Unbridled Hypocrisy
By Geoff Metcalf (06/12/06)
"I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones;" - Marc Antony The liberal left is excoriating Ann Coulter, and she’s giving as good as she gets.
I come not to praise or bury.
· Is Coulter an over-the-top-bomb throwing self-promoter who herself suffers ‘selective memory loss’? Sure.
· Are her liberal critics cut from the same cloth? You damnbetcha!
Ann is a longhaired, miniskirted, leggy, right wing blonde provocateur. She is routinely eviscerated for articulating empirical truths that offend largely because of the in-your-face delivery system.
But wait a minute…why is the attractive, intelligent, articulate right wing bomb thrower vilified and the same vitriol not leveled at left wing witches? Come on folks, how about some equal opportunity offending here?
Recent quotes attack Coulter for ‘hate filled’ speech, being ‘mean-spirited’, and abusive. Why is it that the mainstream and partisan hacks feel comfortable articulating such barbed attacks against a hundred-nothing pound woman and not acknowledge that some of their own distaff diatribes have often exceeded the screed volume of their skinny nemesis.
· Hillary Clinton is the personification of mean-spirited partisan attack.
· Cynthia McKinney routinely put her mouth (or fists) in gear without engaging her challenged brain.
· Nancy Pelosi rivals the former first lady/would-be King for mean-spiritedness and partisanship.
· Barbara Streisand, Susan Sarandon, Jane Fonda, Larry David’s wife, et al, routinely, consistently, and chronically wallow in over-the-top bomb throwing, and no one in the mainstream seems to care ‘Jack’.
In her latest book, Coulter rips the four New Jersey widows who bludgeoned their way into the 9/11 commission limelight.
Coulter wrote, "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief- arazzis.” (so far so good) “I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," Ouch!
Suggesting the leftist darlings exploited their husband’s deaths may be true but it also taints the work and words of Debra Burlingame http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/62988.htm and Lisa Beamer http://www.christianitytoday.com/tcw/2002/005/1.46.html .
Former Rep. Tim Roehmer, a member of the 9/11commission called Coulter's "hate-filled attack on the patriotic heroes of 9/12…the widows of 9/11…reprehensible and undignified."
Frankly, what I find “reprehensible and undignified” is the refusal of the mainstream (and leftist sycophants) to provide an equitable balance of two different groups of widows with diametrically opposed positions.
Where was the righteous indignation of Roehmer, Emmanuael and others when James Carville, George Stephanopolous, and Michael Moore were waxing poetic against the ‘right’?
Among the most quotable Coulter:
"To expiate the pain of losing her first-born son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch. ... After your third profile on 'Entertainment Tonight,' you're no longer a grieving mom; you're a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show,"
"(Liberals) are always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let's do it. Let's repress them. ... Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment,"
Well I AM a big fan of the First Amendment. And that means that EVERYone has an equal right to articulate the most absurd, over the top, hyperbolized rhetoric they choose. It is the blessing and the curse of the first amendment.
Frankly, therein lies one of my pet peeves about academia (and the mainstream media) in general. I don’t mind that there is a communist professor trying to sell the unsellable. However, I want that professor counter balanced with a John Birch isolationist. Christians, Jews, Muslims. Buddhist, Gaiaist, Wiccans et al should have kiosk. THAT is what America is supposed to be about.
I agree with much (not all) of what Coulter says and writes. I personally do not like her ‘style’ but hey, some don’t like my style. I have been accused of being too cerebral, too tough, not tough enough, too cosmopolitan, too redneck, or too 'Not Rush'. So what?!?! Opinions are intimate body parts…we all have them.
Last year CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) got their burkahhs in a wad when I said (on WMAL in D.C.) the Qur’an allows Muslims to lie to unbelievers. Robert Spencer noted in a FrontPage article http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19078 , “Yet even as it complained about Metcalf’s statement, CAIR’s press release attacking Metcalf doesn’t say what Metcalf said was false. Why not? Because it’s true.” Duh!
"The truth," Coulter writes, "is the truth whether we like it or not."
If I have a problem with Ann it is that she seems to want to reverse the paradigm so that conservatives are in control of the thought police instead of the liberals. I don’t want the debate to remain tipped, but I don’t want it reversed either. Ideally, balance…an equal opportunity for both sides to articulate their extremist’s didactics…should be the goal. Then, and only then does ‘truth’ have a chance (albeit a slim chance) of rising.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Geoff Metcalf
