She has a point.
About 3 years ago, Ann Coulter was just about right in terms of being just far enough right that her columns and books were interesting to read, but didn't leave me feeling dirty. Of course, her recent stuff has been consistently disgusting at worst and pure political drivel at best. Which is too bad, because she used to be interesting and if she was holding an automatic rifle she'd be pretty hot.
Anyway, Annie has 95% of the free world pissed off about her most recent book where in one chapter she criticizes a group of 4 wives of men who died in 9/11. These women consistently criticize Bush, cut a campaign commercial for Kerry (? or some other dem ?) and were some of the most outspoken critics of the 9/11 commission. They have used their tragedy as a soapbox, and they use their notoriety to pursue a political agenda. (Also, not sure whether or how it is relevant, but they are also wealthy -- not some struggling single mothers living in the Bronx here.)
Coulter's point is that if someone like these four women or Cindy Sheehan, who have clearly suffered great losses, chooses to allow those losses to be exploited by a political party and agree to campaign, etc. using the fame/notoriety of their loss as a way to get on TV, they should be subject to the same criticism as any other political speaker. Bottom line is that the fact that they have suffered a greivous loss does not insulate them from being accountable (or subject to attack) for their messages.
Thought that was an interesting point. One that I really hadn't fully considered.
Anyway, Annie has 95% of the free world pissed off about her most recent book where in one chapter she criticizes a group of 4 wives of men who died in 9/11. These women consistently criticize Bush, cut a campaign commercial for Kerry (? or some other dem ?) and were some of the most outspoken critics of the 9/11 commission. They have used their tragedy as a soapbox, and they use their notoriety to pursue a political agenda. (Also, not sure whether or how it is relevant, but they are also wealthy -- not some struggling single mothers living in the Bronx here.)
Coulter's point is that if someone like these four women or Cindy Sheehan, who have clearly suffered great losses, chooses to allow those losses to be exploited by a political party and agree to campaign, etc. using the fame/notoriety of their loss as a way to get on TV, they should be subject to the same criticism as any other political speaker. Bottom line is that the fact that they have suffered a greivous loss does not insulate them from being accountable (or subject to attack) for their messages.
Thought that was an interesting point. One that I really hadn't fully considered.
posted by White Hat Black Hat at 8:33 AM
1 Comments:
Journalism teaches us that anyone who willingly puts him or herself into the public spotlight has essentially deemed him/herself a public figure and therefore is subject to the same treatment as any other public figure including celebrities, elected officials or mean blonde girls with a chip on their shoulder who shouldn't be given an automatic rifle because they'd almost certainly shoot first and ask questions later...
Post a Comment
<< Home