[Psudo]

Ann Coulter wrote:

The reason not to burn Qurans is that it's unkind -- not to jihadists, but to Muslims who mean us no harm. The same goes for building a mosque at ground zero -- in both cases, it's not a question of anyone's "rights," it's just a nasty thing to do.

This last paragraph of her latest column is exactly right. The article points out various double-standards by liberals and misrepresentations of conservatives' views that oppose this principle. Her examples clearly true and clearly biased, since double-standards by conservatives and misrepresentations of liberals' views are glossed over or ignored. But I don't care about the partisanship so much as this: she is advocating exactly the right principle.

She's outrageous and partisan for ratings, but she's right because it's the right thing to do. She's wielding her fame, making it work for her. She does not change her views to attain fame, but attains fame to popularize her views. And her underlying views are right: correct, accurate, and true. It's a beautiful thing.

[Gunnair]

Wow. Who replaced Ann Coulter with this?

[BartSimpson]

I agree with Psudo and Ann.

[Trenacker]

There are several obvious problems with Coulter's piece.

First, I agree that liberals, like many Muslims elsewhere in the world, are tragically towing a double standard when they work themselves into a hot lather about the destruction of Qurans, but seem to regard the burning of Bibles and flags as fairly innocuous occurrences. On the other hand, the deplorable behavior of our neighbors should not be the measure by which we strive to comport ourselves. Furthermore, although I still find their stance hypocritical and short-sighted, and do wish they'd speak up against the burning of Bibles, liberals are correct to look dubiously upon claims that white American Christians are under siege. Put simply, at this point in time in our social development, the desecration of Islamic holy books is a far more menacing symbol than the desecration of a Bible, even if the two are held with equal esteem by members of their respective faiths. Christians can still be certain of the protection of the laws, and for the most part, recognize that their neighbors don't wish them bodily harm. Most Muslims are probably less confident of that.

Second, there is no more reason to cater to the wishes of the 9/11 families than to those of Imam Rauf and his supporters. The idea that construction of a Muslim holy place near 9/11 will bring discomfort to some people, and therefore must be stopped, is as ridiculous as complaining that to share a bus with blacks would make some whites uncomfortable, and can therefore possibly be acceptable as a sop to those with "delicate sensibilities." We accepted that Timothy McVeigh was not representative of all white Christians. We must accept that the acts of September 11 were not representative of all Muslims. Indeed, we see that alienation -- the sense of social ostracism, of rejection, or an inability to receive a fair deal -- is a key variable in the process of radicalization. Why are we consciously taking steps that will feed such attitudes?

"Trying to keep Muslims away from our skyscrapers?" That's just it, Ann: We aren't fighting Muslims. George Bush did everything he could to try and communicate just that.

I can appreciate Coulter's remarks about the importance of sometimes taking actions that provoke outrage from others. However, considering that the pervasiveness of the media has turned the actions of individual Americans into collective expressions of national attitude and policy, I would suggest that it is reasonable for some people to reconsider the necessity of certain behaviors, given the circumstances. If I am right to ask that Fred Phelps and Company put down their picket signs, it is right that I be asked to avoid giving vent to my religious opinions in an intentionally provocative manner. Of course this does involve some stepping on the toes of those who insist that the only way to practice their religion is to take provocative measures. I think that's the price one pays for living in a body politic like the United States. At the end, Coulter does seem to come around to this point of view, but not before making certain unnecessary and small-minded stops along the way.

[Psudo]

I appreciate you reading the entire column, Trenacker.

Trenacker wrote:

the deplorable behavior of our neighbors should not be the measure by which we strive to comport ourselves.

She never argues that it should be. She argues that "they" use a double standard and "we" do not.

Trenacker wrote:

Christians can still be certain of the protection of the laws, and for the most part, recognize that their neighbors don't wish them bodily harm. Most Muslims are probably less confident of that.

According to FBI statistics, hate crimes against Christians in are more common than hate crimes against Muslims in 2008 America. Also, given that "there is no more reason to cater to the wishes of the 9/11 families than to those of Imam Rauf and his supporters," why should we cater especially to Muslims who imagine the law does not protect them?

If the law were actually failing to protect them, that'd be another story. But it protects them fine. 130 hate crimes against Muslims in 2008, compared to a Muslim population of 7 million or so (less than 1 in every 50,000). Compare that to the hate crime rate among Americans at large: 9,691 total hate crimes among 300 million people is a little less than 1 in 30,000. Muslims are actually safer from hate crime than the US average.

If you want to stick up for the downtrodden religious demographic, how about Jews? 1,145 hate crimes among 5 million adherents is about 1 in 4,500.

Trenacker wrote:

We accepted that Timothy McVeigh was not representative of all white Christians. We must accept that the acts of September 11 were not representative of all Muslims.

It's disputed whether McVeigh was Christian at all. He is quoted as saying "Science is my religion." for example.

Also, it is clear from the concluding paragraph that she doesn't imagine all Muslims want to harm Americans. She uses momentary exaggerations for comedic effect; in a word, jokes. She makes them because they give her the audience to make substantial observations. Her fans recognize them as hyperbole and are not distracted from the substance of her argument.

They're funny in an in-crowd kind of way, where the insiders know how the outsiders will take it (wrong) and chuckle to themselves about how the outsiders would've taken it right if it'd been said by someone they were predisposed to respect. You say she "comes around." We laugh, knowing that she was there all along.

[xerxes]

Man, the world just doesn't make sense anymore. Ann Coulter actually said/wrote something that wasn't abrasive inflammatory horseshit?

The times they are a changing....

[DerbyX]

xerxes wrote:

Man, the world just doesn't make sense anymore. Ann Coulter actually said/wrote something that wasn't abrasive inflammatory horseshit?

The times they are a changing....

Read the whole article. She is still the same bat shit crazy bitch.

[xerxes]

Oh I know. Just the fact that at least one sentence in it wasn't concentrated garbage is still surprising.

[djakeydd]

DerbyX wrote:

xerxes wrote:

Man, the world just doesn't make sense anymore. Ann Coulter actually said/wrote something that wasn't abrasive inflammatory horseshit?

The times they are a changing....

Read the whole article. She is still the same bat shit crazy bitch.

Probably you are correct, even savants have occasional strokes of genius..

[Psudo]

How is the casual disregard for the other side's arguments you've just demonstrated morally superior to her casual disregard? You're criticizing a trait as you demonstrate it. That's the dictionary definition of hypocrisy.

[andyt]

xerxes wrote:

Man, the world just doesn't make sense anymore. Ann Coulter actually said/wrote something that wasn't abrasive inflammatory horseshit?

The times they are a changing....

She shoots her mouth off so often, periodically she comes out with something reasonable, whether she wants to or not. Even Goebbels probably said the odd thing most people would agree with.

Actually she's good friends with Bill Maher. They like each other because they both don't hold back on what they really think. Gotta give her that, I guess.

[DerbyX]

Psudo wrote:

How is the casual disregard for the other side's arguments you've just demonstrated morally superior to her casual disregard? You're criticizing a trait as you demonstrate it. That's the dictionary definition of hypocrisy.

Except when you aren't dealing with her argument but rather commenting directing on her as a person. Her character reflects her argument anyway (which I consider wrong btw) because that is a fact of life. In law its called credibility of the witness and given the crap she has said about Canada in the past I take nothing she says as credible.

[Trenacker]

Quote:

According to FBI statistics, hate crimes against Christians in are more common than hate crimes against Muslims in 2008 America. Also, given that "there is no more reason to cater to the wishes of the 9/11 families than to those of Imam Rauf and his supporters," why should we cater especially to Muslims who imagine the law does not protect them?

If the law were actually failing to protect them, that'd be another story. But it protects them fine. 130 hate crimes against Muslims in 2008, compared to a Muslim population of 7 million or so (less than 1 in every 50,000). Compare that to the hate crime rate among Americans at large: 9,691 total hate crimes among 300 million people is a little less than 1 in 30,000. Muslims are actually safer from hate crime than the US average.

If you want to stick up for the downtrodden religious demographic, how about Jews? 1,145 hate crimes among 5 million adherents is about 1 in 4,500.

First, as I understand it, Muslims and Christians have tended to swap places on that list.

Second, the perception is as important as the reality in this case. You don't have leading politicians trying to claw their way to the presidency by comparing Christianity to Nazism, which is exactly what Newt Gingrich has done.

Quote:

It's disputed whether McVeigh was Christian at all. He is quoted as saying "Science is my religion." for example.

We could easily pick abortion clinic shooters or the IRA.

Quote:

They're funny in an in-crowd kind of way, where the insiders know how the outsiders will take it (wrong) and chuckle to themselves about how the outsiders would've taken it right if it'd been said by someone they were predisposed to respect. You say she "comes around." We laugh, knowing that she was there all along.

That's fine -- but Ann is still wrong to try and draw equivalence between the behavior of this Florida pastor, which is intentionally designed to send a message of rejection to others, and the mere presence of an Islamic place of worship in close proximity to Ground Zero. The events of September 11 should no more be a common millstone for Muslims everywhere to have to explain away than are IRA activities for any Catholic who doesn't support the IRA.

[Murray_Smith]

I this Ann Coulter si a pretty cool guy. eh insults liberals and doesn't afraid of anything.

What ruins my transmission about Ms. Coulter is that when she says something she thinks is funny and/or knows will irritate liberals, she shuts down the brains of a lot of people who were otherwise willing to hear her out. I mean, Jesus-isn't-Christ, it wasn't funny the first five hundred sixty-two times she stated that liberals hate free speech except when it comes to Islam.

Ann Coulter wrote:

If the general's main objective is to hamper jihadist recruiting, may I respectfully suggest unconditional surrender? Because on his theory, you know what would really kill the terrorists' recruiting ability? If we adopted Sharia law!

Actually, no, because then a lot of Christians would become terrorists. Nice try, though!

I think the burning of any book, regardless of its content, is an act beneath contempt. Even if I had a copy of, say, Mein Kampf, I would refrain from burning the book; I'd hollow it out.

[Psudo]

DerbyX wrote:

Psudo wrote:

How is the casual disregard for the other side's arguments you've just demonstrated morally superior to her casual disregard? You're criticizing a trait as you demonstrate it. That's the dictionary definition of hypocrisy.

Except when you aren't dealing with her argument but rather commenting directing on her as a person.

That's precisely the problem! You comment on her character, as if you were a definitive source, completely ignoring the content of her argument (and my defense of it). Rather than consider for the most fleeting moment the reasoning behind her position, you decry her as a mindless enemy and, thus, discredited on character. It's a combination of personal attack and circular reasoning, since her argument is discredited based on an assessment of her character in turn based on label "discredited" you've placed across her brow and life.

Dig back into the origins of your opinion of her. Why have you disavowed her? What was her reasoning for the comments that turned you against her? If you can demonstrate some open-minded, empathetic reasoning that still results in your existing view, it will dispel my perception that there is no reasoning and that you merely root for your chosen team blind to any possible logic or persuasion. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you seemingly deny her, but I need something to go on.

Trenacker wrote:

First, as I understand it, Muslims and Christians have tended to swap places on that list.

Muslims overtook Christians in 2001 (due, it is thought, to bias resulting from 9/11), and Christians retook the lead in 2008 (perhaps that bias is fading?). Outside of that date range, hate crimes against Christians have remained more frequent than against Muslims for the entire history of FBI statistics on the subject.

Trenacker wrote:

You don't have leading politicians trying to claw their way to the presidency by comparing Christianity to Nazism, which is exactly what Newt Gingrich has done [to Muslims].

Newt's statement was that building a Mosque near the WTC site is like a "Nazi sign next to a Holocaust museum." From the biased perspective of the 9/11 victims, that comparison is quite apt. After all, modern Nazis often reject the means used by their 1930s German namesakes, claiming we can't blame all Nazis for the violence committed in another era by other men. Even if such a kindly, non-violent, coexistence-motivated Nazi could theoretically exist, it contradicts one's such kindly facade to so insensitively post his sign next to a Holocaust museum. Even a Buddhist swastika near a Holocaust museum is in horrible taste.

Unlike Nazis, the vast majority of Muslims really, truly are kindly, non-violent, and coexistence-motivated. Yet the argument remains; if these particular Muslims are so peace-loving, why here? It contradicts that kindly facade for this Muslim group to be promoting the placement of this symbol where it will be most offensive. Even then, it doesn't reflect upon Muslims generally; some Muslims have themselves criticized this particular group for this particular choice, clearly demonstrating that not all Muslims are even this tactless, itself a status far removed from al-Qaedan killers.

Certainly Newt's reprehensible tactlessness puts him on par with the Ground Zero Mosque promoters, but his tactlessness doesn't make theirs less condemnable nor the principle he declared invalid. It just demonstrates why he remains perpetually unelectable.

As for your claim that Christians are not so often compared to Nazis by politicians as are Muslims, you're wrong twice. First, Newt Gingrich is not currently a politician, candidate, or office-holder. He's currently employed as a political activist and pundit, much like the head of the NAACP who called various Christian Republicans Nazis. Newt's popular influence is probably comparable to Chris Hedges, author of American Fascism: The Christian Right and the War On America. If a Nazi labeling from a politician's mouth is necessary, how about California's Democratic Attorney General Jerry Brown calling his Republican opposition candidate Meg Whitman a Nazi; she's a Presbyterian. Yes, it's all ridiculous, unfair comparisons, Newt's included. But Christians and Muslims are not held to different standards in this regard.

Murray_Smith wrote:

it wasn't funny the first five hundred sixty-two times she stated that liberals hate free speech except when it comes to Islam.

It is to some people. Similarly, I never thought Bush-as-chimp jokes were funny, but I'm obviously in the minority there.

Murray_Smith wrote:

I think the burning of any book, regardless of its content, is an act beneath contempt.

Agreed.