The Yearly Condemnation of Coulter

Condemning something stupid that Ann Coulter says seems to have become a yearly exercise. CQ has a copy of the conservative bloggers open letter here, and I endorse it in full...

Ann Coulter used to serve the movement well. She was telegenic, intelligent, and witty. She was also fearless: saying provocative things to inspire deeper thought and cutting through the haze of competing information has its uses. But Coulter's fearlessness has become an addiction to shock value. She draws attention to herself, rather than placing the spotlight on conservative ideas.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2006, Coulter referred to Iranians as "ragheads." She is one of the most prominent women in the conservative movement; for her to employ such reckless language reinforces the stereotype that conservatives are racists.

At CPAC 2007 Coulter decided to turn up the volume by referring to John Edwards, a former U.S. Senator and current Presidential candidate, as a "faggot." Such offensive language--and the cavalier attitude that lies behind it--is intolerable to us. It may be tolerated on liberal websites but not at the nation's premier conservative gathering.

The legendary conservative thinker Richard Weaver wrote a book entitled Ideas Have Consequences. Rush Limbaugh has said again and again that "words mean things." Both phrases apply to Coulter's awful remarks.

Coulter's vicious word choice tells the world she care little about the feelings of a large group that often feels marginalized and despised. Her word choice forces conservatives to waste time defending themselves against charges of homophobia rather than advancing conservative ideas.

Within a day of Coulter's remark John Edwards sent out a fundraising email that used Coulter's words to raise money for his faltering campaign. She is helping those she claims to oppose. How does that advance any of the causes we hold dear?

Denouncing Coulter is not enough. After her "raghead" remark in 2006 she took some heat. Yet she did not grow and learn. We should have been more forceful. This year she used a gay slur. What is next? If Senator Barack Obama is the de facto Democratic Presidential nominee next year, will Coulter feel free to use a racial slur? How does that help conservatism?

One of the points of CPAC is the opportunity it gives college students to meet other young conservatives and learn from our leaders. Unlike on their campuses—where they often feel alone—at CPAC they know they are part of a vibrant political movement. What example is set when one highlight of the conference is finding out what shocking phrase will emerge from Ann Coulter's mouth? How can we teach young conservatives to fight for their principles with civility and respect when Ann Coulter is allowed to address the conference? Coulter's invective is a sign of weak thinking and unprincipled politicking.

A couple things need to be said here. First, I think the coverage Coutler draws for these comments overstates her importance to society. I've seen at least a couple pundits on television refer to the conservative reaction to John Kerry's witless remarks about American servicemen in Iraq last fall and compare the two. While I would agree that Coulter used a far more inflammatory term, she's not an elected official. That's why I'm far more likely to take offense to Kerry, or, to use another example, Trent Lott, saying something stupid than I am to a paid pundit saying something inflammatory.

Second, I think what Jonah Goldberg said last year bears repeating...

I don't think Ann does anybody but herself any good when she jokes about killing presidents, Supreme Court justices or uses terms like raghead. I don't think she should do it and I don't think conservatives should applaud it. I'm all for shattering the stereotype that conservatives can't tell a joke, but that doesn't mean any joke is worth making just because it gets a laugh (indeed, some jokes shouldn't be made for fear that they will generate a laugh).

CPAC let her fool them once last year. They shouldn't have let her fool them twice. She's not going to be cowed by her fellow conservatives, but that doesn't mean you should let her use your platform.

A Friendly Reminder

Just a reminder, folks -- never agree to make a video with a significant other unless you're filthy stinking rich and have no sense of decency anyway (yes, we're talking about you, Ms. Hilton). For further proof, check out this result...

Police say a man sought revenge against his ex-girlfriend by leaving homemade DVDs of her performing sex acts on car windshields throughout the area.

The DVDs include the woman's name, address and phone number.

Police said the woman never realized the acts had been recorded and has received several visits and phone calls from strangers seeking sex.

...The victim is now in a new relationship. She would not comment.

Police first learned of the DVDs when a man reported finding one on his windshield. Later, they received reports of at least two more.

"Young children have gotten a hold of a couple of these and watched them," Leonard said. "We know there are other copies and we really want to get our hands on them."

Oh, you know the reporter enjoyed putting that last quote in the story.

Yes, I acknowledge that the article claims the woman didn't know she had been taped. But I'm going to reserve some doubts about that. With that being said, her ex-boyfriend stepped over the line and deserves whatever punishment comes his way. Here's the real question -- if you're the new boyfriend, do you find this guy and beat the crap out of him? And if one of your friends somehow gets a copy of the video, will you watch?

My Thoughts on the Libby Verdict

I have not followed the Libby trial in the least, relying on Tom Maguire for his coverage over at Just One Minute. To be honest, "following" might be too strong a description -- taking a peek every now and then might be a better description.

Now that the jury verdict is in (O.J. was found not gui... oops, Libby was guilty on four of five counts, which means the jury is batting .800), I can only think of the following Simpsons episode, where Freddy Quimby is on trial for assaulting a waiter....


Homer also contributed the following gems during deliberations...

Homer: "What does 'sequestered' mean?"
Skinner: "If the jury is deadlocked they're put up in a hotel together so they can't communicate with the outside world."
Homer: "What does 'deadlocked' mean?"
Skinner: "It's when the jury can't agree on a verdict."
Homer: "Uh huh. And 'if'?"
Skinner: "A conjunction meaning 'in the event that' or 'on condition that'."
Homer: "So if we don't all vote the same way, we'll be deadlocked and have to be sequestered in the Springfield Palace Hotel--"
Patty: "That's not going to happen, Homer."
Jasper: "Let's vote. My liver is failing."
Homer: "-- where we'll get a free room, free food, free swimming pool, free HBO -- Ooh! Free Willy!"
Skinner: "Justice is not a frivolous thing, Simpson. It has little if anything to do with a disobedient whale. Now let's vote!"
Homer: "Uh, how are the rest of you voting?"
Everyone: "Guilty."
Homer: "OK, fine. How many S's in "innocent"?"
Everyone: "Aw..."
Homer: "I'm only doing what I think is right. I believe Freddy Quimby should walk out of here a free hotel."

I'm sure this jury used much of the same logic.

Even a Caveman Can Get a Pilot

Loyal reader ST tells us that the GEICO cavemen are about to get some more exposure...

ABC said Friday it had ordered a pilot for a comedy, tentatively titled "Cavemen," that features the characters used in a series of ads by the insurance company.

In the ads, cavemen appear insulted by a Geico pitchman's claim that the company's Web site is so easy to use that "even a caveman can do it."

The potential series, one of 14 pilots that will be produced by Touchstone Television this spring, features the cavemen as they "struggle with prejudice on a daily basis as they strive to live the lives of normal thirty-somethings in 2007 Atlanta."

Two thoughts emerge immediately. First, there are normal thirty-somethings out there? Second, what self-respecting caveman would live in Atlanta?

Three Weeks of Billy Packer -- Kill Us All Now

For those who missed the UNC victory over Duke yesterday, it featured one of the more heated moments in the rivalry's history. Check it out here...



Deadspin has a pretty good round-up of blogosphere reaction. I will make the following points, since it's time for March Madness anyway.

1. Henderson's foul was an intentional hard foul, although I don't think he was trying to injure Hansbrough. This was one of those message fouls, the ones where a guy wants to make sure you don't score while also letting out a little frustration. I've played enough basketball that it's hard for me to believe that you go in with a running leap and swipe with your head turned away in order to simply get the ball. The ball was secondary here -- Henderson wanted to commit a hard foul.

Now, there's nothing wrong with sending messages, but there is a price to be paid if the foul creates an injury or if the attempt is too reckless. Watch Hansbrough hit the deck, and it's clear he could have been hurt much more seriously. Under the circumstances, it's fine that Henderson got ejected. I guess it could be a close call, but I don't even think that's the case. Pat Forde at ESPN expressed many similar sentiments.

2. My biggest beefs are not with Henderson here -- your emotions can get the best of you during a normal basketball game, let alone a rivalry game, and I doubt Henderson wants to see Hansborough hurt. I don't know how extensive his apology was (I didn't see all of it), but it looked pretty sincere.

I will say that Coach K's post-game comment about Hansbrough being in the game was borderline idiotic, as noted by Tar Heel Blue...

Really, the whole thing was Hansbrough's fault in the first place. With your team shooting free throws, 18.7 seconds left, and an 83-72 lead, you're supposed to give up. After all, the game was over.

"The game was over before (the foul)," Duke's Mike Krzyzewski said. "The outcome of the game, let's put it that way. It's unfortunate those people were in the game."

So the Blue Devils had given up. That's why, when Bobby Frasor toed the free throw line with 18.7 seconds remaining, Duke had Gerald Henderson, Josh McRoberts, DeMarcus Nelson, and Jon Scheyer still on the floor. Greg Paulus had just left after fouling out.

Look, I don't blame K here any more than I'd blame any coach -- Krzyzewski may annoy me to no end, but he does not employ goon tactics and wouldn't put up with it from his players (Christian Laettner's stomp of Aminu Timberlake notwithstanding -- and Laettner's more of a jerk than anything approaching a goon). As Forde noted, however, Krzyzewski's team was calling timeout down 13 with less than a minute to play when everyone should have been sending in walk-ons. As Roy Williams noted, a sub was waiting for Hansbrough at the scorer's table. Both teams were taking the game seriously down to the final seconds -- that's admirable, but it's hard to hear Coach K turn around and complain about it in the context of wondering why Hansbrough was in the game. This section of the column will not be popular with my in-laws, but Coach K was dead wrong here. Luckily, he looks like a sage compared to Billy Packer.

3. Billy Packer is a blithering idiot. A complete moron. There is no way I can reconcile his asinine statements with anything other than dementia or an inability to overcome his own biases -- and I think it's the latter, because this is clearly an instance where Packer's trying to say, "But he goes to Duke! He would never do something like that!" I can't stand Packer for any number of reasons -- the voice that sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard, the ACC-centric point of view, the big school bias, the butt-kissing of his coaching buddies, etc. But this was ridiculous in the extreme. Deadspin nails it...

Of all the "Sweet Christ, Billy Packer is so full of equine excrement" moments, we have to say, the "Just Going For The Ball!" foul from Gerald Henderson on Tyler Hansbrough at the end of the Duke-UNC game is definitely near the top of the list. Whatever your thoughts on the reason for Henderson's attack on Hansbrough, Packer's willful -- and aggressive; it's obviously he's not going to let Jim Nantz talk on this subject -- refusal to even imagine that a Duke player might have hammered down a cheap, brutal foul veers toward the pathological. This man broadcasts the biggest college basketball games of the year, every year; this never fails to amaze us.

We would like to see Packer calling other gruesome feats throughout history. "The Hindenberg is ... still in the air! Yep, it's just doing fine! Oh, the grand success! Oh, the grand success!"

The comments are even funnier, especially this one...

BP: "Jim, have I told you how much I like that John Wilkes Booth kid? He's my kind of player. He accidentally shoots President Lincoln in the head; you can see on the replay that he's turning away from Lincoln when the gun goes off, and .."

JN: Wouldn't that be to avoid having bits of skull and brain matter hit him in the face?

BP: Don't be ridiculous. Anyone who thinks that Booth is that kind of player, just doesn't know him. Besides, what was Lincoln still doing in the box that late in the play? He should have been at home resting up for the reconstruction. Lincoln needed to see the third Act like he needed another hole in his head. He was practically asking for it.

Anyway, the point I am trying to make about Booth is that after suffering a painful broken leg, the kid insists on staying in the game. He ran, what, two miles on that leg? He's a true American hero, the kind of fella I hoped my daughter would marry.

Hating Billy Packer. Now that's a March Madness tradition.

What Annoying Song is Stuck in My Head Today?

If I need to suffer with a song stuck in my head, why shouldn't you have to do the same? Sometimes they're good, most times they're bad... but no matter what, they make you suffer. So I like to share the suffering whenever it happens.

I have no excuse for posting this, except that it ended up on the radio for approximately 45 seconds in the background while I was on my cellphone checking voicemail, and I neglected to change it. To my horror, it's still torturing me today. Forget the fact that this group launched Justin Timberlake -- I still like Chris Rock's quote about them, "Millions of albums sold -- and I don't know a single person who bought one"(hat tip: Jeff Pearlman at ESPN).

Anyway, here's N'Sync with a "A Little More Time..."

But He's Still A Liberal

For everyone on the left who is dreaming of having President Obama, there's a center-right voter trying to figure out whether this admittedly admirable figure could be a good President. And then, we get moments like this...

With Democrats in control of Congress and seeking to boost a struggling labor movement, national union leaders joined Illinois' two senators at a rally Saturday in Chicago to promote legislation to make it easier for workers to join a union against the wishes of their employers.

"We will pass the Employee Free Choice Act. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when," said Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). "We may have to wait for the next president to sign it, but we will get this thing done."

...The labor rally followed a vote Thursday in the House, where Democrats, in a nod to organized labor for its help in retaking control of Congress, approved a bill that would take away the right of employers to demand secret balloting by workers before unions could be recognized.

Under the bill, the National Labor Relations Board would certify a union if it wins a majority of cards signed by workers. Currently, the NLRB calls for a secret vote if more than 30 percent of workers say they support a union. In order to win the election, the union must garner the majority of the workers' votes.

Unions argue that change is needed because employers intimidate workers before voting and by legally battling elections for so long that the victories become meaningless.

Should the legislation pass both chambers of Congress, President Bush would almost certainly veto it. The rally was sponsored by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, which has 100,000 active and retired members.

Please note, that's a government workers union sponsoring the rally -- one where Senator Obama promises to get rid of secret ballots for determining whether workers want a union or not. Jeez, I wonder who's doing the intimidating -- those who want the secret ballot, or those opposed to it? It's pretty clear union organizers feel that that they can do better when they can pressure individual workers into signing cards, rather than having to suffer through the democratic process of an election where people can let their voices be heard without fear of retribution.

The government workers unions are now the most important unions around, basically because they're the only area of major growth for unions today. This legislation would seek to reverse that trend, and Democrats support it for the obvious reason that they're beholden to union money. Mickey Kaus has a point when he says the GOP should make a political stand in order to highlight Senator Obama's decision to remain an old-line liberal...

The idea of requiring a union, without a secret ballot election, if labor organizers can obtain a majority of "cards" from employees seems like both a big idea and a bad idea... If Republicans were smart and confident, wouldn't they make a big deal of this--drag the debate in Congress out to give it more prominence, highlighting Obama's support for this change which (more than any tax cut) would alter the very texture of the economy? Voters--even many socially liberal peacenik voters--traditionally worry that if Dems gain full power they will a) serve their special interests and b) cripple American capitalism in a fit of leftish nostalgia. This bill legitimately triggers both fears.

What's great about this bill is that it should unite the GOP en masse, and the President has promised to veto it. He probably will not need to do so, since Sen. McConnell will lead a filibuster that will stop the bill in the Senate. But it's worth remembering that even a Democratic politician who engages in the audacity of hope may not be too willing to break from old-school liberalism.