The Beat

Ann Coulter's Diabolical Campaign for Clinton

posted by John Nichols on 02/01/2008 @ 1:06pm

Her critics may dismiss Ann Coulter as a "kooky-con," the craziest of conservatives. But there is nothing nutty about Coulter.

If the right-wing diva appears to be crazy, it is crazy like a fox.

The woman is diabolical. And she has a genius for the doing more damage than mere mortals could hope to inflict.

And her latest gambit is so sly that she has everyone talking -- and just about everyone misreading her sly intent.

Few political realities are more certain than the fact that Coulter hates, hates, hates Hillary Clinton with a passion she and other conservatives will never be able to muster against the softly-bipartisan Barack Obama. Obama is probably more liberal than the former First Lady, and almost certainly more likely to win the presidency if the Democrats nominate him.

But Obama does not have the history with Coulter and the conservative echo chamber that the Clinton's have. Bill Clinton outmaneuvered them even when the GOP took control of the House and Senate. And Hillary Clinton named their "vast right-wing conspiracy."

The disdain is deep, sworn and eternal. Coulter calls Hillary Clinton "pond scum."

But Coulter is making the rounds of right-wing talk-television shows to say she'd back Clinton as the Democratic nominee against Republican John McCain. "She's more conservative that he is," the author and commentator claims. "She will be stronger on the war on terrorism...I will campaign for her if it's McCain."

Of the woman she once accused of committing treason, Coulter now says, "Hillary's gonna be our girl!"

Here's the slanderer of all things Democratic and liberal from last night's "Hannity & Colmes" gabfest on Fox:

ANN COULTER: Hillary is absolutely more conservative. Moreover she lies less than John McCain, she's smarter than John McCain. When she's caught shamelessly lying at least the Clinton's know they've been caught lying. McCain is so stupid he doesn't even know he's been caught.

ALAN COLMES: Go! Could you fill in for me next week? Let me get this straight, would you vote for Hillary Clinton?

COULTER: Yes!

COLMES: You would actually go into a voting booth…

COULTER: If it's close and the candidate is John McCain, because John McCain is not only bad for Republicanism –- which he definitely is -–he's bad for the country.

COLMES: Can I tell you the last thing Hillary Clinton wants, is Ann Coulter's endorsement.

Colmes is, of course, correct.

Coulter despises McCain because he is on the verge of winning the Republican nomination without the help of the paid partisans of the Republican right. She and Rush Limbaugh fear for their franchises.

She is a sly woman this Ann Coulter. And she is not entirely insincere. While she may not really believe that Clinton is more conservative than McCain, she undoubtedly would rather have Clinton as president. That's because Clinton presidency would be a full-employment program for the right-wing attack machine for which she is Cog No. 1. And a McCain presidency, by defining a different and more responsible conservatism, could marginalize Coulter and her kind.

So anything Coulter can say to hurt McCain, she will say. And to suggest that the right's favorite demon, Hillary Clinton, is more credibly conservative than the maverick McCain hurts the senator from Arizona with the Republican base that is only now beginning to warm to him.

But the diabolical part of Coulter's strategy is this: In attacking McCain and endorsing Clinton, the right-wing heroine that the left loves to hate hurts both the Republican she fears and the Democrat she despises.

Ingenuous!

Comments (197)

  1. Coulters sense of self importance is not shared by many Americans. she is irrelevant.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/01/2008 @ 1:13pm

  2. I left alone, my mind was blank. I needed time to get the memories from my mind.

    What did I see, can I believe, That what I saw last night was real and not just fantasy.

    Just what I saw, in my own dreams, Were they reflections of my warped mind staring back at me.

    'Cause in my dreams, it's always there, The evil face that twists my mind and brings me to despair.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/01/2008 @ 1:17pm

  3. If Clinton wins the White House, things had better go swimmingly 100% of the time, as she and her administration will asuredly be a non-stop target for the Right Wing Smear Machine. Iraq, the economy...it will all be her fault and America will eat it up all the way till 2012 when Coulter et al get their scarriest candidate into position.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/01/2008 @ 1:18pm

  4. If it's close and the candidate is John McCain, because John McCain is not only bad for Republicanism –- which he definitely is -–he's bad for the country.

    I think this may be the only time I have ever agreed with Ann Coulter.

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/01/2008 @ 1:19pm

  5. Yeah, I saw Coulter last night --on tv thank god.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/01/2008 @ 1:19pm

  6. Coulters sense of self importance is not shared by many Americans. she is irrelevant.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/01/2008 @ 1:13pm

    There are a lot of assholes out there who buy her books and eat that shit up, and if it's not her it's Limbaugh, Hannity, or O'Reilly! Different faces, same message.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/01/2008 @ 1:21pm

  7. Once again, John Nichols thinks at about "Level One"....where Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al...are thinking at "Level Three" or "Level Four".

    The old "Dune" line...."plans within plans within plans".

    Coulter knows that if McCain wins, she is OUT. He will run the Party as President and she and Rush and Sean will be "on the outs" and they'll either be defending stuff they've opposed for 10 years....or left to the sidelines.

    BUT...if HILLARY wins...they've got fresh material for 4-8 years, the target they LOVE to have in the White House, and ASSURED and LUCRATIVE radio, TV, and book contracts for as long.

    Mr Nichols (one might think) could figure that out...our local Hillary lover/Rush hater hasn't...but John Nichols, an editor at "The Nation"?...you'd think he would.

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 1:37pm

  8. Is it just me or is Nichols writing this like he has some sort of crush or infatuation on Ann Coulter?

    "Nothing nutty about Coulter"

    "Right wing diva. Crazy like a fox."

    "she has a genius for the doing more damage than mere mortals could hope to inflict."

    "She is a sly woman this Ann Coulter"

    "Ingenious."

    I swear if I weren't reading a post by Nichols on Ann Coulter, I'd think I was reading a post by FRANK on Hillary Clinton.

    Creepy.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 02/01/2008 @ 1:39pm

  9. Posted by B_KOOL_66 02/01/2008 @ 1:17pm

    I never knew Eddie had a sister...Eddie, Annie...why didn't I make the connection before?

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/01/2008 @ 1:43pm

  10. I hate to say it, but the Queen of Pond Scum is right. Hillary IS more conservative than McCain. She has been one of the Iraq war's biggest fans, has done NOTHING to stop it or put the reins on Bush in ANY way, and seems perfectly content to classify Iran as a "terrorist entity," a move which serves absolutely NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER other than pave the way for more neocon/zionist depravity. Coulter may be evil, but Hillary is just as bad, and FAR more dangerous.

    Posted by DejaVu at 02/01/2008 @ 1:45pm

  11. Posted by FRITZTHECAT 02/01/2008 @ 1:39pm

    I will take up Diogenes' lamp and search for the honest man...

    If you knew nothing about her, or her views...would you find Coulter a moderately (or more) attractive woman???

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 1:48pm

  12. BUT...if HILLARY wins...they've got fresh material for 4-8 years, the target they LOVE to have in the White House, and ASSURED and LUCRATIVE radio, TV, and book contracts for as long.

    Mr Nichols (one might think) could figure that out...our local Hillary lover/Rush hater hasn't...but John Nichols, an editor at "The Nation"?...you'd think he would.

    Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 1:37pm

    Coulter despises McCain because he is on the verge of winning the Republican nomination without the help of the paid partisans of the Republican right. She and Rush Limbaugh fear for their franchises.

    That's because Clinton presidency would be a full-employment program for the right-wing attack machine for which she is Cog No. 1. And a McCain presidency, by defining a different and more responsible conservatism, could marginalize Coulter and her kind. -nichols.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/01/2008 @ 1:49pm

  13. Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 1:37pm

    uh, mask:

    While she may not really believe that Clinton is more conservative than McCain, she undoubtedly would rather have Clinton as president. That's because Clinton presidency would be a full-employment program for the right-wing attack machine for which she is Cog No. 1. And a McCain presidency, by defining a different and more responsible conservatism, could marginalize Coulter and her kind.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 1:50pm

  14. "That's because Clinton presidency would be a full-employment program for the right-wing attack machine for which she is Cog No. 1."

    Cog No. 1?? Are you her agent?

    Don't pay any attention to AC, don't even ignore her.

    Posted by sloper at 02/01/2008 @ 1:50pm

  15. FRANKGRITS, This is what I am trying to warn you about. Hillary is the dream of the right wing attack machine. She will have no chance to "lead".

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/01/2008 @ 1:51pm

  16. whoa!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 1:51pm

  17. Or is Annie C really an Obama girl in drag?

    Basta.

    Enough already.

    Posted by sloper at 02/01/2008 @ 1:52pm

  18. If you knew nothing about her, or her views...would you find Coulter a moderately (or more) attractive woman???

    Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 1:48pm

    Honestly, not really. She's got too long of a face. I wouldn't classify her has ugly (based on looks alone) but she's not even in the same realm as Angelina Jolie.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 02/01/2008 @ 1:54pm

  19. I cannot believe you idiots think either Obama or Clinton is even remotely qualified to be President.

    Vote for Obama if you are for 'change' and 'hope' and 'vision'. (not sure what any of that means).

    Vote for Clinton because she is married to the guy who USED to be President.

    What a joke. Wow, your movement is in bad shape. These are the only two clowns you can come up with and think a 'progressive majority' is on the horizon?

    You couldn't get a 'progressive majority' at a Starbucks in Berkely, California with these two.

    LOL

    Posted by JohnFKerry at 02/01/2008 @ 1:57pm

  20. coulter cares not at all about mccain or clinton; her only concern is marketing herself. has she not proven this for years with her otherwise inexplicable behavior and ranting? she is a master at sowing confusion and consternation, managing at all times to keep her name prominently on the lips of dopes like nichols, laughing all the way to the bank. she deserves only to be slammed for her nearly pure wickedness, and then to be ostracized. if only it were possible to enact emigration reform to send her permanently to waziristan.

    Posted by puleeze at 02/01/2008 @ 1:57pm

  21. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/01/2008 @ 1:50pm

    Okay, fair enuf. Apologies to Mr Nichols.

    (too many previous examples, I guess...heheh)

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 2:00pm

  22. but she's not even in the same realm as Angelina Jolie.----Posted by FRITZTHECAT 02/01/2008 @ 1:5

    Well WHO is?

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 2:01pm

  23. Posted by JOHNFKERRY 02/01/2008 @ 1:57pm

    and how did John Kerry and Al Gore do against George "Chimpy" Bush?

    Requirments: age of 35

    Born in US

    Able to hide bribes as 'campaign contributions'

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/01/2008 @ 2:02pm

  24. Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 2:01pm

    Jennifer Aniston

    way cuter than fake lips Jolie.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/01/2008 @ 2:03pm

  25. CRAB...

    How did John Kerry and Al Gore do against Bush?

    Umm...they lost.

    Forget to pay the cable bill?

    Posted by JohnFKerry at 02/01/2008 @ 2:04pm

  26. you guys ever see the bugs bunny rebel rabbit [imdb.com]?

    Bugs Bunny: [Bugs casually strolls into the Game Commissioner's office, and grabs him by the throat] Eh, WHAT'S THE BIG IDEA OF RABBITS BEING ONLY WORTH 2 CENTS?

    Game Commissioner: STOP STEAMING UP MY GLASSES!

    Bugs Bunny: Never mind that. How come rabbits are only two cents? Huh?

    Game Commissioner: Well, other animals are destructive, harmful, obnoxious to people. They do damage.

    Bugs Bunny: Nyeh, tell me more, Doc.

    Game Commissioner: Rabbits are sweet, furry little creatures. They wouldn't harm a hair on your head.

    Bugs Bunny: Eh, get him. Hee hee. He don't know me very well, do he?

    well, prepare for the wrath of FROSTY ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    to whit:

    "Canadians better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent."

    Ann "Days Are Numbered" Coulter. (Fox News; Hannity & Colmes, November 30, 2004)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 2:05pm

  27. If you knew nothing about her, or her views...would you find Coulter a moderately (or more) attractive woman???

    Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 1:48pm

    It's a man, baby!!!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/01/2008 @ 2:09pm

  28. Besides comedians like Franken, the only people anyone can remotely characterize as the left-wing equivelant of Coulter, O'Reily, Hannity, etc. are intellectuals like Noam Chomsky

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/01/2008 @ 2:14pm

  29. She is also helping advance the nomination of Obama, who she knows to be the least electable Democrat.

    Posted by MARKCANYON 02/01/2008 @ 2:10pm

    Actually, Obama is doing better in most head to heads against McCain than Clinton is.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/01/2008 @ 2:17pm

  30. Posted by MATTMAN 02/01/2008 @ 2:14pm

    And how is it that Coulter can be named in the same breath as Chomsky? She wouldn't know a footnote if it came up and kicked her in the face. Totally baseless commentary vs. half a book of documentation. They're flippin' antonyms.

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/01/2008 @ 2:22pm

  31. As crazy as Coulter is, her decision (if you believe it) sounds an awful lot like a few folks here, but on the flip side.

    Posted by Hman23 at 02/01/2008 @ 2:23pm

  32. Posted by HMAN23 02/01/2008 @ 2:23pm

    That Her Majesty would be more conservative than McCain?

    Possibly. She certainly isn't going to push campaign finance reform since lots of cash is basically how she will have won the nomination and the Presidency.

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 2:29pm

  33. coulter and chomsky are the flip side of the same coin: haters, self-marginalizing masqueraders, irrelevant sizzle. so what if the only that separates them is a footnote?

    Posted by puleeze at 02/01/2008 @ 2:35pm

  34. Some contributors here restate what Nichols wrote and then say he didn't get it, that he is thinking on "level one". Why do so many people dis' Nichols? He actually hit the nail on the head, give him credit..Geez. Also another said it was "creepy" that Nichols had some sort of "infatuation" with Colter. I mean DUH, she is after all the girl that lefties love to hate... By the way does anybody know who she is bangin'?

    Posted by chaoszen at 02/01/2008 @ 2:39pm

  35. Why are people listening to a lunatic like Coulter? Nobody wants to hear the nonsensical ranting of what passes for a human being these days. To call Coulter relevant only comes from the idiots she appeals to.

    Posted by fay1827 at 02/01/2008 @ 2:43pm

  36. BTW, Ann Coulter is as qualified to be President as either Obama or Clinton.

    That is, she has no qualifications.

    Posted by JohnFKerry at 02/01/2008 @ 2:46pm

  37. Posted by PULEEZE 02/01/2008 @ 2:35pm | ignore this person

    How dare you compare Chomsky with that thing? Chomsky speaks the truth while Coulter makes shocking statements for the sake of hearing herself talk. She is the biggest liar on this planet.

    Posted by fay1827 at 02/01/2008 @ 2:49pm

  38. Ann is about as relevant as say Al Franken.

    Posted by abell12ct at 02/01/2008 @ 2:50pm

  39. Posted by JOHNFKERRY 02/01/2008 @ 2:46pm

    Well, do you have someone you would rather see win the presidency than Obama or Clinton. (Please don't say Kerry)

    Posted by k330k at 02/01/2008 @ 2:56pm

  40. Actually, I would give Franken the "More Relevant among the Irrelevant" Award.

    Posted by chaoszen at 02/01/2008 @ 2:57pm

  41. Actually a prediction I've made about Coulter I still see as a possibility...

    say 10-15 years from now, as she hits 60 and (what there were, if you like) the looks are fading and the book sales are dropping....and Hannity is calling on the "younger, sexier Coulter" (some 30-something leggy blonde right-winger) for the show and not Ann so much...

    I think Coulter will flip...and become an "apostate conservative", i.e. a "progressive". Do a major "mea culpa" Apology Tour, with a new book "I Was Dead Wrong About The Right", and go "Arianna" on everybody.

    She spends 1-2 years doing penance for her "former ways"...praises liberalism, the Dems in charge, "Yep, I was a bitter bitch" interviews on Air America (or some left-wing media)....

    And I think she could get away with it, too. The Right buys her act (anybody really think a "conservative pro-Christian morality" woman would date...Bob Guiccione's son?!?!??)....and the Left en masse is no smarter or any less gullible and would LOVE to see Ann (supposedly) crawling towards them in ashes, begging their forgiveness, and would SWOOP up her "apology book"....

    and A.C. would be (as she is now)...laughing all the way to the bank!

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 3:01pm

  42. Brilliant! Mask. You should work as a consultant.

    Posted by chaoszen at 02/01/2008 @ 3:05pm

  43. http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/23/sept04/keith.htm

    i'm not the one who introduced chomsky into the coulter discussion, but i certainly agree the shoe fits in terms of the venom and irrationality they spew. this only scratches the surface.

    Posted by puleeze at 02/01/2008 @ 3:07pm

  44. Posted by SRJENKINS 02/01/2008 @ 2:22pm

    That was my point. I'm saying that the voices from the right use passionate bullying, hate and fearmongering while those on the left are reasoned, intelligent, and sometimes humorous.

    Posted by PULEEZE 02/01/2008 @ 2:35pm

    Chomsky is NOT the lefty equivelant of Coulter. There is absolutely no merit to such an assertion. Chomsky has revolutionized linguistics and cognitive psychology, and his political literature is unemotional, strictly academic.

    Coulter is only venomous hatred; there is nothing logical about her arguments because those who listen to her don't rely on logic to rationalize their beliefs.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/01/2008 @ 3:08pm

  45. Ann Coulter 22 September 2007:

    '...Democrats should run Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for president. He's more coherent than Dennis Kucinich, he dresses like their base, he's more macho than John Edwards, and he's willing to show up at a forum where he might get one hostile question -- unlike the current Democratic candidates for president who won't debate on Fox News Channel. He's not married to an impeached president, and the name "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" is surely no more frightening than "B. Hussein Obama."

    And liberals agree with Ahmadinejad on the issues! We know that because he was invited by an American university to speak on campus.

    Contrary to all the blather about "free speech" surrounding Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia, universities in America do not invite speakers who do not perfectly mirror the political views of their America-hating faculties. Rather, they aggressively censor differing viewpoints and permit only a narrow category of speech on their campuses. Ask Larry Summers.

    If a university invites someone to speak, you know the faculty agrees with the speaker. Maybe not the entire faculty. Some Columbia professors probably consider Ahmadinejad too moderate on Israel.

    Columbia president Lee Bollinger claimed the Ahmadinejad invitation is in keeping with "Columbia's long-standing tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate."

    Except Columbia doesn't have that tradition. This is worse than saying "the dog ate my homework." It's like saying "the dog ate my homework" when you're Michael Vick and everyone knows you've killed your dog. ...'

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 02/01/2008 @ 3:09pm

  46. Posted by ABELL12CT 02/01/2008 @ 2:50pm

    Really? So she's running for congress?

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/01/2008 @ 3:09pm

  47. It's a man, baby!!!

    Posted by MATTMAN 02/01/2008 @ 2:09pm

    it's an IT!!!!!!!!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 3:19pm

  48. I didn't read all the comments, but the ones I read indicate that some readers need a little sense of humor transplant.

    Posted by Qroger at 02/01/2008 @ 3:24pm

  49. Posted by PULEEZE 02/01/2008 @ 3:07pm

    It was as if Ann Coulter herself wrote that. Not one of the assertions the article claims Chomsky made were cited, so there is no way for a reader to verify them, and most, if not all of them, were contextually twisted and dishonetly misconstrued.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/01/2008 @ 3:27pm

  50. Posted by QROGER 02/01/2008 @ 3:24pm

    Please, enlighten us.

    or rather,

    Entertain us!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/01/2008 @ 3:28pm

  51. 'Cause in my dreams, it's always there, The evil face that twists my mind and brings me to despair.

    Posted by B_KOOL_66 02/01/2008 @ 1:17pm

    I never knew Eddie had a sister...Eddie, Annie...why didn't I make the connection before?

    Posted by SRJENKINS 02/01/2008 @ 1:43pm

    She's the new Number 2....You are number 6.

    You won't find her at 1600 Pennsylvania...but 22 Acacia Avenue.

    Posted by Sliver at 02/01/2008 @ 3:29pm

  52. Posted by PULEEZE 02/01/2008 @ 2:35pm

    so what if the only that separates them is a footnote?

    Because footnotes imply facts. It is building off the work of others. It means making rational arguments that people have to address with something slightly more sophisticated than calling them a "hater".

    Posted by MATTMAN 02/01/2008 @ 3:08pm

    Yes, I know it was your point. It just boggles my mind that people talk about them as being two sides of the same coin. The Propaganda model is a useful mental construct, among many that Chomsky has provided. Show me anything intellectually useful that Ann Coulter has come up with. Or Malkin. Or pick your talking head of choice. Shoot, if the right had someone like Chomsky I'd read it. Who's even in the ballpark?

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/01/2008 @ 3:31pm

  53. Posted by SLIVER 02/01/2008 @ 3:29pm

    I am not a number. I am a free man!

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/01/2008 @ 3:33pm

  54. LOL!

    Posted by Sliver at 02/01/2008 @ 3:36pm

  55. i choose to give you more credit than to believe you don't get the point. your faux outrage about the link between coulter and chomsky masks an unforgivable defense of the latter. OF COURSE she is simply a popular agitator while he is an intellectual agitator. and, yes, he may be professionally more than that, but this isn't a discussion about linguistics or psychology any more than it is a discussion about her looks. well, strike that last part. she is a lowlife hater who knows she can't affect change or play any role in policy discussion; she's a pedestrian loudmouth in it for the money, a touch of fame, and she gets the joke, even if its on her. chomsky, as an acknowledged public intellectual, may reach fewer people, but he has the ability to draw in the uninformed much more deeply. it's far more sinister. she is an obvious crackpot, but his degrees and university pedigree does not shield his politically inspired writing and speechmaking from scrutiny. they are not in the broad sense equivalents, as there are so-called right wing intellectual bozos, just as there are lefty public nuisances like coulter. but they still share opposite sides of the hate-filled coin.

    Posted by puleeze at 02/01/2008 @ 3:54pm

  56. Posted by MARKCANYON 02/01/2008 @ 3:50pm

    Careful what you wish for!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/01/2008 @ 3:54pm

  57. they are not in the broad sense equivalents, as there are so-called right wing intellectual bozos, just as there are lefty public nuisances like coulter. but they still share opposite sides of the hate-filled coin.

    Posted by PULEEZE 02/01/2008 @ 3:54pm

    Okay, well I'm curious who the right-wing intellectuals and the left-wing Coulter-like public nuisances are. I'm not necessarily saying that they're not there, but where are they? My point in the first place was that, as far as I've seen, the right has a bunch of haters and some funny guys, and the left has intellectuals and some funny guys. I guess my underlying premise is that there is no intellectual basis to the right wing philosophy beyond the "whatever turns a profit" mentality...in my opinion. Please, or PULEEZE, show me where I'm wrong.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/01/2008 @ 4:01pm

  58. Rational Truth vs Lies,Hate,Avarice and Despair. Chomsky vs Colter? How can anyone call them the same. They are polar opposites. The Truth is like a long journey that eventually arrives home. Lies are easy to swallow, like fast food that rings hollow in your guts after the initial ingestion. Chomsky vs Colter? I think not..

    Posted by chaoszen at 02/01/2008 @ 4:02pm

  59. Is that why Republicans are on their knees praying and lighting candles for an Obama candidacy?

    Posted by MARKCANYON 02/01/2008 @ 3:50pm

    What, is this a joke?? There is nothing that could galvanize the republican party like a Clinton nomination. She drives regular ole republicans into a mad frenzy just at the mention of her name. The only way the republicans will win this election is because they come out in droves to defeat Hillary.

    Posted by jro555 at 02/01/2008 @ 4:10pm

  60. it's an IT!!!!!!!!

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/01/2008 @ 3:19pm

    It's It!!

    What is It?

    It's It

    What is It?

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/01/2008 @ 4:13pm

  61. Posted by CHAOSZEN 02/01/2008 @ 3:05pm

    She's a con artist. Figured out the easy LONG con years ago. Reasonably attractive, leggy blonde who talks like Michael Savage. The Right GUYS drool over her politics...drives the Left nutty since she's not a 50 year old white guy...and she sells books everytime she has to go on some Mainstream Show and "explain her comments" from some Right-wing Show the week before.

    So...when the marks on the Right dry up...she finds them on the Left.

    And I think, will.

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 4:14pm

  62. Is that why Republicans are on their knees praying and lighting candles for an Obama candidacy?

    Posted by MARKCANYON 02/01/2008 @ 3:50pm

    They were actually on their knees with candles trying to ignite each other's farts.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/01/2008 @ 4:16pm

  63. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/01/2008 @ 4:11pm

    This one has thrown poor FRANK for a loop. Coulter MUST be lying or joking after all, "The Right HATE Hillary and would NEVER want to see her as President, because she's their worst nightmare".

    Yet the poor ol' codger for all the evil he invests in Limbaugh, etc., can't make the NEXT LOGICAL STEP that they are willing to let their "worst enemy" get in the Oval Office, if it means knocking off a political opponent (McCain) and giving them free material for 4 years!

    He's exactly like a ditto-head...he believes everything Rush et al say, he just hates it and opposes it, instead of loves and supports it!

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 4:17pm

  64. BTW...

    Posted by SRJENKINS 02/01/2008 @ 3:33pm

    Posted by SLIVER 02/01/2008 @ 3:36pm

    When you've got SLIVER and SRJ trading "Prisoner" references....there still may be hope for bipartisanship in this country!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 4:19pm

  65. The country loves John McCain.----Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/01/2008 @ 4:19pm

    Uh, FG, you forgot "Oh, but they love Hillary MORE!"

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 4:20pm

  66. Posted by FRANKGRITS 02/01/2008 @ 4:23pm

    First the "boy" comments...now the "nice-nice" talk.

    Again, anybody seeing a pattern???

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 4:41pm

  67. There wouldn't be enough spin in the Clinton world to get around this endorsement.

    That said, I'd love to see Annie and Hillary at a campaign appearance together. I think it would be good jokes.

    But it's yet another reason why if Frank's girl gets the Democratic party nod, I'm voting Green in the general. So are many of my African-American friends. You see, that whole thing in South Carolina pissed a lot of us off.

    As for the youth vote, I see them staying at home if Hillary's the nominee as well.

    In other words, we'd all better get used to saying President McCain.

    Posted by edwriter at 02/01/2008 @ 5:11pm

  68. I am not a number. I am a free man!

    Posted by SRJENKINS 02/01/2008 @ 3:33pm

    i've always wondered why you guys didn't just send that ball thingie to contain saddam................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 5:30pm

  69. That would be amazing if Hillary got enough people to vote green and McCain got enough Republicans to vote 3rd party that either the green party or another party got a nomination.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/01/2008 @ 5:52pm

  70. Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/01/2008 @ 5:52pm

    I'll bet my left eye that won't happen.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/01/2008 @ 6:17pm

  71. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/01/2008 @ 5:03pm

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/01/2008 @ 5:06pm

    As noted, Larry....see, this is the problem the Limbaugh/Coulter/etc. guys have (I leave out Hannity, he has said he'll vote for McCain).

    The Religious Right hates Romney for being a Mormon (yes, yes, LL..deny it's bigotry...whatever). But the Hard Right talking heads hate McCain because he almost "stole" Dubya's nomination and "the MSM like him" and he's not as "pure as pure" as they want.

    So...you've got 15% of the Repubs going for Huckleberry....40% going for Romney, but 45% going for "Maverick John"...and he's winning. If Mitt can't blunt Mike on Tuesday....Maverick wins it.

    And Rush and friends start to sabotage him so that Hillary wins, they get big fat bonuses and book contracts (from 2009-2012).

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 6:24pm

  72. Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 4:19pm

    It's not only Prisoner references. They are also references to Iron Maiden's Number of the Beast album that B_Kool started with.

    Rock n Roll and appreciation for British television knows no political affilation. Queue the Yakety Sax, Benny.

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/01/2008 @ 6:24pm

  73. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/01/2008 @ 5:30pm

    See, this is what you miss out on, from not watching "Lost"...

    the big white ball...is now the "Smoke Monster"!

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 6:25pm

  74. Posted by SRJENKINS 02/01/2008 @ 6:24pm

    Or Chuck Berry and Fawlty Towers! "Chef put Basil in the ratatouille!?!?!?!....Ur, yes......AHHHHHHHH......He's from Barcelona!"

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 6:26pm

  75. LL,

    Let me see if I understand this. You don't like Romney because he believes your faith is false and his is true. He's even taken a vow to undermine your faith, or something like that.

    If that's correct, basically, then how is that different from the Christian view towards other faiths that are non-Christian? I'm trying to wrap my mind around this concept because as an outsider, so to speak, it seems to me that Romney's faith is doing to your faith what your faith does to others.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 02/01/2008 @ 6:29pm

  76. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/01/2008 @ 5:30pm

    What makes you think the U.S. has the ball thingy? It is unclear who runs The Village, and I've never see it anywhere else.

    On the surface, I'd say it couldn't be American simply because there is never any money changing hands. Perhaps the Canadians were the ones behind the village and you did send the ball, which was the real reason the U.S. military went in because it was one weapon they didn't have and they just HAD to have it.

    -insert rambling Rese conspiracy piece here-

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/01/2008 @ 6:33pm

  77. Of course the skinny legged "lady" had a different context from the one Nichols imposes on her opinions. Thus they are perhaps more consistent with her world view than Nichol's spin on it is.

    She's not really a lover of Romney; just that she thinks he is the better of poor options, if I read her correctly, and even Bush, she implies, can be a bit of a liberal as well as dopey.

    http://tinyurl.com/yv2x6

    Posted by harvey 79 at 02/01/2008 @ 6:53pm

  78. yeah, 72 dead in iraq. does anyone care?

    remember, on 9.11 it was all about us, and our problems. in iraq, there are bombings almost every week (last year, and the previous 3 years, there were bombings every day).

    and mccain goes on leno and says, "we're winning".

    the guy is such a poopy head!

    Posted by darladoon at 02/01/2008 @ 6:59pm

  79. and mccain goes on leno and says, "we're winning".

    the guy is such a poopy head!

    Posted by DARLADOON 02/01/2008 @ 6:59pm

    And roughly half of the public eats it up! WTF???

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/01/2008 @ 7:01pm

  80. And roughly half of the public eats it up! WTF???

    i'll tell you: the advanced, socialist european governments, and their policies, create.....

    wait for it........

    intelligent citizens.

    shocking as it may seem: the europeans are more intelligent than the americans. by far.

    every european i've EVER met speaks at least two languages, knows american history better than myself (!), and can adapt to all manner of unusual customs with grace and curiosity.

    what is wrong with americans? advanced capitalism.

    serious.

    advanced capitalism.

    hate to say it, but, we're pretty stupid.

    Posted by darladoon at 02/01/2008 @ 7:12pm

  81. Posted by MATTMAN 02/01/2008 @ 6:17pm

    I don't doubt that it won't happen BUT if it does I will expect immediate payment.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/01/2008 @ 7:13pm

  82. you know how america can solve its problems:

    self-criticism

    self-awareness

    we think we're sooooooooooo smart, soooooooooo benevolent, sooooooooooo advanced.

    we ain't shit. we are pathetic.

    why?

    "free" market policies

    Posted by darladoon at 02/01/2008 @ 7:15pm

  83. Posted by DARLADOON 02/01/2008 @ 7:12pm

    Yeah but 1% of us are wealthy. And the other 99% of us BELIEVE we can one day become wealthy.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/01/2008 @ 7:24pm

  84. Posted by FRITZTHECAT 02/01/2008 @ 6:29pm

    There are those Christians who mistakenly believe they will get a better job done and not get ripped off if they employ a Christian Plumber or electrician etc. Experience has taught me to employ the best at his trade.

    As running the state of ship efficiently usually means lower tax collections required or more funds for welfare programs (whichever turns you on) than if for example it was to be run by someone who couldn't spell economics and would thus be susceptible to every wacky economic theory and "expert" then my approach would be to vote for the one who is best at that particular job.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 02/01/2008 @ 7:27pm

  85. Posted by DARLADOON 02/01/2008 @ 7:15pm

    But we have bigger and better guns. That's all that matters right?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/01/2008 @ 7:28pm

  86. I don't doubt that it won't happen BUT if it does I will expect immediate payment.

    Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/01/2008 @ 7:13pm

    Okay, but I didn't mention before that my left eye doesn't work anyway. HA!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/01/2008 @ 7:41pm

  87. Yeah but 1% of us are wealthy. And the other 99% of us BELIEVE we can one day become wealthy.

    Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/01/2008 @ 7:24pm

    And they call it the American dream.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/01/2008 @ 7:43pm

  88. nooooo!

    Ann coulter, we dont need you.

    Hillary can win without your crazy talk!

    YOu go support Barack instead! He is like you. All talk, no action!!!

    Posted by fjstratford at 02/01/2008 @ 7:46pm

  89. i'll tell you: the advanced, socialist european governments, and their policies, create.....

    wait for it........

    intelligent citizens.

    shocking as it may seem: the europeans are more intelligent than the americans. by far.

    every european i've EVER met speaks at least two languages, knows american history better than myself (!), and can adapt to all manner of unusual customs with grace and curiosity.

    what is wrong with americans? advanced capitalism.

    serious.

    advanced capitalism.

    hate to say it, but, we're pretty stupid.

    Posted by DARLADOON 02/01/2008 @ 7:12pm

    Well most of us were Europeans once. Just goes to show what happens when Europeans get itchy feet.

    If you check you will find Germany, the world's (and of course Europe's) number one exporter doesn't mind a bit of free trade (remember how it got our changed steel tariffs reduced) and a fair bit of capitalism. That in turn feeds a welfare state. ie. free trade and capitalism produce the goods and the German government shares a bit more of it, more broadly with its citizens, than we do.

    The synergy is between capitalism and wealth distribution (by the government). If you like to call that socialism we will smile patronisingly at you.

    Posted by harvey 79 at 02/01/2008 @ 8:14pm

  90. we ain't shit. we are pathetic.

    why?

    "free" market policies

    Posted by DARLADOON 02/01/2008 @ 7:15pm

    It may not be free trade or capitalism that is the problem but your major premise that we are more pathetically stupid than the Europeans who stayed at home. As the following indicates:

    Korea Times | 5 April 2007

    Germany Supports Korea-EU Free Trade Pact

    By Park Hyong-ki Staff Reporter

    Germany, one of the founding members of the European Union (EU), will fully support an EU free trade agreement (FTA) with Korea, as it will boost bilateral trade and investment between the two economies.

    ``We will most probably see a swifter resolution of the FTA talks, compared with the Korea-U.S. FTA, since there are less sensitivity issues between the two sides, and Europe has great confidence in Korea,'' Jurgen Wohler, secretary general of the Korea-German Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said in an interview with The Korea Times.

    http://tinyurl.com/23nehg

    Posted by harvey 79 at 02/01/2008 @ 8:42pm

  91. Posted by DARLADOON 02/01/2008 @ 7:15pm

    Look what those un-stupid socialist Europeans are doing to their workers jobs. Shipping them off to stupid third world countries like China and...

    AE MOVING GERMAN MANUFACTURING TO CHINA AND THE US

    March 2, 2007

    "Advanced Energy Industries Inc. says it is closing its RF components operation in Stolberg, Germany, and will transfer manufacturing operations to facilities in China and the US by the beginning of 4Q07.

    The Stolberg location, acquired with the March 2002 purchase of Dressler HF Technik GmbH, focuses on RF power products including power generators that are sold primarily to semiconductor capital equipment and solar cell manufacturing customers. Other RF products manufactured in Stolberg include matching networks, high-power generators, and linear amplifiers. The site currently contributes approximately 5% of the AE's total annual revenue (roughly $20 million, based on the company's reported $410 million in total 2006 revenues).

    Hans Betz, Advanced Energy president/CEO, explained that the decision came down to a choice of investing in expansion of its Stolberg factory or further utilizing the infrastructure the company has built up in China.

    "While the Stolberg facility has contributed to our success over the years, our strategy to drive operational efficiencies on a global scale is clear," he said, in a statement. "As a result of this decision, we will narrow our focus in operations and achieve greater efficiencies in the long term."

    Betz noted that the move will impact about 65 positions over the course of the next several months. Work will be transferred to the company's high-volume manufacturing facility in Shenzhen, China, and its advanced manufacturing site in Fort Collins, CO. Some design, sales, and service functions also will be moved to Fort Collins, as well as to another site in Filderstadt, Germany."

    Posted by harvey 79 at 02/01/2008 @ 8:57pm

  92. Dear Anne...

    Through the years I have found you very inspiring. More often than not, this is the deep and hearty inspiration that comes out of your intellectual savvy and your ''fresh" go it alone reasoning. I like that alot. Other times you inspire me to yell out... perhaps not gently... at the strangely similar idiocy you share with Rush at times. That's not so great.

    But most of all... to me... you will always be known as "Cheney's Girl".

    For it seems most apparent, that your writing gives us an unflinching view... under the surgical lights... of an operation in 'progress'... a veritable crash course in collective cultural brain surgery... a close up of "Cheney's magic" palpably projected from the inner sanctum of his spinning apparatus. You are the Neon to his Las Vegas... The half time show cheerleader to his Super Bowl... and the window to his soul.

    But McCain's got his number.

    Priceless... Inspiring... But not quite ingenuous.

    Hollywood... love it or leave it.

    ttr

    Posted by ttr at 02/01/2008 @ 10:00pm

  93. Posted by SRJENKINS 02/01/2008 @ 6:33pm

    you know, i've been to the place where they filmed "the prisoner", penrhyndeudraeth, north wales.

    but that was years before i had even heard of number 6.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 10:14pm

  94. of course Germany moves manufacturing abroad. everyone does, Japan, etc. the difference is that Germany has a safety net for displaced workers, AND is experiencing its lowest unemployment rate in 15 years. see where all that socialism is getting them?

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/01/2008 @ 10:16pm

  95. ....Germany has a safety net for displaced workers, AND is experiencing its lowest unemployment rate in 15 years.....

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/01/2008 @ 10:16pm

    Don't believe in snap-shots! Look into trends! Since 1992, Germany's over 65 population has gone from <15% to recent estimate of 20% to 25%.....Overall, its population is DECLINING, like just about all of the other European `utopias'......unbeatable "safety net"...they just die off or retire, but hey, "lowest unemployment rate in 15 years"!

    Posted by Happy at 02/01/2008 @ 11:33pm

  96. No one has remarked upon Coulter's most pointed dig, praising Hillary's rising to vigorously applaud the surge's 'success' during SOTU while Obama amd Kennedy "sat on their hands". Pointed, true, and brutal.

    Posted by felixculpa at 02/02/2008 @ 12:08am

  97. Posted by HAPPY 02/01/2008 @ 11:33pm

    it's about time! too many friggin' people on this finite orb.

    look at mexico. their birth rate will soon match the u.s.'s

    and here in canada, we gotta keep importing people just to keep fillin' jobs, cause people wait till they're older to have kids and then they have only 1.43*.

    people must be edjumacated. there's just not enough water.

    for example.

    *In 2002, 328,802 babies were born, down 1.5 per cent from the previous year, and down 25.4 per cent in the last 10 years alone. The rate dropped to 10.5 live births for every 1,000 population, "the lowest since vital statistics began to be produced nationally in 1921," the agency said Monday.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2008 @ 12:23am

  98. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/01/2008 @ 10:16pm

    It may be the lowest in 15 years and good by European standards but at about 7-8% is a higher rate of unemployment than ours but as of early Dec 07 it had no national minimum wage. What's that about distant fields looking green.

    Have a look at this article and you will see that the same capitalistic or free market ideas are as much at play there as here. The union movement is stronger there than here but is increasingly less influential than it was in the past and that trend is likely to continue;

    "FRANKFURT, Dec 7, 2007 (AFP) - The Luxemburg-based postal services group PIN planned to foil minimum wage laws for German postal workers by contracting mail delivery operations at publishing houses and regional mail services, press reports said Friday."

    http://tinyurl.com/3dzwub

    Posted by harvey 79 at 02/02/2008 @ 01:05am

  99. hmmm... so where does the article discuss how this hurts Clinton? I must be missing something here.

    Posted by rpg at 02/02/2008 @ 04:35am

  100. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/02/2008 @ 02:13am

    LVLIB, you throw out a lot of accusations against Romney, and especially this "he curses Christians".

    But aside from a false logic of "This is what some 'Temple' Mormons say....Romney is a 'Temple' Mormon....therefore Romney says that too"

    can you offer ANY evidence that Romney feels or says any of the things you SAY he does? A single quote? A single writing of his?

    Posted by Mask at 02/02/2008 @ 07:28am

  101. John,

    You've got to be kidding. This woman thrives on left-wing publicity, mostly in the form of outrage, and you go on to tell is how ingenious she is? I swear, if there is one thing we on the left will never learn, and that's to leave bomb-throwers like her alone; the one thing they cannot stand is to be ignored.

    You just extended her shelf-life another three months. Thanks.

    Posted by Mike DePolo at 02/02/2008 @ 07:28am

  102. What does it say about the state of modern writing when a columnist mistakes "ingenuous" for "ingenious" and uses an apostrophe for a plural construction (it's "Clintons," not "Clinton's")?

    Posted by Adscititious at 02/02/2008 @ 09:11am

  103. Both interpretations of history cannot be true.

    Again, both cannot be true.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/02/2008 @ 02:13am

    perhaps, none are true.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2008 @ 09:26am

  104. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/01/2008 @ 10:14pm

    More support for my theory, were you the one that took it? =)

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/02/2008 @ 02:13am

    Last I checked, you claimed that Islam wants to subjugate the world and that you support a war on it. Now, I see:

    "I don't demean other faiths like Mormonism by saying as they do about Protestants and Catholics that they are literally paid by Lucifer to lie."

    Speaking of both not being true. Then, we have this little gem:

    "Universalism cannot be an adequate answer for the world's faiths. Truth does not contradict itself."

    Universalism can, and is, an adequete answer to the world's faith. The contradictions between individual expressions come from all that extra, extraneous and untrue material included and reinterpretations by people like Paul. The problem in your analysis is that there is an implied premise that one of them is "true" - probably in your mind your faith. The reality is that all organizaed religions have "The True" and all have what is false. As Krishnamurti put it:

    "You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, 'What did that man pick up?' 'He picked up a piece of the truth,' said the devil. 'That is a very bad business for you, then,' said his friend. 'Oh, not at all,' the devil replied, 'I am going to help him organize it.' I maintain that truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or coerce people along a particular path."

    Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 02/02/2008 @ 09:11am

    I believe the phrase you are looking for is "grammar nazi".

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/02/2008 @ 10:21am

  105. "And liberals agree with Ahmadinejad on the issues! We know that because he was invited by an American university to speak on campus.

    Perfect example of how screwed up coulter is. Actually Ahminijaed is a conservative, right wing president. Wants nukes. Hates gay people. Wants to foment revolution in Iraq. Elected by running on the fear card. How anybody could call him liberal because he showed up and gave a talk, which was booed and slammed by the audience, is like saying Saddam Hussein had wmd's in 2003. But, we have come to expect such blather from the likes of ...

    HONESTLIBERAL? What is it with the neo-cons and their oxymoronic screen names?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2008 @ 10:36am

  106. Leave Ann alone. She's the Lara Flynn Boyle of the far right. While not yet in need of a conservator, she adds a certain harridan madness to it all. She's just another lovely face of the new Grand Old Party, joining warthogs like Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly in the front ranks of conservatism. McCain must feel like that poor guy in "Shaun of the Dead", pursued by draft-dodging zombies accusing him, a true hero and patriot, of being a traitor. What a nightmare.

    Posted by fougasseu at 02/02/2008 @ 10:36am

  107. Shoot, if the right had someone like Chomsky I'd read it. Who's even in the ballpark?

    Posted by SRJENKINS 02/01/2008 @ 3:31pm

    William Buckley?

    As I have noted in previous postings and in dialogue with Mask and others, I do not want a hypocrite like Romney representing my party.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/01/2008 @ 5:03pm

    but a Chimpy McFlightsuit hypocrite is just what the pastor ordered! To have a CEO president would be too much for the cons...er wait...Chimpy was the budget balancing CEO president...that would unite us.

    If that's correct, basically, then how is that different from the Christian view towards other faiths that are non-Christian? I'm trying to wrap my mind around this concept because as an outsider, so to speak, it seems to me that Romney's faith is doing to your faith what your faith does to others.

    Posted by FRITZTHECAT 02/01/2008 @ 6:29pm

    Stop making sense.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2008 @ 10:44am

  108. For instance; Christianity declares that Jesus as the Christ was crucified to death, buried, rose physically on the 3rd day and is now seated as the Son of God at the right hand of God the Father.

    Islam says that Jesus was not crucified, but made someone else appear to be him and that person was crucified instead.

    Both interpretations of history cannot be true.

    But, they can both be not true. The most logical conclusion.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2008 @ 10:50am

  109. perhaps, none are true.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/02/2008 @ 09:26am

    oops, sorry FRosty.

    It's getting a little scary. Are you receiving the same signals from the Mothership?

    Maybe I need a new foil hat

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2008 @ 10:52am

  110. LUVVY, don't you mean "The Bridegroom Jesus christ"?

    Thats why my cousin died of cancer at the age of 52. To be with her Bridegroom Jesus Christ, It was a "blessing"

    I heard it in church, it must be true.

    Nutjobs, be they Usama, Falwell, Muqtada or Brigham Young

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2008 @ 10:58am

  111. crap! I used a comma when I should have used a period!!!

    aaarrrgghhh

    off to the "shower" for me. It is the end of civilization.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2008 @ 11:00am

  112. Last note...oxymoronic was the wrong word for HONESTL.IBERAL

    Still waking up, firing on 3 cylinders.

    Which still puts me 50 HP past the neo-cons.

    putt putt putt putt

    Peace on Earth. Goodwill towards men of goodwill.

    Damn hippy concept!

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2008 @ 11:05am

  113. I believe the phrase you are looking for is "grammar nazi".

    Posted by SRJENKINS 02/02/2008 @ 10:21am

    No, the fault lies not with me, but with those who either are not familiar with the basic rules of grammar, or who are but submit their stuff without editing it.

    There has been, without a doubt, a sharp decline in the quality of writing in recent years, an absence of standards.

    Posted by Adscititious at 02/02/2008 @ 11:14am

  114. I thought I was done here, but then I came across yet another example of the never ending attack on Christians in America. It seems the NFL will not allow churches to show the Superbowl.

    "It takes people who are not coming frequently, or who have fallen away, and shows them that the church can still have some fun," said the Rev. Thomas Omholt, senior pastor of St. Paul's Lutheran Church in the District. Omholt has hosted a Super Bowl party for young adults in his home for 20 years. "We can be a little less formal."

    The policy has prompted some drastic downscaling. Last year, Vienna Presbyterian Church planned a party in its fellowship hall for its middle school and high school students, airing the game on its 12-foot video screen. Church leaders had hoped to use the game to draw in the teenagers, often a tough crowd to get through church doors.

    "We thought we had found our magic bullet," said Barb Jones, the church's director of communication. The event was canceled, however, after the church heard about the Indianapolis case.

    when will the terror end? When will the 80% of Americans that call themselves Christian finally be able to live in peace, safe from the onslaught of the atheist corporations?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2008 @ 11:19am

  115. Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 02/02/2008 @ 11:14am

    It's a weblog, not a thesis.

    Language is fluid, written and verbal. "S" is no longer written as "f" as our founding fathers did in many cases.

    Not that you don't have a point.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2008 @ 11:22am

  116. Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 02/02/2008 @ 11:14am

    Nice screen name.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/02/2008 @ 11:24am

  117. Posted by CRABWALK 02/02/2008

    Sorry, but no self-respecting writer should commit such elementary mistakes.

    I wish I had a dime for every time I read a phrase like "amount of people," or saw somebody use who and whom interchangeably. Perhaps this decline in standards might explain why a bozo like Ann Coulter makes it into print?

    Posted by Adscititious at 02/02/2008 @ 11:34am

  118. Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 02/02/2008 @ 11:14am

    Nice screen name.

    Thank you.

    Posted by Adscititious at 02/02/2008 @ 11:35am

  119. By the way, it wasn't so long ago that writers took a certain pride in expression. Finding a fresh metaphor, quoting a poet or philosopher, writing in compound-complex sentences were all a mark of merit. No more. Now it's perfectly acceptable to offer any old opinion and discuss any old thing (sorry, but Ann Coulter is unfit for discussion in The Nation).

    Posted by Adscititious at 02/02/2008 @ 11:44am

  120. Rock n Roll and appreciation for British television knows no political affilation. Queue the Yakety Sax, Benny.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 02/01/2008 @ 6:24pm

    Not to mention British Rock n Roll. SR...check out the CD "In Absentia" by Porcupine Tree. Not like Maiden in any way, but very good.

    Posted by Sliver at 02/02/2008 @ 12:06pm

  121. LL...curious. How do you vote in a Romney (Mormon) vs Obama (Muslim) general election?

    Posted by Sliver at 02/02/2008 @ 12:07pm

  122. Posted by SLIVER 02/02/2008 @ 12:07pm

    obama is a muslim??????

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/02/2008 @ 2:39pm

  123. To Emily D: You are exactly right and the Nation is exactly wrong to not ignore her.

    Posted by felicity at 02/02/2008 @ 2:55pm

  124. Posted by HARVEY 79 02/02/2008 @ 01:05am | ignore this person

    my point was that theirs is going down, while ours is going up.

    one must also remember that they took in the former commie state the DDR. that is where the unemployment is highest, dragging down the numbers.

    it is as if the US took in say Mexico, and made them a part of our country. what would our rate be then.

    context is everything

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/02/2008 @ 3:38pm

  125. Posted by SLIVER 02/02/2008 @ 12:07pm | ignore this person

    a stupid lie, from a stupid liar.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/02/2008 @ 3:46pm

  126. To Emily D: You are exactly right and the Nation is exactly wrong to not ignore her.

    Posted by FELICITY 02/02/2008 @ 2:55pm | ignore this person

    I;m glad we agree. the handle is Emile Dubois. in France that is similar to John Doe.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/02/2008 @ 4:09pm

  127. obama is a muslim?????

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/02/2008 @ 4:16pm

  128. Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 02/02/2008 @ 11:44am

    This is ephemera. It is the nature of blogs, xines and stream of consciousness writing a la Jack Kerouac. The fact that you seem to be unable to change your expectations based on the type of material you are reading is, in fact, a fault that lies with you.

    Posted by SLIVER 02/02/2008 @ 12:06pm

    I think you mentioned Porcupine Tree once before when I brought up Chuck D and Fear of a Black Planet. I checked them out on MySpace, but didn't like them enough to buy any of their stuff. It's been years since I listened to Iron Maiden. My last CD purchases were Chuck Prophet, Over the Rhine, Federico Aubele, Architecture in Helsinki, and Fela Kuti.

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/02/2008 @ 4:32pm

  129. obama is a muslim?????

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/02/2008 @ 4:16pm | ignore this person

    of course not. sliv is an asshole.

    but I'm sure you knew that.

    it would actually be good to have a muslim president here in the US. it might restore our credibility with the huge number of muslims around the world

    Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents

    (Sizes shown are approximate estimates, and are here mainly for the purpose of ordering the groups, not providing a definitive number. This list is sociological/statistical in perspective.)

    Christianity: 2.1 billion

    Islam: 1.5 billion

    Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion Hinduism: 900 million Chinese traditional religion: 394 million Buddhism: 376 million primal-indigenous: 300 million African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million Sikhism: 23 million Juche: 19 million Spiritism: 15 million Judaism: 14 million Baha'i: 7 million Jainism: 4.2 million Shinto: 4 million Cao Dai: 4 million Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million Tenrikyo: 2 million Neo-Paganism: 1 million Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand Rastafarianism: 600 thousand Scientology: 500 thousand

    the Church of shooting yourself in the foot: a few.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/02/2008 @ 4:32pm

  130. I am a grad student in philosophy, and have taken enough phil of language courses and know enough professional linguists to tell you that the new criterion article is crap. The people they quote to say that Chomsky has mad no important contributions in linguistics are not recognized as, well, anything in the profession. A google search for Robert E. Levine (one of the two people quoted as linguists) reveals a lawyer, an MD and a california assemblyman. Paul Postal (the other) does have a position at the NYU linguistics department. Check out his publication history and you see that he hasn't published in about eleven years. He is a non-tenured research assistant from the looks of it. This is like saying that Global Warming isn't happening because a lawyer and a lab tech say it isn't.

    This is a hatchet job. I stopped reading after the ridiculous attempt at linguistics. People with background in this stuff know that Chomsky is still a great name in linguistics. Puleeze is either one of the vast number of people who spread lies about Chomsky (odd because he has close to no impact on actual policy making) or just too stupid to understand that not everyone who claims to be an expert is, and that not everything you read on the internet is true.

    I am betting puleeze is the first.

    Posted by dentedpat at 02/02/2008 @ 4:56pm

  131. Posted by MARKCANYON 02/02/2008 @ 4:51pm

    I think you are confusing mainline America with a KKK rally.

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/02/2008 @ 4:59pm

  132. I think they will broker the Convention and give the nomination to a Biden, Gore, Dodd, etc.

    Posted by MARKCANYON 02/02/2008 @ 4:51pm | ignore this person

    hahahahaha, notachance.

    shouldn't you be in Skokie with your pals, reminiscing?

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/02/2008 @ 5:01pm

  133. that litany about Europe was amusing. here's what they don't have: poverty, war, death and destruction from flooding, see the Dutch dikes, rampant crime, a huge prison population,and that's just for starters.oh and most of the world doesn't hate them.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/02/2008 @ 5:04pm

  134. Posted by SRJENKINS 02/02/2008 @ 4:59pm | ignore this person

    we have the same reaction.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/02/2008 @ 5:05pm

  135. This is ephemera. It is the nature of blogs, xines and stream of consciousness writing a la Jack Kerouac. The fact that you seem to be unable to change your expectations based on the type of material you are reading is, in fact, a fault that lies with you.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 02/02/2008 @ 4:32pm

    No, it is precisely your attitude which allows and even encourages a dumbed-down society. Perhaps it's not a good thing that so many people are blogging and posting stuff on the Internet. As James Joyce once asked, "Where in the waste is the wisdom?"

    Posted by Adscititious at 02/02/2008 @ 5:45pm

  136. Posted by SRJENKINS 02/02/2008 @ 4:59pm

    Who would know better, the anxieties, in the hearts of terrified rednecks, than markcanyon?

    Any attempt by anyone who looks different (or might be better hung), to take a leadership position, should be quashed, so as not to force these scared, self-important people to drop their mutual self-aggrandising and realize that they'd be nothing in the real world, with a truly level playing field, but scared little children.

    They are not afraid of economic globalism, as long as they don't have to deal with cultural globalism. As they know they are as close to extinction as the other primitive cultures, who lash out against modernity.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 02/02/2008 @ 5:55pm

  137. Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 02/02/2008 @ 5:45pm | ignore this person

    how kind of you to mention Joyce, who took great liberties with spelling and syntax.

    spontaneity is everything. at the same time I share your concern, and correction, especially when humorous or vicious, is an available remedy, and contribution. it's hard to avoid sounding petty however, as you will have noticed, I imagine.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/02/2008 @ 5:56pm

  138. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/02/2008 @ 5:56pm

    Joyce taking liberties with syntax is not quite the same thing as a professional writer not knowing the difference between "ingenuous" and "ingenious."

    Your propensity for ignoring posters with whom you disagree says quite a lot about you.

    Posted by Adscititious at 02/02/2008 @ 6:03pm

  139. Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 02/02/2008 @ 5:45pm

    I think you are confusing the rhetorical and rational (logical) qualities of a proper education, with the anal-retentive traditions that people have observed to perpetuate class distinctions.

    Proper grammar and punctuation exist, to assist readability and comprehension. (And to occasionally poke fun at others typos). Not, necessarily to denote "proper" literary attempts, from "improper" ones.

    Perhaps a bit of focus on math, science and history, would be more helpful to this republic than proper syntax.

    Maybe, it's just me...

    Posted by Malcontent at 02/02/2008 @ 6:07pm

  140. Posted by SRJENKINS 02/02/2008 @ 10:21am

    once again, i must thank you:

    "This is no magnificent deed, because I do not want followers, and I mean this. The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth. I am not concerned whether you pay attention to what I say or not. I want to do a certain thing in the world and I am going to do it with unwavering concentration. I am concerning myself with only one essential thing: to set man free. I desire to free him from all cages, from all fears, and not to found religions, new sects, nor to establish new theories and new philosophies."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2008 @ 6:09pm

  141. Posted by CRABWALK 02/02/2008 @ 10:52am

    maybe it's cause we're neighbours.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2008 @ 6:12pm

  142. John Nichols referred to the Clintons (plural) as "Clinton's" a couple of times, and misspelled "ingenious." I don't think it's anal-retentive to expect a writer to edit his stuff before submitting it.

    Posted by Adscititious at 02/02/2008 @ 6:16pm

  143. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/02/2008 @ 5:04pm

    Depends which scale is used. Relative Poverty or Absolute Poverty. Europe is not free of poverty on either scale.

    The point to grasp is that none of these countries are socialist and that you refer to them as socialist indicates sloppy thinking. They all embrace free market capitalism to generate wealth. We Americans seem unable to grasp the difference between socialism and the welfare state.

    None of the European countries are free of "poverty" using either RP or AP criteria. The US has higher poverty levels than most European countries using RP but better than a number of European countries in AP terms:

    http://tinyurl.com/2rwycy

    Posted by harvey 79 at 02/02/2008 @ 6:18pm

  144. There has been, without a doubt, a sharp decline in the quality of writing in recent years, an absence of standards.

    Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 02/02/2008 @ 11:14am

    while i have a personal annoyance with the use of "less" in place of "fewer", i must admit to using grammar from the goodest to the worstest, depending on the mood i wish to strike.

    what is a word but a collection of sounds used to express an "idea". if we agree on the meaning of those sounds, then communication has been achieved.

    for example:

    Q. is george bush a good president?

    A. xvzdwwwer.

    now, from the context, in can easily be summized that "xvzdwwwer" means "no", and our communication has been achieved.

    that is why i laugh when people censor profanity.

    which is worse:

    the concert was fucking excellent!

    OR

    i'm going to disembowel you with a rusty pair of pruning shears?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2008 @ 6:24pm

  145. obama is a muslim??????

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/02/2008 @ 2:39pm

    i sure hope so.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2008 @ 6:26pm

  146. it would actually be good to have a muslim president here in the US. it might restore our credibility with the huge number of muslims around the world.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/02/2008 @ 4:32pm

    well, lookey here.

    keith ellison, obama's vp.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2008 @ 6:29pm

  147. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=harvey%2079

    yes, it was a bit broad. and I was referring to the "socialism" that is bandied about here as if it were anthrax.

    they can and do learn from us, good or bad, and we can do the same. some things are just better. peace is better than war, a socially responsible policy better than of cut throat capitalism that went out as an ideal, before the turn of the century,and is raising its ugly head again.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/02/2008 @ 6:29pm

  148. Continuing your point, Frosty, which is better:

    1. Is she positively solicitous to that kind of activity commonly denominated copulatory?

    OR

    2. Does she fuck?

    #2 is better, because it's more economical and less pretentious.

    Nevertheless, over the last few years I've encountered not just shabby grammar and sometimes bad spelling, but writing that is plain and unambitious. Why an article on Ann Coulter in the first place? Why does so much writing just offer a gut reaction to news headlines? How often do you come away deeply moved by something you've read? For me the answer is "increasingly rarely."

    Posted by Adscititious at 02/02/2008 @ 6:35pm

  149. No, it is precisely your attitude which allows and even encourages a dumbed-down society. Perhaps it's not a good thing that so many people are blogging and posting stuff on the Internet. As James Joyce once asked, "Where in the waste is the wisdom?"

    Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 02/02/2008 @ 5:45pm

    alas perhaps it is the greatest thing to happen to human communication after all didn't joyce write page after page lacking puctuation it is a beautiful thing that everyone is able to contribute to the evolution of language across the globe es realmente hermoso

    "O here here how hoth sprowled met the duskt the father of fornicationists but, (O my shining stars and body!) how hath fanespanned most high heaven the skysign of soft advertisement!"

    hey, he writes like me. somebody should give this guy a computer with a high-speed connection.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2008 @ 6:44pm

  150. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Adscititious

    you're looking for "love " in all the wrong places. books, mon ami,I buy them by the armful at the goodwill and elsewhere. and on line. buy them online, read them on line, google books,

    by all means come and wallow here with us, and by all means continue to elevate the tone.

    allow me a digression: Dorothy Parker was asked to use the word "horticulture" in a sentence.

    (stop me if you've heard this before)

    her answer

    :" you can lead a whole to culture, but you can't make her think."

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/02/2008 @ 6:45pm

  151. shit, "whore to culture."

    I am hopeless.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/02/2008 @ 6:47pm

  152. Dorothy Parker was asked to use the word "horticulture" in a sentence.

    (stop me if you've heard this before)

    her answer

    :" you can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think."

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/02/2008 @ 6:48pm

  153. howls of derision ensue. well deserved.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/02/2008 @ 6:49pm

  154. in most advanced countries when you are unemployed you don't lose your health insurance. big difference.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/02/2008 @ 6:53pm

  155. Joyce taking liberties with syntax is not quite the same thing as a professional writer not knowing the difference between "ingenuous" and "ingenious."

    Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 02/02/2008 @ 6:03pm

    well, haven't you ever mixed up their, there and they're because your in hurried, tired or pissed off?

    english is a beautiful language.

    however, it's orthography is just plane stoopid. no other language has spelling bees. why not? because anybody could win it.

    english is cruel to children, forcing them to learn spelling "rules" and making them feel inadequate because they can't read "the tough coughs as he ploughs the dough".

    and think about how much money is wasted teaching spelling and passing hours spell-checking document after document in english offices.............

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2008 @ 6:56pm

  156. could win "them".

    fuck you, english.

    ya voy a escribir todo en español. mas facil.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2008 @ 6:58pm

  157. dororthy parker also said this:

    4 be the things i can do without

    love, curiosity, freckles and doubt

    3 be the things i shall never maintain

    envy, content and sufficient champagne!

    and we all knew she liked to drink.......poor dorothy.

    Posted by darladoon at 02/02/2008 @ 7:00pm

  158. FROSTY:

    Human communication is best served when thoughtful people write and speak. By "thoughtful" I mean tutored, reflective souls -- people who spend a lot of time thinking about things. I do not share this silly "Isn't the net just wonderful?" sentiment.

    EMILE:

    Yes, I know the Parker line. It's good. However, I wouldn't say that I've come here to "find love." I come to argue, and sometimes to elucidate things.

    Posted by Adscititious at 02/02/2008 @ 7:00pm

  159. How often do you come away deeply moved by something you've read? For me the answer is "increasingly rarely."

    Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 02/02/2008 @ 6:35pm

    For me the answer is "increasingly frequently."

    start here. [sacred-texts.com]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2008 @ 7:01pm

  160. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/02/2008 @ 6:45pm

    perhaps the study of hormones is even more difficult.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2008 @ 7:03pm

  161. FROSTY: "well, haven't you ever mixed up their, there and they're because your in hurried, tired or pissed off?"

    I've published scholarly articles before. I've never submitted something with such an error.

    Posted by Adscititious at 02/02/2008 @ 7:05pm

  162. FROSTY:

    Human communication is best served when thoughtful people write and speak. By "thoughtful" I mean tutored, reflective souls -- people who spend a lot of time thinking about things. I do not share this silly "Isn't the net just wonderful?" sentiment.

    Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 02/02/2008 @ 7:00pm

    ¿ves? acabo de aprender quien es dorothy parker.

    the internet is just a giant, easy to access library. it up to the user to decide if it's good or bad.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2008 @ 7:08pm

  163. I've published scholarly articles before. I've never submitted something with such an error.

    Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 02/02/2008 @ 7:05pm

    best quintuple chek yore posts frum now on.

    you're blog karma is in seerius jepurdee.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2008 @ 7:10pm

  164. computer is now relinquished for the study of bionicles.

    peace, brothers and sisters.

    even you, hondo............. ;+]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2008 @ 7:13pm

  165. Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 02/02/2008 @ 5:45pm

    As James Joyce once asked, "Where in the waste is the wisdom?"

    Having tried to read Finnegans Wake on multiple occasions, even using Campbell's Skeleton Key, I can't think of a more appropriate source for your quotation.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/02/2008 @ 6:09pm

    If I could suggest just one person, I'd point to Tolstoy. Quakerism combined with Tolstoy finally made me understand that Christianity is something quite different from what peope that call themselves Christians say it is - but there are many people worth checking out, and glad you find Krishnamurti interesting. He deserves to be better known, despite his faults.

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/02/2008 @ 8:27pm

  166. He deserves to be better known, despite his faults.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 02/02/2008 @ 8:27pm

    don't we all..........................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2008 @ 8:34pm

  167. Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 02/02/2008 @ 7:00pm

    Your comments keep making me think of Orwell's "Politics and the English Language". Yes, there is pedestrian, unimaginative writing. Yes, people write in a stuffy, verbose style that positively inhibits communication. And yes, they choose terrible topics to write about. I'm about as interested in finding out what Ann Coulter thinks on any topic as being a quality control tester for abrasive toilet paper.

    So much excellent material is available in English or in translation that it would take many lifetimes to read it all. If you want to be edified, choice edifying material. But, The Nation and it's blogs, are more like a conversation. Sloppy, incoherent but also every now and again, there is a moment of brilliance, and it is in some ways more real than what you find in your erudite literature.

    Posted by srjenkins at 02/02/2008 @ 8:43pm

  168. I really think that Coulter is aimed at McCain because he can destroy the power of neocons that have taken over the Republican establishment. While McCain is a hawk for Irak up to what I know he does not share the neocons' grandiose view of a world totally dominated by the US, pre-emptive wars, or tortures.

    Coulter, Limbaugh, and all that machiavelic scum are committed to a nazi America where corporativism and militarism will only shut down our freedoms. McCain at least talks about the necessity of helping the disadvantaged "because we are a nation under the Judeo-Christian traditions". So, he won't - like Bush- let these evil advisors take over government.

    Why is she saying that? I believe she shows Hillary to the Reps to induce fear in them so they will select Romney. And if finally McCain is the candidate? Then they will put pressure for some real neo con as veep. In the case ( hope with all my heart it won't be the case) that Reps win they will hammer him so much that McCain will have no choice but to have some kind of understanding with Dems in Congress and that will be the end of it. One thing is sure, they (Coulter, Limbaugh and so on) prefer McCain over any Dem they are just playing spin.

    Even as it seems contradictory, Coulter is also selling McCain to the Indeps. By saying he is not THAT CONSERVATIVE she is playing to the ones that will feel 'forced to vote Hillary although we don't really like her' to instead vote for another guy that is in the center of the field ("not conservative at all") and 'will not be the continuation of the latest policies'.

    In the end it all makes sense. With the Reps, she is trying to help Romney win over McCain, then neos would really get what they want. In case the battle is already lost, with the Indeps (and some Dems maybe) she is playing 'McCain centrist and acceptable' over Hillary's unpopularity so still a Rep might be elected.

    I agree, she is pure evil.

    Posted by Frank42 at 02/02/2008 @ 10:37pm

  169. FROSTY:

    I was referring before to the writing one finds in so many mainstream periodicals. Of course there are good sites to be found on the Internet.

    SRJENKINS:

    I take your point for the most part. I'd argue, though, about pedestrian stuff being "more real" than serious literature. At least the latter doesn't have that throw-away quality about it.

    The other week I came across this poem by ee cummings; for some reason I can't put it into quatrains in this message box, so I'll give you the first 8 lines (you can google it).

    the boys i mean are not refined

    they go with girls who buck and bite

    they do not give a fuck for luck

    they hump them thirteen times a night

    one hangs a hat upon her tit

    one carves a cross on her behind

    they do not give a shit for wit

    the boys i mean are not refined

    -- "the boys i mean are not refined"

    What's stuffy, unreal or erudite about this?

    Posted by Adscititious at 02/02/2008 @ 10:41pm

  170. There was a place, where meanings meant

    Beneath the face, and firmament

    Ideas held, in theories shaped

    Beyond the meld, a voice untaped

    It was a day, no less for real

    When intellect, could still reveal...

    The meaning now, became provoke

    Today we tout, the hurtful joke

    For meaner still, there's snide and snipe

    And meanest will, but transfers hype

    But meanings must, indeed still do

    Be based on trust, and tried for true

    Before you lean, about to tease

    Remove the mean, from meaning please

    ttr

    Posted by ttr at 02/03/2008 @ 12:41am

  171. ADSCITITIOUS 02/02/2008 @ 10:41pm

    From an e e cummings comment page...

    Dan D. 2006-05-08 This poem is about cannoniers in the first world war. The girls are their cannon. Humped thirteen times a night: moved at night up and down hills to new positions.

    one hangs a hat upon her tit : gunners hung thier hats from the metal tit at the base of the gun.

    one carves a cross on her behind: gunners carved crosses on the base of the gun for luck or superstition.

    laugh like they would fall apart and masterbate with dynamite: self explanitory when you have the reference. As is: They shake the mountains when they dance.

    Bad manners indeed 2006-09-12Added by: Clif Garboden

    I think Dan D. there has it about right, but that doesn't stop the poem from (and this was not accidental) provoking wider-ranging images of urban gangsters, ignorance, and sexual callousness. I'm old enough to remember when this poem was excluded from "The Collected Works of . . ." There was just a blank page, which made it an underground favorite. And yes, the last line is the real hook and it's so positive, I alwayys wished it referred to something more laudable.

    Posted by ttr at 02/03/2008 @ 01:36am

  172. I'm about as interested in finding out what Ann Coulter thinks on any topic as being a quality control tester for abrasive toilet paper.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 02/02/2008 @ 8:43pm

    but see, the name of the viper draws the attention of those whose wish to take "the talk" to the next level:;.,?¿!¡""

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/03/2008 @ 01:40am

  173. I'm about as interested in finding out what Ann Coulter thinks on any topic as being a quality control tester for abrasive toilet paper.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 02/02/2008 @ 8:43pm

    damn! weren't finished.

    tried to find a video of snl's "macho wipe",

    or at least a transcript..........

    nada.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/03/2008 @ 01:45am

  174. Sloppy, incoherent but also every now and again, there is a moment of brilliance, and it is in some ways more real than what you find in your erudite literature.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 02/02/2008 @ 8:43pm

    hear, hear.

    LIKE SUCH AS! LIKE SUCH AS! LIKE SUCH AS!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/03/2008 @ 01:47am

  175. So, he won't - like Bush- let these evil advisors take over government.

    Posted by FRANK42 02/02/2008 @ 10:37pm

    So, he won't - like Bush- let these evil advisors take over government?

    you should have used a question mark.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/03/2008 @ 01:49am

  176. But meanings must, indeed still do

    Be based on trust, and tried for true

    Before you lean, about to tease

    Remove the mean, from meaning please

    ttr

    Posted by TTR 02/03/2008 @ 12:41am

    yeah!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/03/2008 @ 01:52am

  177. if strangers meet

    life begins-

    see, ADS...

    the intertubes is really cool....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/03/2008 @ 02:05am

  178. That's not it.

    That's not it at all.

    You always have a tendency to add.

    But one must be able to subtract too.

    It's not enough to integrate, you must also disintegrate.

    That's the way life is. That's philosophy. That's science. That's progress, civilization.

    e. ionesco.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/03/2008 @ 02:47am

  179. Oh words, what crimes are committed in your name!

    e. ionesco.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/03/2008 @ 02:47am

  180. put that in your pipe, viper ann.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/03/2008 @ 02:50am

  181. TTR:

    Thanks for the cummings comment/post and for the "there's a place where meanings meet" lines. What's the name of the poem, and when was it written?

    I must confess that when I read "the boys i mean are not refined," I wasn't interested in hidden meanings, but in the humor & music of the poem. Robert Frost was once asked what advice he would give to a young, aspiring poet, and he said if the person approached poetry with the aim of delivering a message to the world, he would dissuade him or her from the enterprise. But if the person was interested mostly in overhearing words have a conversation, then poetry was surely that person's life-calling.

    Posted by Adscititious at 02/03/2008 @ 08:14am

  182. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/03/2008 @ 02:47am

    Very nice!

    Posted by Adscititious at 02/03/2008 @ 08:16am

  183. Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 02/03/2008 @ 08:14am

    i think ttr wrote that one.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/03/2008 @ 09:05am

  184. written 02/03/2008 @ 12:41am Eastern Time

    No title

    Um, hardly hidden meaning... re: "The boys I mean... "

    I think Frost's comment about 'meaning' is nonsense. Content and patterns in subconscious reasoning transcend verbal resonance... in my book...

    BTW, Adscy... wanna try to explain the meaning and syntax of this?

    "But if the person was interested mostly in overhearing words have a conversation, then poetry was surely that person's life-calling."

    ;^)

    Posted by ttr at 02/03/2008 @ 1:48pm

  185. Posted by TTR 02/03/2008 @ 1:48pm

    "Content and patterns in subconscious reasoning transcend verbal resonance..."

    I strongly disagree, and think most poets would as well. Tell me, what "meaning" can be found in these lines?

    High Diddle Diddle

    The cat and the fiddle

    The cow jumped over the moon;

    The little dog laughed

    To see such craft

    And the dish ran away with the spoon.

    The poem is fun. The words dance beautifully. Beyond this, there is no "meaning." No "patterns in subconscious reasoning" need to be summoned to "get" it.

    John Ciardi, the translator of Dante, wrote a book titled "How Does A Poem Mean?" In it he says that poetry is not about meaning-hunting, not about the "what" but about the "how." The lines above are a good illustration.

    "A poem should not mean, but be," Archibald MacLeish tells us in "Ars Poetica."

    "But if the person was interested mostly in overhearing words have a conversation, then poetry was surely that person's life-calling."

    The line "overhearing words have a conversation" is Frost's. His point is that poetry is first and foremost a performance, an acting out of sounds; it is not about offering up a sermon.

    Posted by Adscititious at 02/03/2008 @ 2:41pm

  186. ee cummings again:

    what if a much of a which of a wind

    gives the truth to summer's lie;

    bloodies with dizzying leaves the sun

    and yanks immortal stars awry?

    Blow king to beggar and queen to seem

    (blow friend to fiend: blow space to time)

    -- when skies are hanged and oceans drowned,

    the single secret will still be man

    Posted by Adscititious at 02/03/2008 @ 3:15pm

  187. Adscititious...

    Your points are valid, concise and clear... your learning prodigious, and I appreciate your input.

    This is not to say that I agree with you, however...

    I'll take a sincere sermon over a highly refined and poetic "navel gaze" every time.

    But this is an artificial choice... and the distinction is dubious.

    To be more clear, I am largely grown from the bardic tradition... with dollops of troubadour and historian thrown in. We are comparing apples and oranges.

    My 'poetry' is predominantly written off the cuff, edited in a few moments, and left as is. The meaning it contains is largely subconscious... and the craft is embodied in it's combination of rhyme, tight meter, and tendencicular meaning. I do it for the sheer enjoyment, and some of the more stalwart and interesting verses get put to music.

    In other words, I'm really not interested in incorporating the 'sophistications' you espouse...

    This is not to say that I don't appreciate the poetry you are promoting. I'm a fan of many generas as a spectator... as an audience.

    Also... in my experience... the 'creative impulse' can be seriously hampered by your academic approach. I'm sure this is not the effect you're after.

    Posted by ttr at 02/03/2008 @ 11:50pm

  188. MARKCANYON 02/03/2008 @ 9:36pm and @ 10:24pm

    Wow!

    Aside from the personal insults and such, those are powerful posts. Seems to be the very backbone for moral justification of American imperialism around the world. While it comes off very smoothly and makes a great deal of sense at first, my guess is... that it takes some 'shortcuts' through marginally moral territories.

    Are you 'sure' that good people everywhere really genuinely appreciate the 'brass tacks' of US foreign policy? It sounds like you are. Is our moral high ground sufficiently invulnerable to the inevitable castigations that 'wars of pre-emption' incur?

    And... is it even remotely possible... that taking the world on with violence is going to insure much more violence?

    Though I highly appreciate your goals and visions... I suspect (fear) that your means of attaining them are antiques... and... costly... in terms of human lives, natural resources, US reputation around the world, civil rights here at home, intelligent development at home and abroad, and... are stunting the growth of true and independent technologies here at home by channeling funding into 'control' mechanisms and away from appropriate technological systems.

    I think we ought not confuse the 'never again' of WW 2 with that other 'never again'... Viet Nam.

    I'm just trying to point out that there may be other approaches... and more satisfying results... without losing any of the power of your daunting and passionate patriotism.

    ttr

    Posted by ttr at 02/04/2008 @ 12:45am

  189. TTR:

    Thanks for the nice words. I don't think my position on poetry is "academic" at all. My view is that meaning-hunting and endless analysis do more harm than good. Let the reader of poetry be unknowing and naive, I say; let him or her simply enjoy the experience and leave it at that.

    By the way, I copied/pasted your poem into a folder of "Interesting Reading Material," thinking it was ee cummings'. Little did I know.

    Posted by Adscititious at 02/04/2008 @ 08:53am

  190. We are burdened by a substantial black population that pulls down the white and Asian averages. Discount that element and the country shines.

    whataracistswine.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/04/2008 @ 12:05pm

  191. Posted by ADSCITITIOUS 02/04/2008 @ 08:53am | ignore this person

    aside from your kvetching you've posted NOTHINK.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/04/2008 @ 12:11pm

  192. and that pretentious handle. hahahahahaha.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/04/2008 @ 12:11pm

  193. and that pretentious handle. hahahahahaha.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/04/2008 @ 12:11pm

    I suppose my name would be a lot cooler if it were "Emile".

    Posted by Adscititious at 02/04/2008 @ 12:19pm

  194. a rose by any other name....

    I suggest you read a book. I am reading Juan Cole's "Napoleon's Egypt, Invading the Middle East" and Walter Nugent "From Centennial to World War: American Society, 1876-1917.

    the first is a lighter read, but one can profit from either one, or both.

    Ok, I'm reading a few others in addition.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/04/2008 @ 1:33pm

  195. You want to dismiss my post as patriotism. It is not. It is what any objective observer with access to the facts can see - from the the Rocky Mountains to the Indian Kush.

    I'm not dismissing you on any counts, I've taken the time to ask you a few questions about your very strongly believed views... and I've complimented you extensively on the power and logical sequence of those views. Any objective observer can see, however... that you are very selective as to which facts you are willing to present... while at the same time dwelling almost exclusively on military solutions. Also... your ongoing use of football metaphors as 'effective remedies' is obviously a 'cultural oversight' on your part.

    I am not ra ra patriotic, simply uch disgusted by the swinish deceit and malicious spittle that is the quotidian speech hereabouts. Your post for example, you snap a wet diaper of reeking jargon.

    If you say so, Mark... They are, in fact, ordinary enough questions... like say... the same kind of question the presidential candidates might ask or be asked at a nationally televised debate.

    What American imperialism are you talking about? Which colonial possession are you referring to?

    Actually, Mark, I was simply carrying out your 'arguments' to their logical conclusion. Since Government policy in the US today is to a great degree determined by 'special interests', and the military 'works for' the Government... then who is the 'military solution' most likely to benefit?

    In Iraq 10.5 people voted for the government the US is supporting against fanatics who hate democracy and freedom of religion and speech, but whom most of the people on this board support.

    Well, Mark... Iraq is a touchy subject for everyone these days. That country is in a shambles, and it all could have easily been avoided. And yes... it bothers me enough to start calling you every disgusting thing I can think of too... except you are much better at that sort of thing so I'll just choose my battles if you don't mind.

    Is an America that tolerates a Castro and Chavez in its back yard, an imperialist and a bully? Was US intervention in the Balkans after Europe tried and failed for five years to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide, imperialism? The moment the Cold War ended America promoted democracy in the Philippines, South Korea, Formosa, and the whole of Latin America. Is that the imperialism you object to?

    Tolerates? Hmmm... you are baiting me with presumptuous crap here, and I just don't have an answer. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase your query?

    What "brass tacks" offend you so? Who are the "good people everywhere" who think the Milosevic, the Taliban, al Qaeda, Saddam's Baath were tackled too roughly?

    Here you are inserting a straw man argument into our "discussion", and it has pissed me off. Milosevic dug his own grave and just had to be pushed into it. Most of the "good people everywhere" that you so significantly keep bringing up... a seriously wondering why Osama bin is still at large... and why al Qaeda is recruiting so effectively... and why Saddam's Baath, after becoming the toothless tiger that it had by 2003, was an issue worth destroying Iraq for...

    What wars of preemption do you object to? Churchill called WWII the preventable war. The Jews stuck preemptively in 1967. Had they in 1973 they would have saved themselves much grief. Would tackling Hitler before he had rearmed have been objectionable to your "good people everywhere"? Was the the US oil embargo on Japan, undertaken to make war inevitable, objectionable? Could the plotters of the Rwanda genocide been flattened before they got going, would that have alarmed "good people everywhere"?

    Mark... Iraq.

    The "good people everywhere" who objected to breaking the neck of Iraq's mass murdering tyrant, were earlier appalled that the US failed to oust Franco, though he attacked no one, and violated no UN agreements. Yet that tolerance, of a dormant despot, supposedly undermined America's moral standing in the eyes of good people everywhere. But now, her prosecution of an active despot shocks them.

    Mark... This tirade has gone on so long that you've forgotten who you are talking to, and what the subject is. Sorry, old boy... the word on the streets of the world are indeed inhabited by many millions of good people. Dormant despots? Are you sure you are qualified to make that distinction

    Now you think, responding with violence only breeds more violence. Was your ilk of that opinion at the time of the Spanish Civil War? Would you have opposed Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia because violence only breeds more violence?

    Mark, I asked you a question.... And... is it even remotely possible... that taking the world on with violence is going to insure much more violence? Answer it.

    You worry about Iraq's cost in American lives, and resources, and of our reputation in the world. Do you realize that the US military suffered more fatalities in the peace years, 1983 to 1987, than in the war years, 2003 to 2007? Do you realize that average US military spending in the last ten years, as a proportion of GDP, is tiny compared to most of the post WWII period?

    These GDP figures are crap. I'll sell you my house, and then buy it back from you, and then sell it to you again, and then buy it back again... and each of us can 'make' $20,000 during each transaction... and it'll seem like the military is spending less than it is. O.K? The fact is... The US spends about as much as the the rest of the world combined on military costs.

    As to America's reputation, what will that be if she is driven from Iraq? And more than her reputation, what will her power position be when her defeat inspires insurgencies throughout the Gulf? Where will she be when most of the world's oil reserves fall into the hands of Islamists?

    We will never be driven from Iraq. We will leave. We will say "settle your disputes... then call us." Where will we be in ten years anyway, Mark?

    Don't pretend you worry about America's reputation. Your's are the politics of defamation and distortions, of spitting on and lamenting America's wickedness, by way of establishing your elegance and saintliness.

    Who's pretending? When enough people around the world speak their minds to that effect, I'm just passing on the word. No, Mark... Mine is the politics of regeneration... of 'green' majesties... peace, hope, and prosperity... at home, and around the world.

    You are a fool, a soft headed, mealy mouthed weasel.

    I know you are... but what am I?...;^)

    ttr

    Posted by ttr at 02/04/2008 @ 10:03pm

  196. Wrong again Mark!...

    You're like the Japanese Hermit soldier... holed up in a cave for forty years... unaware that the war is long over... still jumping at the crackle of a twig... still convinced that people like myself are your enemy... when in fact, though we're curious about your well being we are having a really hard time getting close enough to you to break the news to you... "the war is over".

    The US gets about 20% of it's oil from the Middle East. If we made our own cars and bicycles 20% more fuel efficient, by your own reasoning... the war is pointless. It's dumbfcks like yourself... who will do anything they can... to create enemies... so you can show off your tank tread cannon clad stupidity to a world that has turned a deaf ear to you otherwise... to a society that needs you to just get out of the way so we can get back to the 'business' of appropriate technology, sound developments and investments, and a brighter future for the "good people of the world"... Hard working, peace loving, forward sighted people. Listen up, Mark... You don't have a fcking clue.

    Nice insults, Man!... I hope you are aware that most of us are reading them with the full knowledge that they are in fact (you spoke of facts earlier) the clearest expression of your own self esteem...

    Off you go ,then... Mark!

    Posted by ttr at 02/05/2008 @ 4:24pm

  197. There is a well-known saying that goes "Cutting off your nose to spite your face." This is precisely what Ann Coulter is doing. In an attempt to keep her hypocritical demagoguery relevant, she has chopped off her loathesome proboscis, her beaky nose, in order to spite her clammy face! I don't think that qualifies as being "crazy like a fox" in any case! Irrational behaviour has always been the trademark of Coulter and could be a symptom of her Tertiary Syphillis, the same disease that turned Guy De Maupassant's brain into soft mush!

    Posted by raymundohpl at 02/06/2008 @ 6:58pm

John Nichols John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Health Care Bill Advances, as Harry Reid Trumps Sarah Palin | The death panelist-in-chief rallied her followers to "KILL THE BILL." But 60 senators decided to follow the real leader.
John Nichols
5 Comments

» The Notion

Palin as the Church Lady | Going Rogue book tour brings passive-aggressive rightwing Christianity to the fore.
Leslie Savan
128 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | The "Second Amendment" sale; the raving paranoids of the right.
Eric Alterman

» Editor's Cut

An Alternative to Escalation in Afghanistan | President Obama is expected to make a decision regarding his Afghanistan strategy after Thanksgiving.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
79 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

Chongqing: Socialism in One City | China is managing the most important event in the world: the urbanization of half a billion people. Fast.
Robert Dreyfuss
207 Comments

» Act Now!

Toward Copenhagen | A guide to joining the movement against climate change.
Peter Rothberg
65 Comments