Bonevac on Coulter

I wouldn’t say that it’s sad that Bonevac can’t see. I’d say that he’s a liar, and that it’s sad that somebody like that is a professor.

Sorry to see that Bonevac is so easily bamboozled. His logic textbooks were a joy to teach (and learn) from.

You are simply awesome,Kervick, at least in your description and explanation of Coulter. I defer to Mr Neiwert as to what degree “the conservative reptile brain” is actually manifest around us. I have not yet noticed judges falling like tenpins, despite the rhetoric, for example. Certainly other proto-fascist movements demonstrated more actual violence in their nascence.

The dangers of Coulterism might be more evident in the gradual corruption of Dr Jekyll, a certain increasing embarrassment at acts of comity and compromise.

Brian, you can have power without being a politician. Coulter doesn’t chair a Senate committee, but she has a hell of a lot more influence than Ward Churchill (who was a complete unknown until the right wing made him into a mini-celebrity).

Why do we keep calling people like Coulter “conservatives?”

The sad fact is that so many traditional conservatives now either support or at least tolerate these radicals, having fatally linked their cause with the Republican Party and now unable to dissociate themselves from it as it degenerates into a crazed political cult.

Good work, fireflye. You answered your own question.

The humorless left never reveals itself so much as when it goes into its swooning vapors about Coulter. Think of her as the banderillo who plunges the darts into the bull. Stung, it swings its heavy head around, always a beat too late. The woman wouldn’t be so disliked were it not for the rather large nugget of truth in what she says. I think she should be silenced by pies and yells about ass-fucking at every appearance she makes. This is very effective polemics.

Coulter is a live-action version of an online troll. Simple as that. The only useful responses to her trolling are to ignore her, or to outdo her. Since ignoring her seems increasingly difficult, I suggest that public ridicule, in as outrageous a fashion as possible, is the best approach.

the “privacy” of “their own” public auditoriums???
Do conservatives now own the University of Texas?

When a provocateur gives a public speech, she should expect what follows. That a young man was actually arrested for giving her what she deserved, reveals all we need to know about the proto-fascist Right in this country.

The left defines a provocateur as someone who disagrees with the iron orthodoxy imposed on the campuses. Of course, they must be silenced. Pies in the beginning.

“Can’t you take a joke?” should not be a get-out-of-responsibility-free card.

There’s a long history of cloaking meanness with the excuse of “humor”.

[I nearly illustrated this post with a string of deliberately over-the-top references. But I eventually decided that those making comparisons to a banderillo would not react so placidly when their own oxe was gored]

All to many people on the maggot Right take Ann Coulter seriously, just as they do Limbaugh. These liars are NOT harmless satirists.

Why don’t we talk about Ted Bundy, Jack the Ripper and the BTK murderer? The witch has nothing to offer and, yes, she is looks like a cheap hooker.

When has anyone on the left ever gotten away with this sort of excuse?

Well, she was kicked out of the National Review. And I think Ward Churchill is pretty much performing the same stunt these days. I checked: his 2003 book is ranked 6000-something on Amazon, Coulter’s “Treason” also published in 2003 is 8000-something. She does have a new book and it’s ranked 200-something, but should Churchill publish another book now, he’ll probably beat her.

Not sure he can make a Time mag cover, but who knows.

“Why do we keep calling people like Coulter “conservatives?” It’s an insult to authentic conservatives, i.e. those who believe in conserving the best and most nurturing aspects of traditional culture. Coulter and those who support her are radicals determined to tear down every program supported by traditional American liberalism; not necessarily because they hate it but because pretending to hate it gains them money and attention.” – Fyreflye

That’s an excellent comment, although I’m afraid to say they might actually be sincere. I’m no conservative, but to call these people conservatives is a joke. I prefer ‘right-wing nihilists’.

Please note that Coulter was not fired from National Review because of her views. She was fired because she became embroiled in a personal dispute with Goldberg and Lowry. Goldberg tells his side of the story here.

From the article:

So let me be clear: We did not “fire” Ann for what she wrote, even though it was poorly written and sloppy. We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty.

It is important that the dispute was not over the substance of what she wrote. National Review was not offended by it. (Goldberg does say it was a “mistake” to run it, though the nature of the mistake is unspecified). The argument that what she says is totally disapproved of by “sensible” conservatives is simply false.

“A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn’t safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here’s your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked].”—Comedy Bit on The Randi Rhodes Show on Air America Network, 4/25/05

Any movement which is animated by the ghost of Karl Marx is intrinsically a violently eliminationist movement, even if it has learned to tone down its rhetoric to acheive political success. Having lived around leftists all my adult life, I’ve learned that they’re unlikely to have the guts to carry out their fantasies of slaughtering all their political opponents and everyone they deem an oppressor, but the fantasy reflects a real desire on the part of many in the left.

If someone on the right wants to expose the violent fantasies of the left, and return the favor with some violent fantasies of her own, issued from the luxuries of her home or a TV studio, I’m not offended.

The fact that the violent retributive fantasies of one woman on the right have a much larger audience than all those of bloviators of the left ought to give the left pause. Perhaps people on the left should ask “Why do Americans hate us so?” when they contemplate Anne Coulter’s success.

TVD –

Yes, that was bad and Rhodes & AAR have apologized. Coulter has NEVER apologized.

Anthony,
what’s ‘eliminationist‘ and where does Karl Marx say anything about slaughtering any (let alone ‘all’) of his political opponents?

Seems to me, the ghost of Benito Mussolini that guides Anne Coulter (and the rest of you fellas) is much spookier.

Dan Bonevac *is* a fine philosopher. I have also found little to agree with in his RR posts.

Let’s set him aside, because there is a larger phenomenon at work.

A lot of academic philosophers, of every political stripe, are now trying to write about politics via blogs. And it is quite striking how many of them have difficulties in bringing their professional virtues to bear on their own most deeply-held views.

There is this notable clunking and grinding when they try to switch gears; it is as though they have never tried to put those two parts of their brain into contact with each other, and now the synchro-mesh isn’t working right.

I saw this first outside of the blogging context when I heard one of the worlds best philosophers of physics attempt to give a talk on religion. He was amazingly inarticulate and incoherent when he shifted from the area of his professional competence and tried to talk about his personal beliefs–it was almost painful to watch. He had never before tried to think clearly about his own deep Christian commitments, and was simply unable to do it. I don’t mean simply that his lecture didn’t meet *my* standards of clarity; I mean he was almost unable to finish his sentences. Normallly possessed of an almost preternatural facility with words, he simply couldn’t get the thoughts out.

So too on blogs. Philosopher X is fully conversant with the problem of intensional ascriptions in opaque contexts, and has written papers about the topic. And yet when he mentions a critic of Bush, he says things like “why do they want the jihadists to win?” All of the analytical sophistication drops out the window; he makes arguments in politics that he would laugh to scorn in a journal article.

In this respect I think that the problem may be more acute in the analytic than in the contintental part of the profession. The continental types, who have always been more engagé, enjoy a more uniform badness of argument throughout all of their writings. There is no abrupt drop-off in rigor; it’s just slogans and rhetoric all the way through.

Anyhow–I think a lot of analytic philosophers are much more able to think clearly about things they have no stake in; when they try to discuss things a little closer to home, all of their patience, fair-mindedness, clarity, attention to distinctions, etc–all of their analytic virtues–get lost. Maybe after we all have a little more practice we’ll be better at combining the two.

Hey Tad Brennan:

Hate to toot our own horn, but John Perry and I, two diehard analytic philosophes of language, aren’t exactly chop-liver when it comes to blogging about things other than analytic philosophy of language — including every now and then politics.

Check us out at http://theblog.philosophytalk.org.

“I have somewhat strong con-attitudes towards people who want to kill me.”

Are you like enough John Walker Lindh to merit execution? Did you serve this country’s enemies under arms?

Just asking.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

The fundamental problem with all this umbrage vis-a-vis Coulter is a total failure to place her own rhetorical responses and initiatives in the social/political context within which they exist. That is precisely why Bonevac’s articulation is fully warranted, a warrant otherwise explained in this response to a Roger L Simon post.

…warrant otherwise explained in this response to a Roger L Simon post…

Huh? Frank Rich of all people is the justification for Coulter’s hyperboles? Come on Michael, this is too much. Aren’t you being a bit Coulterish yourself here?

Ah, the Left! Still confusing ‘humorless’ with ‘serious’, are you?

I can’t speak for all conservatives, but I personally will disavow Ann Coulter the same day mainstream Democrats disavow

the Daily Kos
the Democratic Underground
Randi Rhodes
Michael Moore
or
Ted Rall

Pick any one. They’re all every bit as hateful as she is. Why should the right give up our attack dogs while the left breeds more?

Course, there was nothing wrong with Molly Ivins approvingly quoting someone who said “The only thing wrong with Texas Baptists is that they don’t hold them under the water long enough.” Hyuk hyuk!

Pretty sure she never apologized for it, nor did she become the icon of liberal “hate” for it. But that’s primarily cause out of the Left, this is small potatoes.

Is it obvious she has no love for conservatives? Of course. But do I seriously interpret it as a literal death wish on them, as in believe that she “wants to kill Texas Baptists”? Of course not. She’s obviously joking. It’s not particularly funny if you’re on the receiving end of it, but if you’re on the other side, I’m sure you do think it’s funny. That’s why all this “Gah, she wants to kill us!” whining is so hypocritical and absurd.

As to the only substantive point raised in the post:

“Bonevac goes on to praise Coulter for saying, “[Democrats] oppose Priscilla Owen because she ruled that a Texas law requiring parental notification for 14-year-olds to have abortions meant that parental notification was required for 14-year-olds to have abortions.” Of course the very decision that Coulter and Bonevac are talking about here was a dissent by Owen that was described by that well known leftie, Alberto Gonzales, as an unconscionable act of judicial activism that adopted an interpretation nowhere to be found in the said statute or its legislative history.”

This has been previously completely debunked years ago – Gonzales’s quote was not referring to Owen’s dissent at all.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/475onxpt.asp

Of course, assuming that Lefties are telling the truth about anything is a fool’s option, so the readers of this blog really should know better.

abb1,

Neither overtly, nor less so, did I reference Frank Rich as an “archtype,” instead I referenced him more simply as one simple example, within this post.

Re, your characterization of Frank Rich as a “careful” and “let’s-give-credit…” kind of guy, we will, to put it mildly, simply have to disagree. It’s true, F. Rich is currently fronting as something of a “cultural critic,” but he forwards the same schtick he’s always forwarded. So again, we’ll have to part ways on our differing, indeed polar opposite, assessments of F. Rich.

(In point of fact, it’s within the referenced post, for one, that F. Rich examples himself as anything but thoughtful or careful. I don’t take someone like F. Rich all that seriously, he’s more of an affective leftist or pseudo-liberal than anything more substantial or considered, but the NYT gives him a forum nonetheless, so to that degree needs to be taken into account.)

Frank Rich’s cheap shot at Ron Silver as a “C-list publicity hound” (therefore presumably not entitled to public interest in his opinions) in this morning’s NYT. Silver, however, besides his distinguished acting career, has been a political activist literally for decades, has worked in intelligence and understands Chinese.

What ‘distinguished acting career’? I’m not an expert in acting careers (Mr. Rich probably is, however), but I only remember Silver in a couple of cheap psycho-killer movies; the rest is TV stuff, correct? Is this really a distinguished acting career? And what does his allegedly being able to understand Chinese have to do with anything?

Don’t you think “C-list publicity hound” sounds like a mild compliment compare to Coulter’s typical stuff? Not that I’m against Coulter or anything, it’s just that comparing her with Rich seems kinda absurd.

In the end, all the high dudgeon and all the trumpery with the attendant tone of a J’accuse proclaimed from some putative moral high-ground – all that would be easier to absorb as an earnest proclamation if, but if, this same crowd of superior moral agents approached other interlocutors, those not given to acerbic invective, with the reasoned give-and-take and open-minded equanimity they seem to be suggesting would follow, if it weren’t for Coulter’s highly aggressive style. The woman just doesn’t know her place. It is precisely that lack from the Left, the lack of a more reasoned and temperate discourse – even when the opposition is decorous – that serves to frame Coulter within the appropriate, contemporary social/political context.

Via normblog and another blog, three recent articles serve to high-light this salient and ubiquitous fact: Christopher Hitchens, David Aaronovitch and Martin Kettle.

Hitchens is having to argue, oh doncha know kids, that Abu Ghraib isn’t like Guernica, nor is the taking of Fallujah comparable to Guernica. He also parenthetically notes: “One of the cleansers of Darfur, only recently, employed [the Abu Ghraib photos] as a tu quoque to pre-empt any American condemnation of his activities.” Such are the rationales the intemperate Left is helping to forward. But no mind, righteousness inheres to every utterance from the Left, those who question as much are to be cast into the outer darkness and subjected to sneering disdain.

And a sample from David Aaronovitch: “All of a sudden I began to experience the left from the outside. And the first thing that struck me was its capacity for smug certainty and uniformity of response. Look at the cartoonists, whose work trumps debate. You may have Blair the poodle, Blair with blood-stained hands, Blair the liar, Bush the absurd chimp, but never, ever, Galloway the consort of tyrants or Kennedy the comforter of “insurgents”.

Or Martin Kettle: “So much for the voters, then. The electorate may have chosen in their reduced millions to return a Labour government with Tony Blair at its head, but that was last week. This week, it’s back to business, almost as though the election counted for nothing. For too many journalists and Labour MPs, it is clear that the voters are now deemed to have come up with the wrong answer. If the democratic process chose not to get rid of Tony Blair, then they – we – will now have a go at remedying the voters’ verdict. It was all absolutely predictable but none the less shocking and outrageous for that.”

Coulter uses invective and caustically acerbic rhetoric – and then some – in large part because it is very much what the Left and adjoining precincts deserve. The Left wants to wage their own overly heated rhetorical battles and wars; they want to sneer and smirk at virtually any conception that disallows of their self-endowed, and oft proclaimed, self-righteousness; they not inoften demand carte blanche to engage in the most disparaging, disdainful, vacuously arrogating forms of ad hominem bile and spittle; they want to do so, often enough, with some form of post-modern gloss or other forms of sophistical pretension to place a veneer over their despising, totalizing contempt for virtually any and all opposition – and they want to do so and then be treated decorously, as high-minded moral agents.

oh henry,

I appreciate the dismissive sneer, precisely so, for what it’s worth; I have been, oh so, put in my place. In point of fact I quite consciously indulge in those types of redundancies, excesses, very much because of the essentially Leftist audience who will read, and then dismiss them, regardless as to how they are worded. It’s not as if a debate or dialog is being sought in the first place.

Regarding the dismissiveness per se, thanks for demonstrating one of the primary points made.