Jason Kottke won’t even mention her name. But Ann Coulter is making the rounds right now. Her newest argument is “liberal infallibility”, projected towards the widows of 9/11 victims. Her point is that the widows have become rich and famous as a result of their husbands’ deaths. And the liberals use those widows to promote their anti-war cause because, according to Ann, no one can argue against widows without coming off like an unsympathetic asshole.
NO ONE! Except for Ann!
Basically Ann’s whole argument comes down to the fact that she doesn’t think it’s fair that other people can argue about stuff from experience. Been to war? Been poor? Minority? Differ from the status quo? You’re disqualified from arguing.
Apparently only sorority sisters who were on the school newspaper staff and who went to law school on the back of rich family are qualified to discuss serious topics like war, immigration, religion, politics, social assistance, women’s voting rights, etc.
The only way to be fair is if EVERYONE involved in the debate is clueless!
And a montage of Coulter quotes.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD2P3Fk0O3M
I hope it isn’t becoming a trend that it’s acceptable for do-nothing chickenhawks to criticize those who have actually accomplished things and put their necks on the line. I resent being told how things are by people who would have no idea how things are.
For example, House Representative Louie Gohmert from Texas got called out by John Murtha after he claimed Murtha’s “cowardice” back in WW2 would’ve led to our defeat. Murtha responded by asking if Gohmert’s ever been to war. Gohmert said no and ran off the stage with his tail between his legs.
If you go to Gohmert’s official biography, by the way, he calls himself a “veteran” by virtue of being a cadet while at Texas A&M University and then a captain in the US Army for four years but I can’t verify that. The details seem sketchy.