,
Fair enough. I sometimes read AC's stuff in Stars and Stripes. She
is a "shock jock" style editorialist. It sells. But, it only sells
because there is a nugget of truth in each hyperbolic
statement.
Only an intelligent person could write such a column weekly. Only
an intelligent person could understand how to successfully needle
lefties consistently.
She kind of looks like Paris Hilton, skinny and blonde, but the
similarities end there, I think.
|6.27.07 @ 1:01PM|#
Wayne,
"She kind of looks like Paris Hilton, skinny and blonde, but the
similarities end there, I think."
But even in your own post you point out some another
similarity...she understands how to successfully remain in the
spotlight. That is her goal.
As for the nuggets of truth...well, you are back to your absurdist
humor again.
"Only an intelligent person could write such a column
weekly."
You have a very low bar for the term "intelligent."
http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle
|6.27.07 @ 1:08PM|#
This is off the topic, but Paris Hilton is probably pretty
intelligent also.
I don't care for Oreilly, but I would not call him stupid. Over
bearing, arrogant, dishonest... but not stupid.
pdog|6.27.07 @ 1:10PM|#
I sometimes listen to Savage, as its the only radio program I
can stand because the other ones are just predictable republican
party cheerleaders (Hannity being the worst). He does regularly
attack Bush, other radio shows, and members of the republican
party. He calls himself an independant conservative. I'd say he is
best described as being highly nationalistic (borders, language,
culture being his mantra) moderatly libertarian on economics
(although against total free trade, protectionist) and socially
conservative (although he has remarked before that he is
libertarian on private sex matters, he doesn't care what you do
privately just doesn't want it shoved in his face).
He is a nutritionist and I must say that from what I hear his diet
consists of, he is going to be with us for a very long time (for
better or worse)
|6.27.07 @ 1:12PM|#
Wayne,
"Not stupid" does not equal "intelligent person." At least not in
my opinion.
I already said AC was not stupid. BO is not stupid. PH is not
stupid. Agreed.
Doesn't mean any of them are intelligent.
Refer back to the Tall John Stewart comment.
|6.27.07 @ 1:16PM|#
So Wayne,
I have wasted enough words on AC & Co.
Try this out for intelligent columns.
http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/
or this
http://edge.org/
ciao
;^)
|6.27.07 @ 1:17PM|#
NM,
By intelligent, I mean that AC and PH would fit in just fine
posting here. They would each hold their own in a discussion
here.
Just because you dislike somebody else's politics does not make
them stupid.
|6.27.07 @ 1:32PM|#
Wayne,
I don't know how many ways I can agree with you.
I look at it this way.
Intelligent = above average mental capacity
Stupid = below average mental capacity
AC, PH, BO = about average mental capacity
You seem to be using this formulation:
Stupid = below average mentality
Intelligent = everyone else
|6.27.07 @ 1:45PM|#
NM,
I would guess that AC would score above average on an IQ
test.
But, who cares. I have had enough of defending the large larynxed,
manly handed, sexily under-clothed Coulter.
|6.27.07 @ 1:56PM|#
Twba,
I don't think Paris Hilton writes a column, but you can find
Coulter's on the internet.
|6.27.07 @ 2:33PM|#
Wayne,
"above average on an IQ test"
Again, only if you define "average" narrowly.
If we restrict the word intellegent to IQ scores, then given that
she has graduate school under her belt, odds are good AC scores
above 100 (the mean). But outside the average range would require a
score of 130 or greater.
That I doubt...but even if she scores 160, she doesn't have much
intelligent to say on the topics she writes about.
|6.27.07 @ 2:50PM|#
NM,
One standard deviation from the mean on an IQ score (mean = 100) is
+- 10 points, I think. A score of 110 would be "above average"; 130
would be significantly above average.
"That I doubt...but even if she scores 160, she doesn't have much
intelligent to say on the topics she writes about."
We disagree.
|6.27.07 @ 3:11PM|#
Wayne,
Yes, we disagree.
"One standard deviation from the mean on an IQ score (mean = 100)
is +- 10 points, I think. A score of 110 would be "above
average"
Depends on the test you are using, but typically the SD is 15
points.
The average range is usually defined in terms of within 2 SD of the
mean. These are, like the pirate code, more guidelines than actual
rules, of course.
However, someone with an IQ of 110 would not stand out in the crowd
due to their mental achievements. They could, however, write a
weekly opinion column without looking stupid.
|6.27.07 @ 3:55PM|#
However, someone with an IQ of 110 would not stand out in the crowd due to their mental achievements. They could, however, write a weekly opinion column without looking stupid.
Have you read a paper lately? There are plenty of stupid columns
written by people whose IQ is slightly above average.
|6.27.07 @ 4:16PM|#
Twba
"There are plenty of stupid columns written by people whose IQ is
slightly above average."
I said could do it, not that it was assured ;^)
|6.27.07 @ 9:04PM|#
"So, forgive me if I don't quite regard the blogger who wrote
this as an impartial fellow." - Xathippas
You did notice that reason is an opinion magazine, did you not?
They don't have to be impartial, by design. You are criticizing
them for something they do not claim to be.
That being said, I have never seen at lot of love from the reason
staff for Coulter.
Xanthippas|6.28.07 @ 11:42AM|#
You did notice that reason is an opinion magazine, did you
not?
Well yes, but I had figured that a blog by the fellows who produce
"Reason" magazine would be a little more...eh, reasonable.
That being said, I have never seen at lot of love from the
reason staff for Coulter.
Fair enough. But defending her, she of the "ask me about my dead
son" bumper sticker claim, from a rightly offended person who had
every right to call her to the carpet on national TV strikes me as
slightly unreasonable.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245