Ann Coulter's Cunt Saves America:
Ann Coulter's cunt is a fabulous cunt, all stretched-out and pretty on the cover of Time. A cunt such as Ann's is a rare thing for the right, so used to Phyllis Schlafly's cunt, so closed off, so filled with reproach for those who would dare to approach. No, Ann Coulter's cunt is inviting; its labial lips, the minor ones, you know, whisper invitations, coo to conservatives, "We're wet, oh, so wet, and lubricated, ready for you."
Yes, Time magazine, that fine magazine, can't get enough of Ann Coulter's cunt. Just a week or two ago, Ann Coulter's cunt was declared one of the most influential cunts in all of the world. In the entire world, where tribes in Cambodia and Ecuador and Zambia have built idols of Ann Coulter's cunt, worshipping it like they do mad, ancient phallic gods, all of whom would be conquered, overwhelmed by its clitoral hood.
Ann Coulter's cunt is so misunderstood: it's all jokes, not cruel invective it spouts. Ann Coulter's cunt declares that because rapist Brian Nichols escaped in Atlanta because he was able to get a gun from a female cop, "How many people have to die before the country stops humoring feminists?" Oh-ho, oh-ho, oh-ho-ho-ho, what a glorious sense of irony has Ann Coulter's cunt. If by "irony," you mean "saying exactly what you mean in the most vicious way possible," which Ann Coulter's cunt does endlessly, wonderfully; it's so fine to watch a cunt spout and spit like Ann Coulter's cunt does.
But Time magazine, dear Time magazine, makes sure we know that Ann Coulter's cunt is a hot, lovin' cunt, that goes to church, loves its mama cunt, and teaches small children wearing thigh-high dresses and calf-high boots. Sure, to be "balanced," John Cloud says that Ann Coulter's cunt is sloppy sometimes. Sure, sure, sure, facts are malleable things: only Internet freaks and worthless liberals would dare call attention to the lies of Ann Coulter's cunt. But Cloud calls it all, sweetly, the cunt's "feline aggression."
Ann Coulter's cunt is delightfully iconoclastic, so primped and polished and Ivy-League educated. How, shocking, says John Cloud, to discover Ann Coulter's cunt dislikes pornography, as it wrote while at Cornell, in sweet Ithaca. Why it's Andrea Dworkin's twin, don't you see? Ann Coulter's cunt goes to the best parties, with the elitest of the elite, all delighting in the charm of Ann Coulter's cunt. It lives in blue Manhattan, in a gigantic apartment, and has stalkers, the mark of real celebrity. The Aryan cunt scoffs at the idea that it's racist for it to suggest that all people of a certain shade of tan be separated for extra searching at the airports. When Ann Coulter's cunt says, "We'd be searching, you know, Italians, Spanish, Jews, males," it's irony, c'mon, not hate, for how could a cunt as beautiful as Ann Coulter's be taken seriously?
Ann Coulter's cunt has so many friends, all those other cunts and pricks who think Ann Coulter's cunt is just lovely. It's friends with Miguel Estrada's prick, Ron Silver's prick and Matt Drudge's cunt, all on crusades, don't you know? They'll change the world if given the chance, to one where liberals are put into camps, purged, and forced to wear dunce caps and march through the streets. Oh-ho, oh-ho, oh-ho-ho-ho, or is that more irony, to ask if liberals "love America as much as they love bin Laden and Castro?"
Ann Coulter's cunt perhaps does not see the irony in the fact that the triumphs of those bitchy feminists allow it to parade around so freely, that the world Ann Coulter's cunt hopes to create would have little use for Ann Coulter's cunt. But such self-awareness is for a whole person, and not just a cunt.
Whenever the powerful need to do some fucking or the disempowered need to be fucked, they can all count on Ann Coulter's cunt.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query ann coulter. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query ann coulter. Sort by date Show all posts
7/15/2006
A Word or Two About the Whole Ann Coulter Plagiarism Blow-Up (Special Saturday Post):
The bottom line is, as always, the bottom line.
By any rationally-held definition, Ann Coulter plagiarized a great deal of her "book," Godless, as well as parts of (at least) several columns. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either profiting off Coulter or delusional or ignorant (willfully or genetically), or some unholy combination of two or three of the above. There's a thousand and one excuses you can give as to why plagiarism occurs, but, at the end of the day, you either did it or you didn't. Coulter did it. If you want a full explanation of how Coulter's "sloppy research" or "confused citations" actually are part of her plagiarism, e-mail the Rude Pundit, and he'll explain.
Her publisher has decided to remain righteously by Coulter's side, as is her syndicate, and, really, unless someone threatens to sue one or the other because Coulter stole from them, there's no reason for them to abandon her. It ain't gonna affect the bottom line, not as long as Newsmax is hawking the piece of shit books for five bucks each, sub-Wal-Mart prices (just agree to get four issues of their shitty magazine crapped into your mailbox for free). And as for any pie in the sky hope that maybe "ethics" or "integrity" would cause Universal Press Syndicate to toss Coulter, well, "integrity" is to Ann Coulter as "cleanliness" is to a dung beetle. Maybe more newspapers will follow the lead of the Cedar Rapids Gazette and drop Coulter because she's bugfuck insane.
The most fascinating part of this whole affair has been the reaction from many in Right Blogsylvania of "well, they couldn't attack her arguments, so they trumped up this smear on Coulter." Goddamn, there's entire websites devoted to attacking Coulter's "arguments," which are something not unakin to the mad bleatings of a psychotic ewe. (As the Rude Pundit has said before, it's absolutely useless arguing with Coulter. She has no real point of view and virtually everything she says is a lie or completely out of context.) As for "smearing" Coulter with plagiarism, well, fuck, how often has the charge of plagiarism been slung at popular right-wing writers, in a way that got traction beyond a blog or two? Not a whole fuck of a lot. Huh, that might mean there's some "credibility" to the charge.
But, no, no. At the end of the day, the vast majority of those on the right would rather cling to the crazy Ann Coulter, as she bespeaks the depravity and hate that underlies their sexually repressed violent urges and craven greed. They will simply ignore even the most basic questions, like "Do you, who judges the morality of so many others, have sex, Ann Coulter?" And they will ignore every intensely dated reference to Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick (there's like one a chapter in Godless - really) and every description of the ways in which various people can be killed or be blown up in a terrorist act. They will circle the wagons around each of their own that fails and fucks-up.
So, while the good, dogged Ron Brynaert of Raw Story will no doubt keep up the hunt (and the Rude Pundit will still spot check), we can be briefly, smugly satisfied that for a few days, Ann Coulter shit cannonballs wondering if she was gonna have to go to a less exclusive salon for her blonde dye job and Nazi-symbol bikini wax.
The bottom line is, as always, the bottom line.
By any rationally-held definition, Ann Coulter plagiarized a great deal of her "book," Godless, as well as parts of (at least) several columns. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either profiting off Coulter or delusional or ignorant (willfully or genetically), or some unholy combination of two or three of the above. There's a thousand and one excuses you can give as to why plagiarism occurs, but, at the end of the day, you either did it or you didn't. Coulter did it. If you want a full explanation of how Coulter's "sloppy research" or "confused citations" actually are part of her plagiarism, e-mail the Rude Pundit, and he'll explain.
Her publisher has decided to remain righteously by Coulter's side, as is her syndicate, and, really, unless someone threatens to sue one or the other because Coulter stole from them, there's no reason for them to abandon her. It ain't gonna affect the bottom line, not as long as Newsmax is hawking the piece of shit books for five bucks each, sub-Wal-Mart prices (just agree to get four issues of their shitty magazine crapped into your mailbox for free). And as for any pie in the sky hope that maybe "ethics" or "integrity" would cause Universal Press Syndicate to toss Coulter, well, "integrity" is to Ann Coulter as "cleanliness" is to a dung beetle. Maybe more newspapers will follow the lead of the Cedar Rapids Gazette and drop Coulter because she's bugfuck insane.
The most fascinating part of this whole affair has been the reaction from many in Right Blogsylvania of "well, they couldn't attack her arguments, so they trumped up this smear on Coulter." Goddamn, there's entire websites devoted to attacking Coulter's "arguments," which are something not unakin to the mad bleatings of a psychotic ewe. (As the Rude Pundit has said before, it's absolutely useless arguing with Coulter. She has no real point of view and virtually everything she says is a lie or completely out of context.) As for "smearing" Coulter with plagiarism, well, fuck, how often has the charge of plagiarism been slung at popular right-wing writers, in a way that got traction beyond a blog or two? Not a whole fuck of a lot. Huh, that might mean there's some "credibility" to the charge.
But, no, no. At the end of the day, the vast majority of those on the right would rather cling to the crazy Ann Coulter, as she bespeaks the depravity and hate that underlies their sexually repressed violent urges and craven greed. They will simply ignore even the most basic questions, like "Do you, who judges the morality of so many others, have sex, Ann Coulter?" And they will ignore every intensely dated reference to Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick (there's like one a chapter in Godless - really) and every description of the ways in which various people can be killed or be blown up in a terrorist act. They will circle the wagons around each of their own that fails and fucks-up.
So, while the good, dogged Ron Brynaert of Raw Story will no doubt keep up the hunt (and the Rude Pundit will still spot check), we can be briefly, smugly satisfied that for a few days, Ann Coulter shit cannonballs wondering if she was gonna have to go to a less exclusive salon for her blonde dye job and Nazi-symbol bikini wax.
7/01/2005
Why Ann Coulter Is a Cunt, Part 1856 - The Plagiarism Edition:
Sometimes beating up on Ann Coulter is about as easy as making a nervous little dog piss itself. One tiny "boo" in the right direction and that bitch is swimming in her own fluids. For surely, in her latest "column" (if by "column," you mean, "a stomach-churning, cringe-inducing, bowel-releasing journey into the dark, dank, garbage-stinking recesses of a deranged demi-brain"), Coulter sets herself upon a Tower of Babble teetering so badly that a flea flick would send her screaming, such sweet screaming, plunging onto the rocky ground below.
Coulter uses the recent, narrow (and wimpy and confusing) Supreme Court decision, that displays of the Ten Commandments outside of a larger historical context are overtly religious and are forbidden in courthouses, and attempts to say something about what taxpayers have "paid" for, going into a mad, ranting litany of examples, all of which combined cost your average taxpayer less than a nickel.
What's fun, so incredibly fuckin' fun about this kind of Coulter "logic" is how many different ways you can take it down. Over at Pandagon, Amanda goes to town with the sarcasm. Another approach would be to point out how some of the things she cites as outrageous opinion making are actually true. Check out her statements that she says are quotes from exhibits at the Smithsonian. Or one could make the case that nearly all of her examples are over a fuckin' decade old, at least.
But instead, how about this: Ann Coulter appears to have plagiarized a section of her column by not citing the December 1993 edition of The Flummery Digest. In this edition, the digest is devoted to calling out what it says is "offensive" art that receives public funding. One of its sections in December 1993 lists a bunch of NEA grant recipients, which, on first glance and, hell, even on second, look like Coulter lifted without attribution from this site or from what is apparently Alice Goldfarb Marquis' Heritage Foundation work Art Lessons (perhaps the work became her book of the same title in 1995), which Flummery actually cites as its source (click on the cross in the lower left hand corner of the NEA entry to see the citation).
Here's a couple of examples:
From Ann Coulter, talking about what taxpayers have funded: "A photo of a newborn infant with its mouth open titled to suggest the infant was available for oral sex."
From The Flummery Digest: "The title of a photo of a newborn infant with its mouth open suggested that the infant was available for oral sex."
From Ann Coulter: "A photo of a woman breastfeeding an infant, titled 'Jesus Sucks.'"
From The Flummery Digest: "One otherwise tame photograph of a woman breastfeeding an infant was titled 'Jesus Sucks.'"
From Ann Coulter: "A show titled 'DEGENERATE WITH A CAPITAL D' featuring a display of the remains of the artist's own aborted baby."
From The Flummery Digest: "'Degenerate with a Capital D'...included 'Alchemy Cabinet' by Shawn Eichman, featuring the remains of the artist's own aborted baby."
From Ann Coulter: "Performance of giant bloody tampons, satanic bunnies, three-foot feces and vibrators."
From The Flummery Digest: "[T]he performance art of Johanna Went...relies upon props such as giant body tampons, satanic bunnies, three-foot turds, and dildos." (Hey, Coulter's got a mainstream audience.)
Is this plagiarism? Coincidence? A work by the "American Life League" describes Eichman's work as "her own dismembered second-trimester aborted baby next to the obligatory twisted wire coat hanger," so, you know, there's other ways to state it. Minor shit? Perhaps, but, remember, as Coulter told us we should believe about Bill Clinton (in her first "book"), seemingly minor transgressions point to larger patterns of deception.
Like the Rude Pundit said, like makin' a chihuahua piss, like stealin' candy from a baby, like settin' a passed-out hobo on fire, it's just way too easy to take Coulter apart. But, my, oh, my, what fun bloodsport it is.
Addendum (With an Emphasis on the "Dum"): The Flummery Digest was an online journal that sought to document the "extremes" of political correctness in America. It is now defunct.
Note: We are sooo fucked.
Sometimes beating up on Ann Coulter is about as easy as making a nervous little dog piss itself. One tiny "boo" in the right direction and that bitch is swimming in her own fluids. For surely, in her latest "column" (if by "column," you mean, "a stomach-churning, cringe-inducing, bowel-releasing journey into the dark, dank, garbage-stinking recesses of a deranged demi-brain"), Coulter sets herself upon a Tower of Babble teetering so badly that a flea flick would send her screaming, such sweet screaming, plunging onto the rocky ground below.
Coulter uses the recent, narrow (and wimpy and confusing) Supreme Court decision, that displays of the Ten Commandments outside of a larger historical context are overtly religious and are forbidden in courthouses, and attempts to say something about what taxpayers have "paid" for, going into a mad, ranting litany of examples, all of which combined cost your average taxpayer less than a nickel.
What's fun, so incredibly fuckin' fun about this kind of Coulter "logic" is how many different ways you can take it down. Over at Pandagon, Amanda goes to town with the sarcasm. Another approach would be to point out how some of the things she cites as outrageous opinion making are actually true. Check out her statements that she says are quotes from exhibits at the Smithsonian. Or one could make the case that nearly all of her examples are over a fuckin' decade old, at least.
But instead, how about this: Ann Coulter appears to have plagiarized a section of her column by not citing the December 1993 edition of The Flummery Digest. In this edition, the digest is devoted to calling out what it says is "offensive" art that receives public funding. One of its sections in December 1993 lists a bunch of NEA grant recipients, which, on first glance and, hell, even on second, look like Coulter lifted without attribution from this site or from what is apparently Alice Goldfarb Marquis' Heritage Foundation work Art Lessons (perhaps the work became her book of the same title in 1995), which Flummery actually cites as its source (click on the cross in the lower left hand corner of the NEA entry to see the citation).
Here's a couple of examples:
From Ann Coulter, talking about what taxpayers have funded: "A photo of a newborn infant with its mouth open titled to suggest the infant was available for oral sex."
From The Flummery Digest: "The title of a photo of a newborn infant with its mouth open suggested that the infant was available for oral sex."
From Ann Coulter: "A photo of a woman breastfeeding an infant, titled 'Jesus Sucks.'"
From The Flummery Digest: "One otherwise tame photograph of a woman breastfeeding an infant was titled 'Jesus Sucks.'"
From Ann Coulter: "A show titled 'DEGENERATE WITH A CAPITAL D' featuring a display of the remains of the artist's own aborted baby."
From The Flummery Digest: "'Degenerate with a Capital D'...included 'Alchemy Cabinet' by Shawn Eichman, featuring the remains of the artist's own aborted baby."
From Ann Coulter: "Performance of giant bloody tampons, satanic bunnies, three-foot feces and vibrators."
From The Flummery Digest: "[T]he performance art of Johanna Went...relies upon props such as giant body tampons, satanic bunnies, three-foot turds, and dildos." (Hey, Coulter's got a mainstream audience.)
Is this plagiarism? Coincidence? A work by the "American Life League" describes Eichman's work as "her own dismembered second-trimester aborted baby next to the obligatory twisted wire coat hanger," so, you know, there's other ways to state it. Minor shit? Perhaps, but, remember, as Coulter told us we should believe about Bill Clinton (in her first "book"), seemingly minor transgressions point to larger patterns of deception.
Like the Rude Pundit said, like makin' a chihuahua piss, like stealin' candy from a baby, like settin' a passed-out hobo on fire, it's just way too easy to take Coulter apart. But, my, oh, my, what fun bloodsport it is.
Addendum (With an Emphasis on the "Dum"): The Flummery Digest was an online journal that sought to document the "extremes" of political correctness in America. It is now defunct.
Note: We are sooo fucked.
6/27/2007
Why Ann Coulter Is a Cunt (Assassination Edition):
The great thing about attacking Ann Coulter is that you're free to say anything you want about her, no matter how dark, twisted, or violent. Because, you know, if you've constantly called on public figures to be murdered, well, shit, you kind of don't have a twiggy long leg to stand on. So the Rude Pundit can say that he wouldn't care if Ann Coulter was sliced from kooz to sternum and then fucked simultaneously in her bleeding, viscera-spilling gut by three raging rhinos until the force of their cum popped her eyeballs out. He can say that and still respect himself in the morning.
'Cause, see, the Rude Pundit still has the moral high ground, even if we discover Ann Coulter was killed by raping rhinos with stiletto horns. You could be standing neck deep in a shit filled sewer, covered with syphilis sores and shoving a crucifix up your ass, and you'd still have the moral high ground over Ann Coulter.
Here, in context (because she whines like a golden retriever hit by a car whenever she perceives she's being decontextualized), is what Coulter said Monday on Good Morning America about presidential candidate John Edwards, after bland automaton Chris Cuomo brought up her inference that Edwards was a "faggot" a couple of months ago: "[A]bout the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson. If I'm gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."
Taking Maher out of context, Coulter misses that he had asked if the world would be a better place if Cheney had been killed, not that he "wished" it had happened - a fine line that Coulter is more than willing to ask everyone to apply to her constant hopes for violence against Edwards, the New York Times, Justice Stevens, etc.
Then, deliciously, while Coulter was devouring the entire hour live on My Balls Are Hard with Chris "Where's Your Fucking Lips?" Matthews, with a fairly sympathetic crowd behind her in Herald Square, Manhattan, Elizabeth Edwards called in. Edwards was asking that Coulter stop the personal attacks on her husband, which is a little like asking a crack whore to stop blowing hobos for quarters. Coulter's tell, when you know she's been cornered, which is just about any time she's interviewed by someone who's not Sean Hannity (who must fingerfuck her under the desk), is that she pushes her long bottle-blonde hair to one side then the other, which she did almost constantly while Edwards was on the phone.
Edwards was not only confronting Coulter on her assassination wish, but because, as Edwards said, "You had a column a couple of years ago which -- which made fun of the moment of Charlie Dean's death, and suggested that my husband had a bumper sticker on the back of his car that said, 'Ask me about my dead son.'" Responding to a mother who had lost a son like Joan Crawford to wire hangers, Coulter attacked John Edwards' manhood ("Why isn't John Edwards making this call?") and instead accused Elizabeth Edwards of impinging on her freedom to speak. Then, since there's no hominem like an ad hominem, Coulter didn't answer Edwards (or Matthews) on the issue of personal attacks, using the opportunity to call John Edwards a "shyster" lawyer who ripped off doctors.
Another point here is not just that Coulter is a nasty, savage cunt-beast. It's that she's just fucking stupid. Here she is talking about killing civilians in our current war(s): "[Y]ou are destroying the society that has produced these monsters. And you win by killing the other side and not allowing your side to be killed. Withdrawal would be the worst thing we could do. We could definitely fight it a little bit harder. I mean, I understand why Rumsfeld wanted to have a small footprint. It is a little bit different since it wasn't a country attacking us, it is this ideology that has spread throughout the Middle East. Yes, that makes it a lot trickier. But the small footprint didn't really work. Americans are getting fed up. Democracies don't like to go to war, so we're going to have to wrap it up quickly and destroy the fighting spirit of the fanatics." Can you understand a goddamn thing in there? The Rude Pundit's argued with drunks at bars who've been more coherent just before they passed out.
But, hey, chances are Ann Coulter's anorexic or, at the very least, bulimic, considering the number of times she referred to Monica Lewinsky and Hillary Clinton as "chubby." And in that case, we can expect a peaking of madness as her weight drops, followed, perhaps, by a brain hemorrhage that keeps her in a coma until she finally dies under the burden of her own rot.
The one good line Chris Matthews got in: Referring to the cheering pro-Coulter crowd, he said, "My God, is this Deliverance?" No, but there was ass-fucking going on.
(Back to the motherfuckering tomorrow.)
The great thing about attacking Ann Coulter is that you're free to say anything you want about her, no matter how dark, twisted, or violent. Because, you know, if you've constantly called on public figures to be murdered, well, shit, you kind of don't have a twiggy long leg to stand on. So the Rude Pundit can say that he wouldn't care if Ann Coulter was sliced from kooz to sternum and then fucked simultaneously in her bleeding, viscera-spilling gut by three raging rhinos until the force of their cum popped her eyeballs out. He can say that and still respect himself in the morning.
'Cause, see, the Rude Pundit still has the moral high ground, even if we discover Ann Coulter was killed by raping rhinos with stiletto horns. You could be standing neck deep in a shit filled sewer, covered with syphilis sores and shoving a crucifix up your ass, and you'd still have the moral high ground over Ann Coulter.
Here, in context (because she whines like a golden retriever hit by a car whenever she perceives she's being decontextualized), is what Coulter said Monday on Good Morning America about presidential candidate John Edwards, after bland automaton Chris Cuomo brought up her inference that Edwards was a "faggot" a couple of months ago: "[A]bout the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson. If I'm gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."
Taking Maher out of context, Coulter misses that he had asked if the world would be a better place if Cheney had been killed, not that he "wished" it had happened - a fine line that Coulter is more than willing to ask everyone to apply to her constant hopes for violence against Edwards, the New York Times, Justice Stevens, etc.
Then, deliciously, while Coulter was devouring the entire hour live on My Balls Are Hard with Chris "Where's Your Fucking Lips?" Matthews, with a fairly sympathetic crowd behind her in Herald Square, Manhattan, Elizabeth Edwards called in. Edwards was asking that Coulter stop the personal attacks on her husband, which is a little like asking a crack whore to stop blowing hobos for quarters. Coulter's tell, when you know she's been cornered, which is just about any time she's interviewed by someone who's not Sean Hannity (who must fingerfuck her under the desk), is that she pushes her long bottle-blonde hair to one side then the other, which she did almost constantly while Edwards was on the phone.
Edwards was not only confronting Coulter on her assassination wish, but because, as Edwards said, "You had a column a couple of years ago which -- which made fun of the moment of Charlie Dean's death, and suggested that my husband had a bumper sticker on the back of his car that said, 'Ask me about my dead son.'" Responding to a mother who had lost a son like Joan Crawford to wire hangers, Coulter attacked John Edwards' manhood ("Why isn't John Edwards making this call?") and instead accused Elizabeth Edwards of impinging on her freedom to speak. Then, since there's no hominem like an ad hominem, Coulter didn't answer Edwards (or Matthews) on the issue of personal attacks, using the opportunity to call John Edwards a "shyster" lawyer who ripped off doctors.
Another point here is not just that Coulter is a nasty, savage cunt-beast. It's that she's just fucking stupid. Here she is talking about killing civilians in our current war(s): "[Y]ou are destroying the society that has produced these monsters. And you win by killing the other side and not allowing your side to be killed. Withdrawal would be the worst thing we could do. We could definitely fight it a little bit harder. I mean, I understand why Rumsfeld wanted to have a small footprint. It is a little bit different since it wasn't a country attacking us, it is this ideology that has spread throughout the Middle East. Yes, that makes it a lot trickier. But the small footprint didn't really work. Americans are getting fed up. Democracies don't like to go to war, so we're going to have to wrap it up quickly and destroy the fighting spirit of the fanatics." Can you understand a goddamn thing in there? The Rude Pundit's argued with drunks at bars who've been more coherent just before they passed out.
But, hey, chances are Ann Coulter's anorexic or, at the very least, bulimic, considering the number of times she referred to Monica Lewinsky and Hillary Clinton as "chubby." And in that case, we can expect a peaking of madness as her weight drops, followed, perhaps, by a brain hemorrhage that keeps her in a coma until she finally dies under the burden of her own rot.
The one good line Chris Matthews got in: Referring to the cheering pro-Coulter crowd, he said, "My God, is this Deliverance?" No, but there was ass-fucking going on.
(Back to the motherfuckering tomorrow.)
8/24/2006
Why Ann Coulter Is a Cunt, Part 3121 of an Endless Series:
Some days life hands you lemons. Yeah, you're supposed to make lemonade, but what if you've got no water or sugar? Then all you're left with are those sour fuckers with their skin shrivelling and tightening over the next couple of weeks. That's the kind of mood the Rude Pundit's in today. And when he's in that kind of mood and it's still too early to hit the bar for the pretend comforts of faux companionship, he just feels like beating the shit out of something. Or someone. And today, that's gotta be Ann Coulter.
For in her latest "column" (if by "column," you mean, "the half-witted demi-scrawls of a hunched she-beast yowling from her dank cave where she feeds on the corpses of small Muslim children and uses their blood to ink her hooked claws"), Coulter once again props up fake liberal beliefs and humps those fuckers like they're diamond-studded gold dildos. This time around, she distills all the nutzoid bullshit tossed around by the right-wing media about how Democrats are allegedly "opposed" to fighting terrorists because they oppose some of the strategies.
One of the purest idiocies of Coulter's fans, including the begging-to-be face-fucked Sean Hannity, is that people attack Coulter personally (or point out her plagiarism) because they can't possibly have the rhetorical and intellectual acumen to actually take down her arguments. It's a little like saying Ann Coulter's male fans have to jack off to downloaded fake porn pics of Coulter because they can't get laid by real humans. So let the Rude Pundit address this well-worn comment thread that inevitably appears whenever anyone deigns to say something like "Attempting to find logic in Ann Coulter's writing is not unakin to trying to finger fuck a porcupine's asshole."
This week, Coulter says that Democrats "oppose the National Security Agency listening to people who are calling specific phone numbers found on al-Qaida cell phones and computers. Spying on al-Qaida terrorists is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror!" Leaving aside the fact that exclamation points are pretty much the rhetorical equivalent of a backwards baseball cap, could Coulter or her supporters actually cite a single Democrat who believes that? 'Cause, see, "nuance" is to Coulter conservatives as germs are to the OCD sufferer. Let's say it again: most non-Lieberman Democrats believe that the FISA court should issue warrants, even retroactively, on domestic phone surveillance. It's not as fancy as "Democrats want Allah el-Omar to rape your daughters," but it's a great deal more accurate.
So that's why when, say, a blogger repeatedly calls Ann Coulter a "cunt," it's not because he doesn't want to "engage" with her "arguments." No, it's because there is no argument to engage with. Coulter is a messianic figure in this way: reality for her followers exists because she creates it for them. She writes, "The Guantanamo detainees are not innocent insurance salesmen imprisoned in some horrible mix-up like something out of a Perry Mason movie. The detainees were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan." Now, say you point out that, for example, Sami al Hajj was a cameraman working with Al-Jazeera and was "captured" in Pakistan and then sent to Gitmo. No matter what al Hajj is accused of (mostly just being Sudanese at the wrong place at the wrong time), ya gotta admit: the man wasn't captured firing guns at Americans on a "battlefield in Afghanistan."
No, it's just a waste of fucking time and energy to argue with Coulter. Like trying to keep a four-year old boy from yanking his crank constantly. Instead what we're left with is the image of Coulter's minions standing below her gigantic pussy while she laughingly pisses down on them as they gratefully lap it up, drinking it in, using it to lubricate themselves as they jack off and finger themselves madly, closing their eyes and nodding in an orgy of hateful glee as she says things like "the U.S. military is killing thousands upon thousands of terrorists (described in the media as 'Iraqi civilians'...)"
Goddamnit, what scorn, what self-aggrandizement, what waste.
Some days life hands you lemons. Yeah, you're supposed to make lemonade, but what if you've got no water or sugar? Then all you're left with are those sour fuckers with their skin shrivelling and tightening over the next couple of weeks. That's the kind of mood the Rude Pundit's in today. And when he's in that kind of mood and it's still too early to hit the bar for the pretend comforts of faux companionship, he just feels like beating the shit out of something. Or someone. And today, that's gotta be Ann Coulter.
For in her latest "column" (if by "column," you mean, "the half-witted demi-scrawls of a hunched she-beast yowling from her dank cave where she feeds on the corpses of small Muslim children and uses their blood to ink her hooked claws"), Coulter once again props up fake liberal beliefs and humps those fuckers like they're diamond-studded gold dildos. This time around, she distills all the nutzoid bullshit tossed around by the right-wing media about how Democrats are allegedly "opposed" to fighting terrorists because they oppose some of the strategies.
One of the purest idiocies of Coulter's fans, including the begging-to-be face-fucked Sean Hannity, is that people attack Coulter personally (or point out her plagiarism) because they can't possibly have the rhetorical and intellectual acumen to actually take down her arguments. It's a little like saying Ann Coulter's male fans have to jack off to downloaded fake porn pics of Coulter because they can't get laid by real humans. So let the Rude Pundit address this well-worn comment thread that inevitably appears whenever anyone deigns to say something like "Attempting to find logic in Ann Coulter's writing is not unakin to trying to finger fuck a porcupine's asshole."
This week, Coulter says that Democrats "oppose the National Security Agency listening to people who are calling specific phone numbers found on al-Qaida cell phones and computers. Spying on al-Qaida terrorists is hampering our ability to fight the global war on terror!" Leaving aside the fact that exclamation points are pretty much the rhetorical equivalent of a backwards baseball cap, could Coulter or her supporters actually cite a single Democrat who believes that? 'Cause, see, "nuance" is to Coulter conservatives as germs are to the OCD sufferer. Let's say it again: most non-Lieberman Democrats believe that the FISA court should issue warrants, even retroactively, on domestic phone surveillance. It's not as fancy as "Democrats want Allah el-Omar to rape your daughters," but it's a great deal more accurate.
So that's why when, say, a blogger repeatedly calls Ann Coulter a "cunt," it's not because he doesn't want to "engage" with her "arguments." No, it's because there is no argument to engage with. Coulter is a messianic figure in this way: reality for her followers exists because she creates it for them. She writes, "The Guantanamo detainees are not innocent insurance salesmen imprisoned in some horrible mix-up like something out of a Perry Mason movie. The detainees were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan." Now, say you point out that, for example, Sami al Hajj was a cameraman working with Al-Jazeera and was "captured" in Pakistan and then sent to Gitmo. No matter what al Hajj is accused of (mostly just being Sudanese at the wrong place at the wrong time), ya gotta admit: the man wasn't captured firing guns at Americans on a "battlefield in Afghanistan."
No, it's just a waste of fucking time and energy to argue with Coulter. Like trying to keep a four-year old boy from yanking his crank constantly. Instead what we're left with is the image of Coulter's minions standing below her gigantic pussy while she laughingly pisses down on them as they gratefully lap it up, drinking it in, using it to lubricate themselves as they jack off and finger themselves madly, closing their eyes and nodding in an orgy of hateful glee as she says things like "the U.S. military is killing thousands upon thousands of terrorists (described in the media as 'Iraqi civilians'...)"
Goddamnit, what scorn, what self-aggrandizement, what waste.
1/10/2008
Because It Needs to Be Said (Regarding Ann Coulter's Dead Father):
Let's keep this brief so as not to be too unseemly: in her latest column (if by "column," you mean, "a chronicle of internal damnation and derangement that makes Dante's Inferno seem like a perfectly nice way to spend a Saturday afternoon"), Ann Coulter mourns the death of her father by writing a brief biography of the man. Yes, it is sad to lose a parent, but, and it's gotta be said since Coulter celebrates her dad's accomplishments, this guy was a douchebag of the first order whose life explains a lot about Coulter's own insanity and cruelty.
You can read the whole bizarro thing, about how John Coulter judged Ann's dates, about how he shot squirrels in his backyard, about how he threatened his son if he took some fruity sociology course in college, about how he was a real-deal hunter of Soviet spies for the FBI, no doubt contributing to his daughter's perverse desire to fellate Joseph McCarthy's tibia. But most telling is Coulter's description of how her father helped break the Arizona Copper Mine Strike against Phelps Dodge in 1983. Scribbles Coulter, "In the early 1980s, as vice president and labor lawyer for Phelps Dodge copper company, Father broke a strike against the company, which culminated in the largest union decertification ever -- at that time and perhaps still. President Reagan had broken the air traffic controllers' strike in 1981. But unions recognized that it was the breaking of the Phelps Dodge strike a few years later that landed the greater blow." That included the eviction of striking families from company houses. The later decertification of the union is described by Coulter as a "happy ending." But, don't worry, because, as Coulter says, despite his hatred of unions, "he had more respect for genuine working men than anyone I've ever known." In other words, John Coulter huffed deeply from the crotch of J. Edgar Hoover's pantyhose, and he liked what he smelled.
The most fucked-up thing is that anyone normal reading this obituary would think, Christ, what an asshole. But Coulter's oblivious, and the joke's on her and on her father's corpse. Obviously, Coulter's life has been an attempt to live up to her father's legacy of paranoia and propping up of the powerful. But he at least walked the walk, motherfucker though he may have been. Coulter carries on his tradition by providing cover and comfort for savage conservatives, the rhetorical equivalent of a talking diaper, begging to be shit on. No man was good enough for Ann, according to Father, but she kept trying to please him by going after those fucking liberals, since there's no commies left. Alas, the entropy of hatreds, instilled by dear old Dad of the Greatest Generation.
Oh, tender eyes and ears, is this a bit cruel, to beat up on Ann Coulter when her father kicked less than a week ago? Then you didn't read Coulter's column to the last line, where she says, "Now Daddy is with Joe McCarthy and Ronald Reagan. I hope they stop laughing about the Reds long enough to talk to God about smiting some liberals for me." Tee-hee, it's a joke, innit? How Coulter wishes us all dead? The kind of thing that'd probably make the old man laugh. Fuck her and her brute of a father. He's in hell now, alongside Reagan and McCarthy, getting raped by barbed-dick demons with his daughter's face. Kind of like the rest of us.
Let's keep this brief so as not to be too unseemly: in her latest column (if by "column," you mean, "a chronicle of internal damnation and derangement that makes Dante's Inferno seem like a perfectly nice way to spend a Saturday afternoon"), Ann Coulter mourns the death of her father by writing a brief biography of the man. Yes, it is sad to lose a parent, but, and it's gotta be said since Coulter celebrates her dad's accomplishments, this guy was a douchebag of the first order whose life explains a lot about Coulter's own insanity and cruelty.
You can read the whole bizarro thing, about how John Coulter judged Ann's dates, about how he shot squirrels in his backyard, about how he threatened his son if he took some fruity sociology course in college, about how he was a real-deal hunter of Soviet spies for the FBI, no doubt contributing to his daughter's perverse desire to fellate Joseph McCarthy's tibia. But most telling is Coulter's description of how her father helped break the Arizona Copper Mine Strike against Phelps Dodge in 1983. Scribbles Coulter, "In the early 1980s, as vice president and labor lawyer for Phelps Dodge copper company, Father broke a strike against the company, which culminated in the largest union decertification ever -- at that time and perhaps still. President Reagan had broken the air traffic controllers' strike in 1981. But unions recognized that it was the breaking of the Phelps Dodge strike a few years later that landed the greater blow." That included the eviction of striking families from company houses. The later decertification of the union is described by Coulter as a "happy ending." But, don't worry, because, as Coulter says, despite his hatred of unions, "he had more respect for genuine working men than anyone I've ever known." In other words, John Coulter huffed deeply from the crotch of J. Edgar Hoover's pantyhose, and he liked what he smelled.
The most fucked-up thing is that anyone normal reading this obituary would think, Christ, what an asshole. But Coulter's oblivious, and the joke's on her and on her father's corpse. Obviously, Coulter's life has been an attempt to live up to her father's legacy of paranoia and propping up of the powerful. But he at least walked the walk, motherfucker though he may have been. Coulter carries on his tradition by providing cover and comfort for savage conservatives, the rhetorical equivalent of a talking diaper, begging to be shit on. No man was good enough for Ann, according to Father, but she kept trying to please him by going after those fucking liberals, since there's no commies left. Alas, the entropy of hatreds, instilled by dear old Dad of the Greatest Generation.
Oh, tender eyes and ears, is this a bit cruel, to beat up on Ann Coulter when her father kicked less than a week ago? Then you didn't read Coulter's column to the last line, where she says, "Now Daddy is with Joe McCarthy and Ronald Reagan. I hope they stop laughing about the Reds long enough to talk to God about smiting some liberals for me." Tee-hee, it's a joke, innit? How Coulter wishes us all dead? The kind of thing that'd probably make the old man laugh. Fuck her and her brute of a father. He's in hell now, alongside Reagan and McCarthy, getting raped by barbed-dick demons with his daughter's face. Kind of like the rest of us.
6/08/2006
Why Ann Coulter Is a Cunt, Part 2609 of an Endless Series (More Plagiarism? Edition):
It is a sad truism in the business of whoredom that someone younger, hotter, more hardcore is gonna come along and take away half the johns that the older skanks used to pleasure. One day, you can be blow job queen of the Strip; the next day, a 19 year-old with DSLs that'll suck a cock clean in three minutes or less is gonna have 'em linin' up like free burger day at the drive-through. So you gotta get crazier. Show that these little slits with tits are nothin' compared to you. Pretty soon, you're not only walkin' around in nothin' but a g-string and tube top, you're promisin' you'll go places no other hooker in Vegas'll go: "Yeah, sure, you can shit on my twat and then fuck me through the shit." "Yeah, you can bloody my asshole with a bottle and then fuck me through the blood." "Yeah, you can get ten of your friends to run a train on me while you stand on the side and jack off on a little boy holding a kitten before you make me eat the kitten." Then you can head back to the corner, hold your head up, spit out kitten hair, and show all the little slutettes who the nastiest cunt is.
There's so much that's fucked up about Ann Coulter and her latest "book" (if by "book," you mean, "Extended projectile vomiting retched out by a pencil-legged harridan scratching semi-words in her own puke") that it's hard to know where to start. There's the title of the "book," Godless, which quite intentionally must exist to make you think, as you walk into your local Barnes and Noble and glance over at the shrieking, howling display of volumes with Ann Coulter's picture on them, "Goddess." One might think no human being could be that needy, but, then again, Coulter's gotta compete with your Malkins and your Ingrahams and other conservative fuck dream demi-babes.
And the Rude Pundit's not gonna get into the whole "oh, Ann Coulter's wrong about this" argument, 'cause that would mean what she says merits any response other than: Are you really that fucking crazy? No, seriously, are you that...fucking...crazy? What else would you ask someone who writes, as Coulter does in the first chapter, freely available, regarding "fears" of water shortages: "Liberals are worried we’re going to run out of something that literally falls from the sky. Here’s an idea: Just wait. It will rain." Beyond the fact that most of Coulter's arguments seem to stem from understanding liberalism from 20 or 30 years ago, the sentence is breathtakingly, self-evidently stupid.
Then there's Coulter's comments about the 9/11 widows in the book and during her strange, defensive interview on Today. The problem that the Rude Pundit has with so many in our mighty right wing commentariat is that they like to beat up on disempowered people - the poor, immigrants, mothers who've lost children in war. You know, if you walk into a bunny hutch and just start ripping the heads off rabbits because how dare they look so fuckin' cute, you really can't walk out with your head held high, thinking you're some great warrior.
But what really pisses the Rude Pundit off is that not only is Coulter a shitty writer and a bugfuck crazed presence any time she is remotely challenged, but she has a bad habit. And that habit, as mentioned before by the Rude Pundit (followed up by Raw Story), is that she appears to like to copy whole sentences from other sources without putting them in as quotes or even citing where she might have "paraphrased" from. You judge for yourself:
Here's Coulter from Chapter 1 of Godless: The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River in Maine, was halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant previously believed to be extinct.
Here's the Portland Press Herald, from the year 2000, in its list of the "Maine Stories of the Century": The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River, is halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant believed to be extinct.
Strangely similar, no? By the way, that's a story from 1976. Coulter doesn't tell you that little tidbit, making you think it happened last week. The next one's from 1977:
Here's Coulter writing about an attack on the Alaska pipeline: A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil.
Here's something from the History Channel: The only major oil spill on land occurred when an unknown saboteur blew a hole in the pipe near Fairbanks, and 550,000 gallons of oil spilled onto the ground.
Why, in this age of the "terrorist," would Coulter use "saboteur," a quaint term, to be sure? Could it be a cut and paste job with a couple of words changed, like a good college freshman?
So you judge. Sure, it's just two incidents in a single chapter. But does it speak to other potential strange similarities throughout the book? Is it plagiarism? The Rude Pundit's not saying it is plagiarism, but he's not saying it's not. How harshly would Coulter judge a liberal writer for doing the same? Or would she have to be silent?
The Rude Pundit could end on a high note here. A note where he demonstrates how he's above it all. Fuck that. Sometimes you gotta jump in the gutter and have the slap fight with the whores. Coulter is fond of saying that feminists are ugly, describing one as "physically repulsive." Has Coulter taken a look in the mirror lately? She looks like the crazed lingerer at a bar at 3 a.m., desperate for some fat fuck to take her home, beat her, and fuck her face. Bitch has been ridden hard and put away spooge covered, taken out the next day, stiff and sticky, and spit on to be cleaned up for her interviews before using her to wipe Republican asses. Goddamn, time does not treat the nutzoid well. The Rude Pundit wouldn't fuck her if he was given Rush Limbaugh's tiny, diseased prick to fuck her with.
It is a sad truism in the business of whoredom that someone younger, hotter, more hardcore is gonna come along and take away half the johns that the older skanks used to pleasure. One day, you can be blow job queen of the Strip; the next day, a 19 year-old with DSLs that'll suck a cock clean in three minutes or less is gonna have 'em linin' up like free burger day at the drive-through. So you gotta get crazier. Show that these little slits with tits are nothin' compared to you. Pretty soon, you're not only walkin' around in nothin' but a g-string and tube top, you're promisin' you'll go places no other hooker in Vegas'll go: "Yeah, sure, you can shit on my twat and then fuck me through the shit." "Yeah, you can bloody my asshole with a bottle and then fuck me through the blood." "Yeah, you can get ten of your friends to run a train on me while you stand on the side and jack off on a little boy holding a kitten before you make me eat the kitten." Then you can head back to the corner, hold your head up, spit out kitten hair, and show all the little slutettes who the nastiest cunt is.
There's so much that's fucked up about Ann Coulter and her latest "book" (if by "book," you mean, "Extended projectile vomiting retched out by a pencil-legged harridan scratching semi-words in her own puke") that it's hard to know where to start. There's the title of the "book," Godless, which quite intentionally must exist to make you think, as you walk into your local Barnes and Noble and glance over at the shrieking, howling display of volumes with Ann Coulter's picture on them, "Goddess." One might think no human being could be that needy, but, then again, Coulter's gotta compete with your Malkins and your Ingrahams and other conservative fuck dream demi-babes.
And the Rude Pundit's not gonna get into the whole "oh, Ann Coulter's wrong about this" argument, 'cause that would mean what she says merits any response other than: Are you really that fucking crazy? No, seriously, are you that...fucking...crazy? What else would you ask someone who writes, as Coulter does in the first chapter, freely available, regarding "fears" of water shortages: "Liberals are worried we’re going to run out of something that literally falls from the sky. Here’s an idea: Just wait. It will rain." Beyond the fact that most of Coulter's arguments seem to stem from understanding liberalism from 20 or 30 years ago, the sentence is breathtakingly, self-evidently stupid.
Then there's Coulter's comments about the 9/11 widows in the book and during her strange, defensive interview on Today. The problem that the Rude Pundit has with so many in our mighty right wing commentariat is that they like to beat up on disempowered people - the poor, immigrants, mothers who've lost children in war. You know, if you walk into a bunny hutch and just start ripping the heads off rabbits because how dare they look so fuckin' cute, you really can't walk out with your head held high, thinking you're some great warrior.
But what really pisses the Rude Pundit off is that not only is Coulter a shitty writer and a bugfuck crazed presence any time she is remotely challenged, but she has a bad habit. And that habit, as mentioned before by the Rude Pundit (followed up by Raw Story), is that she appears to like to copy whole sentences from other sources without putting them in as quotes or even citing where she might have "paraphrased" from. You judge for yourself:
Here's Coulter from Chapter 1 of Godless: The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River in Maine, was halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant previously believed to be extinct.
Here's the Portland Press Herald, from the year 2000, in its list of the "Maine Stories of the Century": The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River, is halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant believed to be extinct.
Strangely similar, no? By the way, that's a story from 1976. Coulter doesn't tell you that little tidbit, making you think it happened last week. The next one's from 1977:
Here's Coulter writing about an attack on the Alaska pipeline: A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil.
Here's something from the History Channel: The only major oil spill on land occurred when an unknown saboteur blew a hole in the pipe near Fairbanks, and 550,000 gallons of oil spilled onto the ground.
Why, in this age of the "terrorist," would Coulter use "saboteur," a quaint term, to be sure? Could it be a cut and paste job with a couple of words changed, like a good college freshman?
So you judge. Sure, it's just two incidents in a single chapter. But does it speak to other potential strange similarities throughout the book? Is it plagiarism? The Rude Pundit's not saying it is plagiarism, but he's not saying it's not. How harshly would Coulter judge a liberal writer for doing the same? Or would she have to be silent?
The Rude Pundit could end on a high note here. A note where he demonstrates how he's above it all. Fuck that. Sometimes you gotta jump in the gutter and have the slap fight with the whores. Coulter is fond of saying that feminists are ugly, describing one as "physically repulsive." Has Coulter taken a look in the mirror lately? She looks like the crazed lingerer at a bar at 3 a.m., desperate for some fat fuck to take her home, beat her, and fuck her face. Bitch has been ridden hard and put away spooge covered, taken out the next day, stiff and sticky, and spit on to be cleaned up for her interviews before using her to wipe Republican asses. Goddamn, time does not treat the nutzoid well. The Rude Pundit wouldn't fuck her if he was given Rush Limbaugh's tiny, diseased prick to fuck her with.
6/22/2004
Why Ann Coulter Is Still a Cunt, Part 37:
Oh, shit, Ann Coulter wants to fuck Ronnie's corpse. She wants to drag him out of his California resting place, prop up his dick like a tomato vine, tying it to a stick, and fuck, fuck, fuck away until she's bleeding, screaming with pain and orgasm, and she can say, "Look, Gipper, my blood is now a part of you for eternity. Dontcha just love me, Gipper?" And if she has to, she'll break his bones so she can move his arm to gently pull aside her sweaty blonde locks, as if the 40th President is telling her, "There you go again, Ann." Oh, how Coulter will smile, weak from her still bleeding pussy. She wants to rub that hand all over her, take the thumb and forefinger to pinch her cold nipples. God, how she'll shiver, how she'll shake, how she'll sob that she didn't get him in his last days so he could plant his seed into her fallow womb.
It's because of that whore Nancy, you know. Or at least Coulter seems to think so in her latest "column" where she attacks Nancy Reagan for her support of federal funding for stem cell research. But, then again, Coulter says, "Someone persuaded poor, dear Nancy Reagan that research on human embryos might have saved her Ronnie from Alzheimer's. Now the rest of us are supposed to shut up because the wife of America's greatest president (oh, save your breath, girls!) supports stem-cell research . . . She'd probably support harvesting full-grown, living humans if it would bring back Ronnie."
Now the Rude Pundit is no fan of Nancy Reagan, and he loves a good catfight. And, in fact, Coulter makes a point (oh, save your breath, girls) when she takes moderate commentators (she calls them "liberal," but, really, no) to task for lionizing Reagan for "reaching out" to Democrats. Coulter even offers examples that, in another context, could come from a left-wing commentary on el Gippo.
But let us not drag out Ronnie's corpse to smack around one last time. Let us instead talk about Ann Coulter, single, praising Jesus whenever she gets her Dom to whip her into breathy ecstasy. And her presumption that she has any idea of what the relationship between two people is in private - a presumption about the Clintons that provides extra stink to the pile of shit that is her first "book." And her patronizing attitude towards Nancy Reagan, who was a tough bitch before Ann Coulter ever masturbated with her Joe McCarthy dildo, is rife with sexism and ageism, patting the "poor, dear", little old lady on the head and telling her to not be manipulated by those nasty liberals (much like Rush "E-Mail Me at Phatphallus77 For Heavy Love" Limbaugh did earlier).
Maybe Nancy just makes Coulter think about her own mortality, her own imminent descent into the withering effects of age, when maybe spider-veined legs won't get booked on so many talk shows, when one too many facelifts leaves her the emotionless, cold, hate-spewing automaton that she aspires to be.
Oh, shit, Ann Coulter wants to fuck Ronnie's corpse. She wants to drag him out of his California resting place, prop up his dick like a tomato vine, tying it to a stick, and fuck, fuck, fuck away until she's bleeding, screaming with pain and orgasm, and she can say, "Look, Gipper, my blood is now a part of you for eternity. Dontcha just love me, Gipper?" And if she has to, she'll break his bones so she can move his arm to gently pull aside her sweaty blonde locks, as if the 40th President is telling her, "There you go again, Ann." Oh, how Coulter will smile, weak from her still bleeding pussy. She wants to rub that hand all over her, take the thumb and forefinger to pinch her cold nipples. God, how she'll shiver, how she'll shake, how she'll sob that she didn't get him in his last days so he could plant his seed into her fallow womb.
It's because of that whore Nancy, you know. Or at least Coulter seems to think so in her latest "column" where she attacks Nancy Reagan for her support of federal funding for stem cell research. But, then again, Coulter says, "Someone persuaded poor, dear Nancy Reagan that research on human embryos might have saved her Ronnie from Alzheimer's. Now the rest of us are supposed to shut up because the wife of America's greatest president (oh, save your breath, girls!) supports stem-cell research . . . She'd probably support harvesting full-grown, living humans if it would bring back Ronnie."
Now the Rude Pundit is no fan of Nancy Reagan, and he loves a good catfight. And, in fact, Coulter makes a point (oh, save your breath, girls) when she takes moderate commentators (she calls them "liberal," but, really, no) to task for lionizing Reagan for "reaching out" to Democrats. Coulter even offers examples that, in another context, could come from a left-wing commentary on el Gippo.
But let us not drag out Ronnie's corpse to smack around one last time. Let us instead talk about Ann Coulter, single, praising Jesus whenever she gets her Dom to whip her into breathy ecstasy. And her presumption that she has any idea of what the relationship between two people is in private - a presumption about the Clintons that provides extra stink to the pile of shit that is her first "book." And her patronizing attitude towards Nancy Reagan, who was a tough bitch before Ann Coulter ever masturbated with her Joe McCarthy dildo, is rife with sexism and ageism, patting the "poor, dear", little old lady on the head and telling her to not be manipulated by those nasty liberals (much like Rush "E-Mail Me at Phatphallus77 For Heavy Love" Limbaugh did earlier).
Maybe Nancy just makes Coulter think about her own mortality, her own imminent descent into the withering effects of age, when maybe spider-veined legs won't get booked on so many talk shows, when one too many facelifts leaves her the emotionless, cold, hate-spewing automaton that she aspires to be.
11/25/2005
Why Ann Coulter Is a Cunt, Part 3507:
When the Rude Pundit was a freshman in college, he had a roommate who was an asshole frat guy and the kind of Deadhead who loved the band for the drugs, but was hard-pressed to name a real album by Jerry and the boys beyond Greatest Hits. The Rude Pundit had one request, a simple one, he felt: no dope smoking in the dorm room. It wasn't for any bullshit reasons of morality or fear of the Man; the Rude Pundit, who was not lackin' fer mind-alteration, just didn't want his clothes to smell like pot smoke all day long. The roommate, who regularly dropped acid and snorted coke sittin' on his loft bed or at his desk, though he never attained the state of overdose that would have given the Rude Pundit a private room, could not abide this simple request. Each time it happened, the Rude Pundit would tell him again, a little more angrily, "Dude, c'mon."
Then one day the Rude Pundit walked in after a particularly hard Statistics exam to find the stoned roomie laying on the floor and ashes and roaches all over the Rude Pundit's bed. The Rude Pundit snapped, and he dragged the roommate up and started beating the fuck out of him, tossin' him around like a rag doll, slappin' him in his mohawked head. He was a limp, babbling noodle, tryin' to explain why he'd fucked up the Rude Pundit's bed, but the explanations didn't matter as foot was put to ass: the bed was fucked up and the clothes stunk. It was a pathetic fight, not much of one at all, with the roomie barely able to put up his hands to stop the blows, but you know what? It felt soooo fuckin' good, man, like the first cold beer in a bar in Little Five Points after walkin' through the hot streets of Atlanta on an August day. And it was easy. Just like, well, shit, just like critiquing an Ann Coulter "column." So, c'mon over to the barrel and let's start shootin'.
For in her latest "column" (if by "column," you mean "the blood blots of self-mutilated flesh from a loathsome, foamingly rabid she-wolf on shredded toilet paper"), Coulter packs in so much bullshit about Iraq that you can see the turds slipping through the cracks. It's useless to take on her "argument" that much good has been done through the war because one can't see where the spin and lies stop and the delusion begins.
She even drags out the corpse of the dead connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda and Niger uranium: "As we now know, Saddam Hussein was working with al-Qaida and was trying to acquire long-range missiles from North Korea and enriched uranium from Niger." You may do a double take and think, "Um, forged documents? No real contact?" But you'd be caught then in the web of inference and bugfuck nuttery that is the cuntistry of Ann Coulter. However, shit, since Coulter is the same kind of whoredog for the Bush administration as Bob Woodward and Judith Miller (it's a question of presentation, not degree), here's Donald Rumsfeld to Wolf Blitzer's question about the alleged nexus of swarthy eeevil: "Zarqawi was physically in Baghdad." It's like saying that because you have a toothbrush at your girlfriend's place, you wanna move in. In other words, really, and, c'mon, is that the best you got?
But Coulter's bizarre rah-rahing, like the cheerleader of the damned, continues. She shakes her little pom-poms for all the elections and, in general, behaves as if Iraq is just a car bomb or two away from gettin' all that nasty resistance out of its lil' ol' system.
Then she gets to the real blood and meat of her "argument," that those who advocate for withdrawal, immediate or otherwise, are traitors: "It is simply a fact that Democrats like Murtha are encouraging the Iraqi insurgents when they say the war is going badly and it's time to bring the troops home." So, like, these'd be the same insurgents that Iraqi leaders just declared a legitmate resistance and that U.S. soldiers are legitimate targets? Fuck, encouragement is havin' something to shoot at and blow up. And how does Coulter know that dissent in America gives comfort to the enemy? Why, 'cause former North Vietnamese soldiers, who, you know, would have no reason to sow conflict in the U.S., said that war protesters during the Vietnam War gave them the warm fuzzies.
But once Ann Coulter gets somethin' in her craw, she ain't done with it until she's masticated that fucker with all ten sets of her viperous teeth: "The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle." And, most bizarre, she holds Democrats in contempt for voting down the un-debated House Republican stunt bill on immediate withdrawal from Iraq: "They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors." Well, fuck it. Take it to its logical conclusion. Round us up and waterboard us, bitch, 'cause we're part of this country, too.
You can dismiss Coulter's mad brain as a belfry filled with those flying rats, but she is the seething evil id of the right, daring others to cross her line. It's sad, too, really, how hard she works to show she's got the biggest balls in the room. For the only thing that pleases the monsters in Ann Coulter's brain, the ones that press her to go further, be more wicked, press more buttons, is more dead, more blood, more bodies, and it doesn't matter whose they are as long as they provide sweet sustenance.
When the Rude Pundit was a freshman in college, he had a roommate who was an asshole frat guy and the kind of Deadhead who loved the band for the drugs, but was hard-pressed to name a real album by Jerry and the boys beyond Greatest Hits. The Rude Pundit had one request, a simple one, he felt: no dope smoking in the dorm room. It wasn't for any bullshit reasons of morality or fear of the Man; the Rude Pundit, who was not lackin' fer mind-alteration, just didn't want his clothes to smell like pot smoke all day long. The roommate, who regularly dropped acid and snorted coke sittin' on his loft bed or at his desk, though he never attained the state of overdose that would have given the Rude Pundit a private room, could not abide this simple request. Each time it happened, the Rude Pundit would tell him again, a little more angrily, "Dude, c'mon."
Then one day the Rude Pundit walked in after a particularly hard Statistics exam to find the stoned roomie laying on the floor and ashes and roaches all over the Rude Pundit's bed. The Rude Pundit snapped, and he dragged the roommate up and started beating the fuck out of him, tossin' him around like a rag doll, slappin' him in his mohawked head. He was a limp, babbling noodle, tryin' to explain why he'd fucked up the Rude Pundit's bed, but the explanations didn't matter as foot was put to ass: the bed was fucked up and the clothes stunk. It was a pathetic fight, not much of one at all, with the roomie barely able to put up his hands to stop the blows, but you know what? It felt soooo fuckin' good, man, like the first cold beer in a bar in Little Five Points after walkin' through the hot streets of Atlanta on an August day. And it was easy. Just like, well, shit, just like critiquing an Ann Coulter "column." So, c'mon over to the barrel and let's start shootin'.
For in her latest "column" (if by "column," you mean "the blood blots of self-mutilated flesh from a loathsome, foamingly rabid she-wolf on shredded toilet paper"), Coulter packs in so much bullshit about Iraq that you can see the turds slipping through the cracks. It's useless to take on her "argument" that much good has been done through the war because one can't see where the spin and lies stop and the delusion begins.
She even drags out the corpse of the dead connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda and Niger uranium: "As we now know, Saddam Hussein was working with al-Qaida and was trying to acquire long-range missiles from North Korea and enriched uranium from Niger." You may do a double take and think, "Um, forged documents? No real contact?" But you'd be caught then in the web of inference and bugfuck nuttery that is the cuntistry of Ann Coulter. However, shit, since Coulter is the same kind of whoredog for the Bush administration as Bob Woodward and Judith Miller (it's a question of presentation, not degree), here's Donald Rumsfeld to Wolf Blitzer's question about the alleged nexus of swarthy eeevil: "Zarqawi was physically in Baghdad." It's like saying that because you have a toothbrush at your girlfriend's place, you wanna move in. In other words, really, and, c'mon, is that the best you got?
But Coulter's bizarre rah-rahing, like the cheerleader of the damned, continues. She shakes her little pom-poms for all the elections and, in general, behaves as if Iraq is just a car bomb or two away from gettin' all that nasty resistance out of its lil' ol' system.
Then she gets to the real blood and meat of her "argument," that those who advocate for withdrawal, immediate or otherwise, are traitors: "It is simply a fact that Democrats like Murtha are encouraging the Iraqi insurgents when they say the war is going badly and it's time to bring the troops home." So, like, these'd be the same insurgents that Iraqi leaders just declared a legitmate resistance and that U.S. soldiers are legitimate targets? Fuck, encouragement is havin' something to shoot at and blow up. And how does Coulter know that dissent in America gives comfort to the enemy? Why, 'cause former North Vietnamese soldiers, who, you know, would have no reason to sow conflict in the U.S., said that war protesters during the Vietnam War gave them the warm fuzzies.
But once Ann Coulter gets somethin' in her craw, she ain't done with it until she's masticated that fucker with all ten sets of her viperous teeth: "The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle." And, most bizarre, she holds Democrats in contempt for voting down the un-debated House Republican stunt bill on immediate withdrawal from Iraq: "They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors." Well, fuck it. Take it to its logical conclusion. Round us up and waterboard us, bitch, 'cause we're part of this country, too.
You can dismiss Coulter's mad brain as a belfry filled with those flying rats, but she is the seething evil id of the right, daring others to cross her line. It's sad, too, really, how hard she works to show she's got the biggest balls in the room. For the only thing that pleases the monsters in Ann Coulter's brain, the ones that press her to go further, be more wicked, press more buttons, is more dead, more blood, more bodies, and it doesn't matter whose they are as long as they provide sweet sustenance.
7/27/2007
Ann Coulter's Selective Brain (With a Smidgen of Plagiarism):
In her most recent "column", Coulter attacks the Democrats for a couple of their snarky remarks at the most recent debate. She focuses in on Barack Obama (who, she tiresomely reminds us, is middle-named "Hussein" - hey, guess what? Coulter's hero, Joseph McCarthy, has a first name that is pretty much the same as Stalin's - oooh, scary), who answered the "are you black enough?" question by saying how hard it is for him to catch a cab in New York City.
To counter Obama, Coulter brings up a Giuliani-era program: "He started 'Operation Refusal' in 1999, sending out teams of black undercover cops and taxi commissioners to hail cabs and give fines to those who refused to pick up blacks. Even back in 1999, in the first 12 hours of 'Operation Refusal,' out of more than 800 cabs hailed, only five cab drivers refused to pick up a customer — one of whom was a white woman with children."
In a column full of references to other New York Times articles, would it have killed Coulter to mention that she got this info from the Times? She could have quoted, even. Here's the strangely familiar paragraph from the November 13, 1999 article "Despite Warning, Some Cabdrivers Are Snared" by Somini Sengupta: "During the first 12 hours of the program, called Operation Refusal, teams of undercover police officers and taxi inspectors, black and white, hailed 817 cabs throughout Manhattan. Of those, five passed up customers because of their race or gender, police and taxi commission officials said. Among those cited was a driver on the East Side of Manhattan who refused to pick up a white woman with two children; instead, the cabby picked up an undercover inspector, a white male, nearby."
See? She could have quoted it directly, citing her source and everything, thus avoiding even the appearance of, you know, plagiarism.
Why wouldn't she? Oh, wait. Because the source article actually undermines her entire point. See, it wasn't just "black undercover police officers and taxi commissioners." They were actually "black and white." And they weren't just looking for racial bias; they were seeking gender bias, too. For Coulter, the fact that a cabbie didn't pick up a white woman proves there was no racial bias. For the undercover officials, it proves gender bias, which is one of the things that Operation Refusal seeks to halt. Also, perhaps one reason the number of cabbies caught is so low is that they were warned beforehand, something Coulter doesn't mention.
By the way, parts of the policy that Coulter praises were ruled unconstitutional, and cabbies who had their licenses suspended or revoked won a large settlement from the city because, like so many of Giuliani's policies, it overreached and was dictatorially run and was another get-tough measure by a power-hungry Giuliani seeking to become a Senator. Operation Refusal remains in a substantially modified form. It did not cure the problem of taxicab bias, as Coulter implies when she says there is "overwhelming evidence disproving...the yarn about blacks not being able to get a cab in New York."
And did anyone tell Coulter that the program was started because Danny Glover couldn't get a cab? Does Ann Coulter now support Danny Glover?
(By the way, regular readers will notice a different title than usual for Ann Coulter pieces on this merry blog. The Rude Pundit has made this one safe for the kiddies to link to, thus keeping his powder dry for the next time.)
In her most recent "column", Coulter attacks the Democrats for a couple of their snarky remarks at the most recent debate. She focuses in on Barack Obama (who, she tiresomely reminds us, is middle-named "Hussein" - hey, guess what? Coulter's hero, Joseph McCarthy, has a first name that is pretty much the same as Stalin's - oooh, scary), who answered the "are you black enough?" question by saying how hard it is for him to catch a cab in New York City.
To counter Obama, Coulter brings up a Giuliani-era program: "He started 'Operation Refusal' in 1999, sending out teams of black undercover cops and taxi commissioners to hail cabs and give fines to those who refused to pick up blacks. Even back in 1999, in the first 12 hours of 'Operation Refusal,' out of more than 800 cabs hailed, only five cab drivers refused to pick up a customer — one of whom was a white woman with children."
In a column full of references to other New York Times articles, would it have killed Coulter to mention that she got this info from the Times? She could have quoted, even. Here's the strangely familiar paragraph from the November 13, 1999 article "Despite Warning, Some Cabdrivers Are Snared" by Somini Sengupta: "During the first 12 hours of the program, called Operation Refusal, teams of undercover police officers and taxi inspectors, black and white, hailed 817 cabs throughout Manhattan. Of those, five passed up customers because of their race or gender, police and taxi commission officials said. Among those cited was a driver on the East Side of Manhattan who refused to pick up a white woman with two children; instead, the cabby picked up an undercover inspector, a white male, nearby."
See? She could have quoted it directly, citing her source and everything, thus avoiding even the appearance of, you know, plagiarism.
Why wouldn't she? Oh, wait. Because the source article actually undermines her entire point. See, it wasn't just "black undercover police officers and taxi commissioners." They were actually "black and white." And they weren't just looking for racial bias; they were seeking gender bias, too. For Coulter, the fact that a cabbie didn't pick up a white woman proves there was no racial bias. For the undercover officials, it proves gender bias, which is one of the things that Operation Refusal seeks to halt. Also, perhaps one reason the number of cabbies caught is so low is that they were warned beforehand, something Coulter doesn't mention.
By the way, parts of the policy that Coulter praises were ruled unconstitutional, and cabbies who had their licenses suspended or revoked won a large settlement from the city because, like so many of Giuliani's policies, it overreached and was dictatorially run and was another get-tough measure by a power-hungry Giuliani seeking to become a Senator. Operation Refusal remains in a substantially modified form. It did not cure the problem of taxicab bias, as Coulter implies when she says there is "overwhelming evidence disproving...the yarn about blacks not being able to get a cab in New York."
And did anyone tell Coulter that the program was started because Danny Glover couldn't get a cab? Does Ann Coulter now support Danny Glover?
(By the way, regular readers will notice a different title than usual for Ann Coulter pieces on this merry blog. The Rude Pundit has made this one safe for the kiddies to link to, thus keeping his powder dry for the next time.)
11/15/2007
Why Ann Coulter Is a Cunt (Dictator-Humping Edition):
Imagine for a moment what it must be like for Ann Coulter each week as she sits down to write her "column." You sift through the various cocktail napkins, toilet paper squares, and Prada receipts on which you scrawled the different bon mots about those silly Democrats, cutting little lines you conjured during the week and just had to scribble before you lost them. You look at the pile of shredded paper and get depressed, so you burn your left tit with your lit cigarette to inspire you. You take a gander at your recent columns to see just how bugfuck insane you actually got, not really remembering exactly what you wrote since it all gets dumped in a scotch haze, like all those cocks you have to keep on sucking - how can one keep track of which one belongs to which Murdoch or Ailes? Christ, you sigh, seeing how you recently wrote about what a great man Joseph McCarthy was, how you actually rewrote the poignant anti-Holocaust statement to make it refer to the alleged silencing of right-wing voices, saying, "First they came for Rush Limbaugh, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't Rush Limbaugh..."
Truly, and, indeed, it gets wearying, having to think about how to top yourself each and every week. You get frustrated and cut your thighs with a razor, frantically lubricating your twat with the blood so you can attempt a rough fingering of your calloused clit until suddenly inspiration strikes.
If anyone can point out any other way that Ann Coulter writes her columns, the Rude Pundit would be glad to hear it. For, logically, how else could she actually type (or dictate to a cowering assistant who has watched Coulter do all of the above) the following: "If Republicans end up with a divided convention between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, I say we pick Gen. Pervez Musharraf." What follows is a series of statements about Musharraf, praising him for imposing emergency rule, for shutting down the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and for ordering the police to beat rioting lawyers. And then, without any sense of irony, she says how great it is that Musharraf wants to make Pakistan a more democratic place. (Along with mocking Pakistani bathing habits.)
The Rude Pundit's not going to argue with Coulter's "points," because it is futile beyond futility to say that Coulter is wrong that the mainstream media hasn't criticized Benazir Bhutto, or that to compare Pervez Musharraf to Turkey's Mustafa Kemal Ataturk ("Pakistan's Ataturk is Gen. Musharraf") is like comparing Ann Coulter to Mark Twain. Coulter doesn't give a fuck about logic, facts, history, or truth. It is agitation for agitation's sake. And for profit's sake. If she doesn't slake her drooling fans' thirst for outrage, then she's just another used-up bimbo with Australian cum in her long blonde hair.
By the way, for a more realistic view of Musharraf, check out Ali Eteraz in The Guardian: "The current tyrant, meanwhile, is not only less popular than Bin Laden, but he is completely inept in counteracting terrorism. He has: failed to reform the madrassas; cultivated a Kangaroo Sharia court in his backyard for six months which he could use for political benefit; killed those that kept the Taliban at bay; considered appeasing the militants by letting them implement Sharia; turned Pakistan into a state sponsor of terrorism; made alliances with pro-Taliban parties; and even engaged in what are being called crimes against humanity. My editor at Jewcy reminded me that Musharraf is so frightening to terrorists that al-Qaida mastermind Khaled Sheikh Mohammad literally lived within 10 miles of him. This is the man that John Negroponte at the State Department considers 'indispensable.'"
The man whose stubby leg Coulter humps like a bitch in heat.
Imagine for a moment what it must be like for Ann Coulter each week as she sits down to write her "column." You sift through the various cocktail napkins, toilet paper squares, and Prada receipts on which you scrawled the different bon mots about those silly Democrats, cutting little lines you conjured during the week and just had to scribble before you lost them. You look at the pile of shredded paper and get depressed, so you burn your left tit with your lit cigarette to inspire you. You take a gander at your recent columns to see just how bugfuck insane you actually got, not really remembering exactly what you wrote since it all gets dumped in a scotch haze, like all those cocks you have to keep on sucking - how can one keep track of which one belongs to which Murdoch or Ailes? Christ, you sigh, seeing how you recently wrote about what a great man Joseph McCarthy was, how you actually rewrote the poignant anti-Holocaust statement to make it refer to the alleged silencing of right-wing voices, saying, "First they came for Rush Limbaugh, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't Rush Limbaugh..."
Truly, and, indeed, it gets wearying, having to think about how to top yourself each and every week. You get frustrated and cut your thighs with a razor, frantically lubricating your twat with the blood so you can attempt a rough fingering of your calloused clit until suddenly inspiration strikes.
If anyone can point out any other way that Ann Coulter writes her columns, the Rude Pundit would be glad to hear it. For, logically, how else could she actually type (or dictate to a cowering assistant who has watched Coulter do all of the above) the following: "If Republicans end up with a divided convention between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, I say we pick Gen. Pervez Musharraf." What follows is a series of statements about Musharraf, praising him for imposing emergency rule, for shutting down the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and for ordering the police to beat rioting lawyers. And then, without any sense of irony, she says how great it is that Musharraf wants to make Pakistan a more democratic place. (Along with mocking Pakistani bathing habits.)
The Rude Pundit's not going to argue with Coulter's "points," because it is futile beyond futility to say that Coulter is wrong that the mainstream media hasn't criticized Benazir Bhutto, or that to compare Pervez Musharraf to Turkey's Mustafa Kemal Ataturk ("Pakistan's Ataturk is Gen. Musharraf") is like comparing Ann Coulter to Mark Twain. Coulter doesn't give a fuck about logic, facts, history, or truth. It is agitation for agitation's sake. And for profit's sake. If she doesn't slake her drooling fans' thirst for outrage, then she's just another used-up bimbo with Australian cum in her long blonde hair.
By the way, for a more realistic view of Musharraf, check out Ali Eteraz in The Guardian: "The current tyrant, meanwhile, is not only less popular than Bin Laden, but he is completely inept in counteracting terrorism. He has: failed to reform the madrassas; cultivated a Kangaroo Sharia court in his backyard for six months which he could use for political benefit; killed those that kept the Taliban at bay; considered appeasing the militants by letting them implement Sharia; turned Pakistan into a state sponsor of terrorism; made alliances with pro-Taliban parties; and even engaged in what are being called crimes against humanity. My editor at Jewcy reminded me that Musharraf is so frightening to terrorists that al-Qaida mastermind Khaled Sheikh Mohammad literally lived within 10 miles of him. This is the man that John Negroponte at the State Department considers 'indispensable.'"
The man whose stubby leg Coulter humps like a bitch in heat.
6/15/2006
Why Ann Coulter's Plagiarism Matters (And Why No One Will Give a Damn):
For the last week, in several posts and articles, the Rude Pundit and Ron Brynaert of Raw Story have detailed the multiple plagiarized and unattributed passages from Ann Coulter in her "book" Godless. In fact, it's hard to tell what part of the book doesn't have plagiarism or unattributed (or wrongly attributed) passages. For some reason, the story doesn't rate discussion (as of this writing) in the mainstream media in the same way that the plagiarism of Ben Domenech (ersatz ex-Washington Post blogger) and historian Doris Kearns Goodwin rated coverage.
The Weekly Standard, back in 2002, took Goodwin to task for direct quote plagiarism and "insufficient attribution" in her book The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys. Here's one of the examples, taken from an earlier book by Hank Searls. Searls wrote: "He turned helplessly to his old classmate Campbell, then fought his way blindly through hysterical fans to the field to comfort his son." And here's Goodwin: "[He] turned helplessly to Tommy Campbell, then fought his way through the hysterical fans to provide solace to his son." Much more of Goodwin's plagiarism was word-for-word from other sources that she cited in her book, just not for the plagiarized material.
As Timothy Noah in Slate said, "This is not a gray area." Then Noah went on to cite the freshman composition policy on plagiarism from Harvard, where Goodwin got her PhD and taught. Goodwin's defense was that she had used "extensive footnotes." The problem, of course, and the reason for the feeding frenzy, was that she had not used enough.
No, Ann Coulter is not a scholar by any horribly screeching stretch of the word. Still, her annointment as a spokesperson for the conservative right on talk shows and in newspapers means there are some standards to which she ought to be held. Honesty ought to be high on that list. Her plagiarism, in any ethical sense of the word, is huge. Hell, compared to Coulter, Goodwin's double-dotted her eyes. Because Coulter's plagiarism is more like Domenech's: taking things from sources that are not ever cited. Much of what has been found in Godless has come from right wing websites or speakers, so the chances of someone suing Coulter is practically nil. And when we get to passages like the list of treatments done with adult stem cells that Coulter cribs almost entirely from an Illinois right-to-life website, well, you know, would it have killed her to have used some quotation marks around "Reversing severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) with genetically modified adult cells" when the Illinois site stated, "Reverse severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) (using genetically modified adult stem cells)." Maybe a footnote to give props to the source?
In the scheme of things, no, the story of Coulter's plagiarism is not more important than anything going on in Iraq, any election, any bill or debate in Congress, anything going on in the economy, volcanoes, hurricanes, and more. But, in terms of news, it's a fuck of a lot more important than anything that has to do with a weeping Britney, Brangelina, a $1.7 million car that's a lemon, and a naked guy trying to get his girlfriend to marry him, all of which are receiving extensive coverage. The Coulter story is about the basic acceptance of dishonesty in the conservative movement. Indeed, the right functions only because of liars and cheats and grifters who are aided and abetted by a media that refuses to call them on their lies.
The Rude Pundit doesn't buy the whole "ignore her and she'll go away" bullshit put out by so many on the Left. Coulter ain't going away. And ask yourself this question: If some right-wing blogger discovered that Michael Moore had plagiarized parts of one of his books, what kind of crazy explosion of conservative joy would ejaculate from the columns, computers, and Fox "News" correspondents? (By the way, the Rude Pundit isn't comparing Coulter and Moore - Moore doesn't beat up on 9/11 widows or mothers who lost their children in the war. It's a fine, but significant, distinction.)
At the end of the day, though, chances are this story's gonna fade away. The media has gotten so used to liars and con artists shaping the discourse that this is just more background noise. Hey, they didn't go after the Bush administration for lying about the war. Why bother with this blonde kooz? Truly, too, Coulter has created a wonderful trap: she hates the media, so if she's attacked for her hate, it just proves her hate is valid. Generally, those are the kind of people you shake your head at as you take away their sharp implements.
And if the right truly gave a happy monkeyfuck about things like "ethics" and "morals," then Dick Morris, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Bennett, and so, so many more would be whipped in the town square as they are being chased out of the gates. So don't expect the Weekly Standard to get all indignant about Coulter. They need her, the conservative movement, because her madness makes the rest of them look sane. It's like if you go to a nuthouse and see the strait-jacketed screaming guy who eats his own shit in the rubber room. Then the wandering, muttering schizos don't look so bad.
If there's one thing the Rude Pundit can say to anyone in the mainstream media who may have checked out this story, it's this: Coulter beat up on women whose husbands burned to death because those women wanted to find out why their husbands burned to death and they supported the guy who wasn't the President when their husbands burned to death. Don't you wanna take this bitch down?
For the last week, in several posts and articles, the Rude Pundit and Ron Brynaert of Raw Story have detailed the multiple plagiarized and unattributed passages from Ann Coulter in her "book" Godless. In fact, it's hard to tell what part of the book doesn't have plagiarism or unattributed (or wrongly attributed) passages. For some reason, the story doesn't rate discussion (as of this writing) in the mainstream media in the same way that the plagiarism of Ben Domenech (ersatz ex-Washington Post blogger) and historian Doris Kearns Goodwin rated coverage.
The Weekly Standard, back in 2002, took Goodwin to task for direct quote plagiarism and "insufficient attribution" in her book The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys. Here's one of the examples, taken from an earlier book by Hank Searls. Searls wrote: "He turned helplessly to his old classmate Campbell, then fought his way blindly through hysterical fans to the field to comfort his son." And here's Goodwin: "[He] turned helplessly to Tommy Campbell, then fought his way through the hysterical fans to provide solace to his son." Much more of Goodwin's plagiarism was word-for-word from other sources that she cited in her book, just not for the plagiarized material.
As Timothy Noah in Slate said, "This is not a gray area." Then Noah went on to cite the freshman composition policy on plagiarism from Harvard, where Goodwin got her PhD and taught. Goodwin's defense was that she had used "extensive footnotes." The problem, of course, and the reason for the feeding frenzy, was that she had not used enough.
No, Ann Coulter is not a scholar by any horribly screeching stretch of the word. Still, her annointment as a spokesperson for the conservative right on talk shows and in newspapers means there are some standards to which she ought to be held. Honesty ought to be high on that list. Her plagiarism, in any ethical sense of the word, is huge. Hell, compared to Coulter, Goodwin's double-dotted her eyes. Because Coulter's plagiarism is more like Domenech's: taking things from sources that are not ever cited. Much of what has been found in Godless has come from right wing websites or speakers, so the chances of someone suing Coulter is practically nil. And when we get to passages like the list of treatments done with adult stem cells that Coulter cribs almost entirely from an Illinois right-to-life website, well, you know, would it have killed her to have used some quotation marks around "Reversing severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) with genetically modified adult cells" when the Illinois site stated, "Reverse severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) (using genetically modified adult stem cells)." Maybe a footnote to give props to the source?
In the scheme of things, no, the story of Coulter's plagiarism is not more important than anything going on in Iraq, any election, any bill or debate in Congress, anything going on in the economy, volcanoes, hurricanes, and more. But, in terms of news, it's a fuck of a lot more important than anything that has to do with a weeping Britney, Brangelina, a $1.7 million car that's a lemon, and a naked guy trying to get his girlfriend to marry him, all of which are receiving extensive coverage. The Coulter story is about the basic acceptance of dishonesty in the conservative movement. Indeed, the right functions only because of liars and cheats and grifters who are aided and abetted by a media that refuses to call them on their lies.
The Rude Pundit doesn't buy the whole "ignore her and she'll go away" bullshit put out by so many on the Left. Coulter ain't going away. And ask yourself this question: If some right-wing blogger discovered that Michael Moore had plagiarized parts of one of his books, what kind of crazy explosion of conservative joy would ejaculate from the columns, computers, and Fox "News" correspondents? (By the way, the Rude Pundit isn't comparing Coulter and Moore - Moore doesn't beat up on 9/11 widows or mothers who lost their children in the war. It's a fine, but significant, distinction.)
At the end of the day, though, chances are this story's gonna fade away. The media has gotten so used to liars and con artists shaping the discourse that this is just more background noise. Hey, they didn't go after the Bush administration for lying about the war. Why bother with this blonde kooz? Truly, too, Coulter has created a wonderful trap: she hates the media, so if she's attacked for her hate, it just proves her hate is valid. Generally, those are the kind of people you shake your head at as you take away their sharp implements.
And if the right truly gave a happy monkeyfuck about things like "ethics" and "morals," then Dick Morris, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Bennett, and so, so many more would be whipped in the town square as they are being chased out of the gates. So don't expect the Weekly Standard to get all indignant about Coulter. They need her, the conservative movement, because her madness makes the rest of them look sane. It's like if you go to a nuthouse and see the strait-jacketed screaming guy who eats his own shit in the rubber room. Then the wandering, muttering schizos don't look so bad.
If there's one thing the Rude Pundit can say to anyone in the mainstream media who may have checked out this story, it's this: Coulter beat up on women whose husbands burned to death because those women wanted to find out why their husbands burned to death and they supported the guy who wasn't the President when their husbands burned to death. Don't you wanna take this bitch down?
9/12/2013
A Nasty Word Is Used About Ann Coulter When You Click
Ann Coulter Is Still a Cunt (Historical Revisionism Edition):
(Note: Yes, "cunt." Now let's move along here...)
One may wonder why, oh, why, in the long sunset of her career of befouling the airwaves with the wretched perfume of racism, fascism, semen breath, and cigarettes, it's even relevant to take down Ann Coulter, the once-proud banner waver of complete bugfuckery on the right. Wielding her fake intellect like a blunt dildo that she writhes on until she's rendered her clit numb, Coulter is not only long past her due date, she's been dropping into the bottomless pit of irrelevancy for a few years as she sees herself eclipsed by the Cupps and Loesches and whatever other shiny dipshits they can shove in front of a camera to say vile things.
Here's the deal, sweet liberals: What she says is still often a bellwether for the blathering you'll hear from the nutzoid mutants running around in Congress now.
So, in her latest "column" (if by "column," you mean, "An unending stream of vomit fed into the mouths of insatiable idiots"), Coulter revises the last 50 or 60 years of American history in order to blame Democrats and/or liberals for every bad foreign policy decision the country has bumblefucked into. Now, the Rude Pundit could go through it and offer factual rebuttals or nuance to her dull cudgel of cherry-picked information. Like, say, when Coulter offers, "Nixon came in and honorably ended the Democrats' disastrous handling of the Vietnam War by signing the Paris Peace Accords in January 1973." Now, one might ask, "If Nixon was so hot to end the war, why did it take him four years to do it?" Or perhaps one might mention that the protests against the war had a mighty effect. Or maybe one could bring up the illegal attack on Cambodia.
But that's playing on her field. And you're never gonna win when you've got an opponent who lives on gin and chewing gum.
Instead, let's use a picture to show what a fucking liar this fucking cunt is. Coulter scrawls about Iran, "By giving Islamic fanatics their first nation-state, [Jimmy] Carter produced the global Islamofascist movement we're still dealing with today." And then she blows Reagan's corpse because he "destroyed the Soviet Union."
To that, the Rude Pundit offers this:
That's Saint Reagan meeting with what he and the right wingers referred to as Afghan "freedom fighters," the Mujahideen. Jimmy Carter used the CIA to help arm them just before their war with the Soviet Union started in 1979. Then Reagan upped the amount of aid for a proxy war with the Soviets, all part of the "Reagan Doctrine" of hating on the USSR.
Oh, the Mujahideen? After the war was over, some of them became terrorists known as "al-Qaeda." And, boy, did they have some cool weapons to play with. The kindest interpretation you can give is that Reagan used Afghanistan in order to bankrupt the Soviet Union. But even under that fantasy, you'd be hard-pressed to deny that 9/11 happened because of Ronald Reagan.
Coulter wants history to be so fucking easy. Attack Clinton over Somalia but leave out Kosovo. Say that Obama withdrew the troops from Iraq on his own when, really, the Iraqi government kicked us out. We on the left read Coulter and scoff and humph and wonder who the fuck could be so fucking stupid as to believe this bullshit that's as obvious as actual shit from a bull in the middle of your dining room.
But the truth is that too many Americans want to walk up to Coulter and take a deep whiff of her ass leavings because, really, if they don't, then they'd have to face reality, that their deepest held beliefs about the innate evil of the left and the innate greatness of the right are just the greatest joke ever played on them.
(Note again: If any of you poor, poor dears are offended by the use of the word "cunt," here is how Coulter concludes about the Iraq war: "The Iraq War turned every Middle Eastern despot into President Bush's bitch. But now Obama is their bitch. " What word would you use for her?)
(Note: Yes, "cunt." Now let's move along here...)
One may wonder why, oh, why, in the long sunset of her career of befouling the airwaves with the wretched perfume of racism, fascism, semen breath, and cigarettes, it's even relevant to take down Ann Coulter, the once-proud banner waver of complete bugfuckery on the right. Wielding her fake intellect like a blunt dildo that she writhes on until she's rendered her clit numb, Coulter is not only long past her due date, she's been dropping into the bottomless pit of irrelevancy for a few years as she sees herself eclipsed by the Cupps and Loesches and whatever other shiny dipshits they can shove in front of a camera to say vile things.
Here's the deal, sweet liberals: What she says is still often a bellwether for the blathering you'll hear from the nutzoid mutants running around in Congress now.
So, in her latest "column" (if by "column," you mean, "An unending stream of vomit fed into the mouths of insatiable idiots"), Coulter revises the last 50 or 60 years of American history in order to blame Democrats and/or liberals for every bad foreign policy decision the country has bumblefucked into. Now, the Rude Pundit could go through it and offer factual rebuttals or nuance to her dull cudgel of cherry-picked information. Like, say, when Coulter offers, "Nixon came in and honorably ended the Democrats' disastrous handling of the Vietnam War by signing the Paris Peace Accords in January 1973." Now, one might ask, "If Nixon was so hot to end the war, why did it take him four years to do it?" Or perhaps one might mention that the protests against the war had a mighty effect. Or maybe one could bring up the illegal attack on Cambodia.
But that's playing on her field. And you're never gonna win when you've got an opponent who lives on gin and chewing gum.
Instead, let's use a picture to show what a fucking liar this fucking cunt is. Coulter scrawls about Iran, "By giving Islamic fanatics their first nation-state, [Jimmy] Carter produced the global Islamofascist movement we're still dealing with today." And then she blows Reagan's corpse because he "destroyed the Soviet Union."
To that, the Rude Pundit offers this:
That's Saint Reagan meeting with what he and the right wingers referred to as Afghan "freedom fighters," the Mujahideen. Jimmy Carter used the CIA to help arm them just before their war with the Soviet Union started in 1979. Then Reagan upped the amount of aid for a proxy war with the Soviets, all part of the "Reagan Doctrine" of hating on the USSR.
Oh, the Mujahideen? After the war was over, some of them became terrorists known as "al-Qaeda." And, boy, did they have some cool weapons to play with. The kindest interpretation you can give is that Reagan used Afghanistan in order to bankrupt the Soviet Union. But even under that fantasy, you'd be hard-pressed to deny that 9/11 happened because of Ronald Reagan.
Coulter wants history to be so fucking easy. Attack Clinton over Somalia but leave out Kosovo. Say that Obama withdrew the troops from Iraq on his own when, really, the Iraqi government kicked us out. We on the left read Coulter and scoff and humph and wonder who the fuck could be so fucking stupid as to believe this bullshit that's as obvious as actual shit from a bull in the middle of your dining room.
But the truth is that too many Americans want to walk up to Coulter and take a deep whiff of her ass leavings because, really, if they don't, then they'd have to face reality, that their deepest held beliefs about the innate evil of the left and the innate greatness of the right are just the greatest joke ever played on them.
(Note again: If any of you poor, poor dears are offended by the use of the word "cunt," here is how Coulter concludes about the Iraq war: "The Iraq War turned every Middle Eastern despot into President Bush's bitch. But now Obama is their bitch. " What word would you use for her?)
10/22/2009
Why Ann Coulter Is a Cunt, Part 45,307 (with a Note on Fox "news" Biases):
You know how you know you've become completely and utterly irrelevant as a writer? When you're still arguing a twenty year-old point. For in her latest "column" (if by "column," you mean, "a neo-Norma Desmond's diary of utter madness"), Ann Coulter re-re-re-re-argues the Willie Horton ad from the Bush the Less Stupid vs. Dukakis campaign of 1988. Why? Because Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews said it first. No, seriously, Coulter, who is at this point just a twig-shaped dildo specially designed to fit Sean Hannity's ass, spends half her weekly column on her spin on the "facts" of the Horton case only because Olbermann and Matthews mentioned it in passing while discussing Fox "news" and its anti-Obama bias.
The Rude Pundit won't waste time and space to dispute Coulter's ranting except to say this: At this point, twenty years on, at least be honest about it. Coulter says, "The Bush campaign commercial about Dukakis' furlough program never showed a picture of Horton. In fact, the actors playing 'criminals' passing through a revolving door in the ad were all white" (screeching emphasis is all Ann). The problem is that when people say, "Willie Horton ad," as Olbermann and Matthews did, they're not referring to the Bush campaign's revolving door ad, which doesn't mention Willie Horton. No, they're more than likely referring to the Willie Horton ad, the ad that's about Willie Horton, that features two pictures of Willie Horton. (If she were a real writer or if her syndicate gave a shit about anything but the meager bit of cash she still brings them, it's really the kind of factual error that demands a correction.)
But it's pathetic, really, truly, in a "Look at the rabbits, Lenny" kind of way, how now, with Ted Kennedy dead and the Chappaquiddick arrows gone, Coulter's quiver of reference points is getting emptier and emptier. All she's really got left is passive aggressive Bill Clinton sex remarks. Reading her columns these days, now that she's been out-batshitted by Glenn Beck and out-babed by Sarah Palin, is not unlike listening to a toothless meth addicted woman at a bar tell you how hot she used to be and won't you please let her suck your dick for a dollar.
Coulter was ostensibly writing about how Fox "news" is not really biased against the Obama administration. She says, "The Obama administration has attacked Fox News in order to prevent government corruption stories broken on Fox from bleeding into the other media, which are all-consumed with daily updates on Levi Johnston's Playgirl spread and Carrie Prejean's breast implants." It's almost depressingly obvious to say that, according to Nexis, while CNN actually did have stories air repeatedly (mostly the same report) on those topics, MSNBC and Fox had the same amount on Johnston, and Fox had more stories than MSNBC on Prejean's tits.
Regarding this whole kerfuffle over whether the White House saying that Fox "news" isn't really a news outlet, but a propaganda wing of the Republican Party, was this up for discussion? Considering what whiny little bitches Fox people have been about the whole thing, it's pretty damn hilarious that what the Obama administration ended up revealing is not that the President has thin skin. No, it showed that Fox and its hosts and reporters and, by extension, Rupert Murdoch are faux bullies: one little nudge and these pussies go running around telling everyone that they were pushed down.
By the way, the fucking strangest thing in Coulter's column? This description of Daily Kos's founder: "Frito Bandito-accented Markos Moulitsas." Not even remotely true. Criticize away on Markos. Hell, have at it as racist as you like, if that's your thing. But at least pretend like you're actually listening. Oh, wait, that's right. Facts are to Ann Coulter as coyote piss is to deer.
You know how you know you've become completely and utterly irrelevant as a writer? When you're still arguing a twenty year-old point. For in her latest "column" (if by "column," you mean, "a neo-Norma Desmond's diary of utter madness"), Ann Coulter re-re-re-re-argues the Willie Horton ad from the Bush the Less Stupid vs. Dukakis campaign of 1988. Why? Because Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews said it first. No, seriously, Coulter, who is at this point just a twig-shaped dildo specially designed to fit Sean Hannity's ass, spends half her weekly column on her spin on the "facts" of the Horton case only because Olbermann and Matthews mentioned it in passing while discussing Fox "news" and its anti-Obama bias.
The Rude Pundit won't waste time and space to dispute Coulter's ranting except to say this: At this point, twenty years on, at least be honest about it. Coulter says, "The Bush campaign commercial about Dukakis' furlough program never showed a picture of Horton. In fact, the actors playing 'criminals' passing through a revolving door in the ad were all white" (screeching emphasis is all Ann). The problem is that when people say, "Willie Horton ad," as Olbermann and Matthews did, they're not referring to the Bush campaign's revolving door ad, which doesn't mention Willie Horton. No, they're more than likely referring to the Willie Horton ad, the ad that's about Willie Horton, that features two pictures of Willie Horton. (If she were a real writer or if her syndicate gave a shit about anything but the meager bit of cash she still brings them, it's really the kind of factual error that demands a correction.)
But it's pathetic, really, truly, in a "Look at the rabbits, Lenny" kind of way, how now, with Ted Kennedy dead and the Chappaquiddick arrows gone, Coulter's quiver of reference points is getting emptier and emptier. All she's really got left is passive aggressive Bill Clinton sex remarks. Reading her columns these days, now that she's been out-batshitted by Glenn Beck and out-babed by Sarah Palin, is not unlike listening to a toothless meth addicted woman at a bar tell you how hot she used to be and won't you please let her suck your dick for a dollar.
Coulter was ostensibly writing about how Fox "news" is not really biased against the Obama administration. She says, "The Obama administration has attacked Fox News in order to prevent government corruption stories broken on Fox from bleeding into the other media, which are all-consumed with daily updates on Levi Johnston's Playgirl spread and Carrie Prejean's breast implants." It's almost depressingly obvious to say that, according to Nexis, while CNN actually did have stories air repeatedly (mostly the same report) on those topics, MSNBC and Fox had the same amount on Johnston, and Fox had more stories than MSNBC on Prejean's tits.
Regarding this whole kerfuffle over whether the White House saying that Fox "news" isn't really a news outlet, but a propaganda wing of the Republican Party, was this up for discussion? Considering what whiny little bitches Fox people have been about the whole thing, it's pretty damn hilarious that what the Obama administration ended up revealing is not that the President has thin skin. No, it showed that Fox and its hosts and reporters and, by extension, Rupert Murdoch are faux bullies: one little nudge and these pussies go running around telling everyone that they were pushed down.
By the way, the fucking strangest thing in Coulter's column? This description of Daily Kos's founder: "Frito Bandito-accented Markos Moulitsas." Not even remotely true. Criticize away on Markos. Hell, have at it as racist as you like, if that's your thing. But at least pretend like you're actually listening. Oh, wait, that's right. Facts are to Ann Coulter as coyote piss is to deer.
3/06/2007
More CPAC, More Ann Coulter, From a Conventioneer:
The Rude Pundit was on the phone last night with a Republican CPAC attendee (really) who wished to remain anonymous. So, for shits and giggles, let's call this CPACa "Johnny." Johnny was at the big fuckin' orgasm of right wing jouissance known as the CPAC convention. It's always odd to hear someone not on TV or talk radio, but who is ostensibly a real, live person spouting Republican talking points as their real, live beliefs, but Johnny was all about the conservative agenda. Here's a few tidbits Johnny shared with the Rude Pundit - if anyone wants to confirm or deny this stuff, you know how to get in touch:
Ann Coulter had to be whisked away from her book-signing after someone barged through the line to take close-up flash photos of her. Her bodyguards stepped in, fearful perhaps that someone might not take the "raghead" and "faggot"-spouting cunt queen of the right as a comedian. The line of 300 or so slavering Coulteristas were left holding their sticky volumes of Godless without receiving Coulter's inky stamp of approval.
Johnny was upset at Coulter, saying that all anyone outside the conference would take from the gathering was that Ann Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot." Unlike last year, though, Johnny didn't see anyone walk out on Coulter's speech. The Rude Pundit told Johnny, "Coulter's there to draw fire. That way other conservatives can say pretty harsh shit but they have Coulter to hide behind and say, 'Well, I didn't say "faggot."'" Actually, what the Rude Pundit should have said was that if it hadn't been for Coulter, no one outside the conference and Blogsylvania would have given a happy monkey fuck about the damn thing.
Johnny said that the general feeling about homosexuals was that they've lost their mojo as a big damn bugaboo. Mostly, people talked about the economy and security as issues they cared about. In other words, "reality" is setting into the right wing, even as Coulter slams the flap of the big tent shut.
Other random things Johnny told the Rude Pundit:
The panel that most impressed Johnny included David Horowitz and Tom DeLay talking about imitating the Democrats' 50-state strategy for grassroots campaigning. That would be the same panel whose very existence gives the Rude Pundit night sweats.
The Iraq war was seen as a fine pursuit, perhaps a little badly run, but, in general, well worth the expense (and, you know, the death and the maiming), and they'll be goddamned if we're gonna leave before "the job is done."
Oh, and George Bush? Well, Johnny said that conservatives are upset at how Bush spends money like a meth addict in a Sudafed store, but they're still supporting the President. Just not, you know, out loud.
Now enough of this bullshit. It's time to get back to real issues, like Walter Reed, U.S. Attorneys, and the fact that, as the Rude Pundit's said before, prison's gonna be hard on a man who lets other men call him "Scooter," especially when his last name is a brand of canned fruit.
The Rude Pundit was on the phone last night with a Republican CPAC attendee (really) who wished to remain anonymous. So, for shits and giggles, let's call this CPACa "Johnny." Johnny was at the big fuckin' orgasm of right wing jouissance known as the CPAC convention. It's always odd to hear someone not on TV or talk radio, but who is ostensibly a real, live person spouting Republican talking points as their real, live beliefs, but Johnny was all about the conservative agenda. Here's a few tidbits Johnny shared with the Rude Pundit - if anyone wants to confirm or deny this stuff, you know how to get in touch:
Ann Coulter had to be whisked away from her book-signing after someone barged through the line to take close-up flash photos of her. Her bodyguards stepped in, fearful perhaps that someone might not take the "raghead" and "faggot"-spouting cunt queen of the right as a comedian. The line of 300 or so slavering Coulteristas were left holding their sticky volumes of Godless without receiving Coulter's inky stamp of approval.
Johnny was upset at Coulter, saying that all anyone outside the conference would take from the gathering was that Ann Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot." Unlike last year, though, Johnny didn't see anyone walk out on Coulter's speech. The Rude Pundit told Johnny, "Coulter's there to draw fire. That way other conservatives can say pretty harsh shit but they have Coulter to hide behind and say, 'Well, I didn't say "faggot."'" Actually, what the Rude Pundit should have said was that if it hadn't been for Coulter, no one outside the conference and Blogsylvania would have given a happy monkey fuck about the damn thing.
Johnny said that the general feeling about homosexuals was that they've lost their mojo as a big damn bugaboo. Mostly, people talked about the economy and security as issues they cared about. In other words, "reality" is setting into the right wing, even as Coulter slams the flap of the big tent shut.
Other random things Johnny told the Rude Pundit:
The panel that most impressed Johnny included David Horowitz and Tom DeLay talking about imitating the Democrats' 50-state strategy for grassroots campaigning. That would be the same panel whose very existence gives the Rude Pundit night sweats.
The Iraq war was seen as a fine pursuit, perhaps a little badly run, but, in general, well worth the expense (and, you know, the death and the maiming), and they'll be goddamned if we're gonna leave before "the job is done."
Oh, and George Bush? Well, Johnny said that conservatives are upset at how Bush spends money like a meth addict in a Sudafed store, but they're still supporting the President. Just not, you know, out loud.
Now enough of this bullshit. It's time to get back to real issues, like Walter Reed, U.S. Attorneys, and the fact that, as the Rude Pundit's said before, prison's gonna be hard on a man who lets other men call him "Scooter," especially when his last name is a brand of canned fruit.
7/07/2006
How Defending Ann Coulter Is Like Defending a Serial Killer:
When historian Doris Kearns Goodwin was accused of plagiarism for her 1987 book The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys, fifteen years after its publication, her early defense was her "extensive" research and citations. Ann Coulter's publisher, Crown, is making the same case, saying that Coulter's book Godless has "19 pages of endnotes."
And it's true, oh, so true. There's endnotes upon endnotes in this heinously awful collection of Coulter's columns strung together by the mucus of venomous spittle. Man, you couldn't even begin to check all these endnotes, nor would you, because, you know, you expect that an editor or, say, a publisher would have checked all this before. In her last "book," Slander, Coulter couldn't talk enough about how the thing was filthy with endnotes, which, she and others asserted, made it all valid and true and right. The fact-checkers out there can address what will inevitably turn out to be a mind-bogglingly random tossing of sources in at the end of Godless.
The problem, of course, is not what's cited. As Goodwin learned, it's not what you cite that makes you a plagiarist. It's what you don't cite. And, really, open up just about any random page in Godless, and, sure enough, there'll be uncited information, which, while not the word-for-word plagiarism that gets everyone all hard and ready to ejaculate at the book burning, is still sloppy and just objectively (you heard the Rude Pundit: "objectively") wrong.
Like, for instance, pages 204 and 205, in her chapter where Coulter supposedly disproves evolution. She summarizes and quotes from Michael Behe's evolution-questioning book Darwin's Black Box, yet her endnotes contain not a single mention of Behe's book. One might assume she never actually read Behe's difficult work. Then she quotes two evolution-supporting biolgists, Tom Cavalier-Smith and Robert Dorit, who "concede Behe's point." Yet, again, she offers no citation for these quotes. Could it be because what she's actually doing is quoting Behe quoting them from an article first published at the creationist Discovery Institute's website?
The entire book has page after page of uncited material, no matter how much she actually cites stuff elsewhere. To say that her endnotes prove her innocence is not unlike saying that the guy next door went his whole life without killing anyone until he blew a brain gasket and went on a ten-state hobo-stabbing spree. Crown Publishing is full of shit and knows it (unless you wanna publish a book by the Rude Pundit; then let's do lunch - you know how to get in touch), trying to protect a cash cow from being gutted. And it doesn't matter if it's just negligence or active theft and obfuscation. Coulter appears on television and is treated like an expert whose opinion is at least vaguely informed by more than a desire to keep appearing on television. (For, indeed, Coulter is the crack whore of the news networks.) Every network gives her the imprimatur of being knowledgeable.
So why has the Rude Pundit spent so much time on Coulter's plagiarism when there's so many other more important issues out there? Simple enough: because it's fun. And in the midst of summertime, we can all agree that a little bit o' fun is a good thing, especially if the end result is something positive, like daily jogs on the beach'll help you get rid of that spare tire or that tearing down Ann Coulter will make the United States a much more pleasant place.
When historian Doris Kearns Goodwin was accused of plagiarism for her 1987 book The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys, fifteen years after its publication, her early defense was her "extensive" research and citations. Ann Coulter's publisher, Crown, is making the same case, saying that Coulter's book Godless has "19 pages of endnotes."
And it's true, oh, so true. There's endnotes upon endnotes in this heinously awful collection of Coulter's columns strung together by the mucus of venomous spittle. Man, you couldn't even begin to check all these endnotes, nor would you, because, you know, you expect that an editor or, say, a publisher would have checked all this before. In her last "book," Slander, Coulter couldn't talk enough about how the thing was filthy with endnotes, which, she and others asserted, made it all valid and true and right. The fact-checkers out there can address what will inevitably turn out to be a mind-bogglingly random tossing of sources in at the end of Godless.
The problem, of course, is not what's cited. As Goodwin learned, it's not what you cite that makes you a plagiarist. It's what you don't cite. And, really, open up just about any random page in Godless, and, sure enough, there'll be uncited information, which, while not the word-for-word plagiarism that gets everyone all hard and ready to ejaculate at the book burning, is still sloppy and just objectively (you heard the Rude Pundit: "objectively") wrong.
Like, for instance, pages 204 and 205, in her chapter where Coulter supposedly disproves evolution. She summarizes and quotes from Michael Behe's evolution-questioning book Darwin's Black Box, yet her endnotes contain not a single mention of Behe's book. One might assume she never actually read Behe's difficult work. Then she quotes two evolution-supporting biolgists, Tom Cavalier-Smith and Robert Dorit, who "concede Behe's point." Yet, again, she offers no citation for these quotes. Could it be because what she's actually doing is quoting Behe quoting them from an article first published at the creationist Discovery Institute's website?
The entire book has page after page of uncited material, no matter how much she actually cites stuff elsewhere. To say that her endnotes prove her innocence is not unlike saying that the guy next door went his whole life without killing anyone until he blew a brain gasket and went on a ten-state hobo-stabbing spree. Crown Publishing is full of shit and knows it (unless you wanna publish a book by the Rude Pundit; then let's do lunch - you know how to get in touch), trying to protect a cash cow from being gutted. And it doesn't matter if it's just negligence or active theft and obfuscation. Coulter appears on television and is treated like an expert whose opinion is at least vaguely informed by more than a desire to keep appearing on television. (For, indeed, Coulter is the crack whore of the news networks.) Every network gives her the imprimatur of being knowledgeable.
So why has the Rude Pundit spent so much time on Coulter's plagiarism when there's so many other more important issues out there? Simple enough: because it's fun. And in the midst of summertime, we can all agree that a little bit o' fun is a good thing, especially if the end result is something positive, like daily jogs on the beach'll help you get rid of that spare tire or that tearing down Ann Coulter will make the United States a much more pleasant place.
6/13/2006
Ann Coulter Hurts The Rude Pundit's Brain:
Here's one sentence from page 95 of Ann Coulter's "book," Godless, defending Judge Charles Pickering: "In 1966, he testified against Klan member Sam Bowers, on trial for murdering civil rights activist Vernon Damer."
Here's the transcript of a 60 Minutes profile of Pickering: "Back in 1966, after civil rights activist Vernon Damer was killed by a firebomb, and notorious Klan leader Sam Bowers was charged with the murder, Pickering, then prosecutor in a nearby county, testified that Bowers had a reputation for violence."
The problem here is not plagiarism as much as it's just more cut and paste stupidity. Why? Because, see, for one thing, Bowers was charged with the 1966 killing of Vernon Dahmer and Pickering testified in 1967. But since Coulter's just taking it all from the 60 Minutes profile, which she doesn't cite until two pages and two footnotes later, she simply copies the exact same errors that CBS made.
Is this minor league shit? No. It's a constant pattern that, in a very objective, non-ideological way, ought to discredit Coulter. None of what the Rude Pundit is saying has to do with what Coulter believes or the strange way she scrawls her mad rantings in her own feces. And it's giving the Rude Pundit a fuckin' headache.
Like, for instance, Coulter "writes," "In a 1996 Los Angeles Times poll, 27 percent of respondents said they were more likely to vote for Bush because he was pro-life, but only 18 percent said they were more likely to vote for Al Gore because he was pro-choice." Now one could say the problem here is that nowhere in the entire chapter does Coulter offer a citation for this info and more from the poll. However, instead, howzabout this: umm, that'd be the year "2000." That ain't a typo. A typo would be "2020" or "3000." And this ain't about "de-bunking" or some such bullshit. She's just wrong. Objectively, demonstrably, factually wrong. On the simplest level. Oh, and it also ain't nitpicking to say that getting names and dates right might be important in a "book."
Again, this is just from glancing at the "book." No real effort required other than an ability to Google.
When the Rude Pundit purchased Coulter's "book," he went to an out of the way megastore where he could be anonymous. He asked for a paper bag so no one could see what he was carrying. He's been less discreet about buying lesbian porn mags. In fact, when he got it home, the Rude Pundit took the Coulter cover off and wrapped it in a copy of Chicks With Dicks. He'd rather people think that he jacks off to she-males than that he reads Ann Coulter.
Here's one sentence from page 95 of Ann Coulter's "book," Godless, defending Judge Charles Pickering: "In 1966, he testified against Klan member Sam Bowers, on trial for murdering civil rights activist Vernon Damer."
Here's the transcript of a 60 Minutes profile of Pickering: "Back in 1966, after civil rights activist Vernon Damer was killed by a firebomb, and notorious Klan leader Sam Bowers was charged with the murder, Pickering, then prosecutor in a nearby county, testified that Bowers had a reputation for violence."
The problem here is not plagiarism as much as it's just more cut and paste stupidity. Why? Because, see, for one thing, Bowers was charged with the 1966 killing of Vernon Dahmer and Pickering testified in 1967. But since Coulter's just taking it all from the 60 Minutes profile, which she doesn't cite until two pages and two footnotes later, she simply copies the exact same errors that CBS made.
Is this minor league shit? No. It's a constant pattern that, in a very objective, non-ideological way, ought to discredit Coulter. None of what the Rude Pundit is saying has to do with what Coulter believes or the strange way she scrawls her mad rantings in her own feces. And it's giving the Rude Pundit a fuckin' headache.
Like, for instance, Coulter "writes," "In a 1996 Los Angeles Times poll, 27 percent of respondents said they were more likely to vote for Bush because he was pro-life, but only 18 percent said they were more likely to vote for Al Gore because he was pro-choice." Now one could say the problem here is that nowhere in the entire chapter does Coulter offer a citation for this info and more from the poll. However, instead, howzabout this: umm, that'd be the year "2000." That ain't a typo. A typo would be "2020" or "3000." And this ain't about "de-bunking" or some such bullshit. She's just wrong. Objectively, demonstrably, factually wrong. On the simplest level. Oh, and it also ain't nitpicking to say that getting names and dates right might be important in a "book."
Again, this is just from glancing at the "book." No real effort required other than an ability to Google.
When the Rude Pundit purchased Coulter's "book," he went to an out of the way megastore where he could be anonymous. He asked for a paper bag so no one could see what he was carrying. He's been less discreet about buying lesbian porn mags. In fact, when he got it home, the Rude Pundit took the Coulter cover off and wrapped it in a copy of Chicks With Dicks. He'd rather people think that he jacks off to she-males than that he reads Ann Coulter.
6/09/2006
Because Some Things Are More Profane Than Profanity - Ann Coulter's Possible Plagiarism (Updated June 14 With Links To More Examples):
Here's the segment of yesterday's post on Ann Coulter that deserves more attention. If you want the full double-barrel of anti-Coulter rudeness, you can still check it out. But for those with delicate constitutions who want to take Coulter down, here ya go:
Ann Coulter has a bad habit. And that habit, as mentioned before by the Rude Pundit (followed up by Raw Story), is that she appears to like to copy whole sentences from other sources without putting them in as quotes or even citing where she might have "paraphrased" from. You judge for yourself:
Here's Coulter from Chapter 1 of Godless: The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River in Maine, was halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant previously believed to be extinct.
Here's the Portland Press Herald, from the year 2000, in its list of the "Maine Stories of the Century": The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River, is halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant believed to be extinct.
Strangely similar, no? By the way, that's a story from 1976. Coulter doesn't tell you that little tidbit, making you think it happened last week. The next one's from 1977:
Here's Coulter writing about an attack on the Alaska pipeline: A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil.
Here's something from the History Channel: The only major oil spill on land occurred when an unknown saboteur blew a hole in the pipe near Fairbanks, and 550,000 gallons of oil spilled onto the ground.
Why, in this age of the "terrorist," would Coulter use "saboteur," a quaint term, to be sure? Could it be a cut and paste job with a couple of words changed, like a good college freshman?
So you judge. Sure, it's just two incidents in a single chapter. But does it speak to other potential strange similarities throughout the book? Is it plagiarism? The Rude Pundit's not saying it is plagiarism, but he's not saying it's not. How harshly would Coulter judge a liberal writer for doing the same? Or would she have to be silent?
Update: Looking for more examples? Check out the Rude Pundit on June 14 and an article from Raw Story.
Here's the segment of yesterday's post on Ann Coulter that deserves more attention. If you want the full double-barrel of anti-Coulter rudeness, you can still check it out. But for those with delicate constitutions who want to take Coulter down, here ya go:
Ann Coulter has a bad habit. And that habit, as mentioned before by the Rude Pundit (followed up by Raw Story), is that she appears to like to copy whole sentences from other sources without putting them in as quotes or even citing where she might have "paraphrased" from. You judge for yourself:
Here's Coulter from Chapter 1 of Godless: The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River in Maine, was halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant previously believed to be extinct.
Here's the Portland Press Herald, from the year 2000, in its list of the "Maine Stories of the Century": The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River, is halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant believed to be extinct.
Strangely similar, no? By the way, that's a story from 1976. Coulter doesn't tell you that little tidbit, making you think it happened last week. The next one's from 1977:
Here's Coulter writing about an attack on the Alaska pipeline: A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil.
Here's something from the History Channel: The only major oil spill on land occurred when an unknown saboteur blew a hole in the pipe near Fairbanks, and 550,000 gallons of oil spilled onto the ground.
Why, in this age of the "terrorist," would Coulter use "saboteur," a quaint term, to be sure? Could it be a cut and paste job with a couple of words changed, like a good college freshman?
So you judge. Sure, it's just two incidents in a single chapter. But does it speak to other potential strange similarities throughout the book? Is it plagiarism? The Rude Pundit's not saying it is plagiarism, but he's not saying it's not. How harshly would Coulter judge a liberal writer for doing the same? Or would she have to be silent?
Update: Looking for more examples? Check out the Rude Pundit on June 14 and an article from Raw Story.
8/08/2013
Why Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly Are Cunts (Racism and Sexism Edition):
In her latest "column" (if by "column," you mean "the skidmarks of the unclean soul"), Ann Coulter defends Bill O'Reilly from Lawrence O'Donnell, which, if you think about it, is a little like Rodan defending Godzilla from a Tokyo tank attack (interesting, "Tokyo tank attack" is one of the Rude Pundit's favorite new sexual positions, involving an asshole, a speculum, two mutually masturbating Japanese men and...well, do the math). See, O'Reilly said, shortly after the verdict acquitting George Zimmerman of murdering Trayvon Martin despite the fact that George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Marton, that single black mothers are to blame for violent crime by black youths.
Thus spaketh O'Reilly: "White people don't force black people to have babies out of wedlock. That's a personal decision -- a decision that has devastated millions of children and led to disaster both socially and economically. So raised without much structure, young black men often reject education and gravitate towards the street culture, drugs, hustling, gangs. Nobody forces them to do that -- again, it is a personal decision." At this point, to say that Bill O'Reilly says something ignorant and racist is like saying that Bill O'Reilly took a breath. Oh, and O'Reilly also blames the entertainment industry for making thugs look glamorous, which is something they totally never did in the salad days of Jimmy Cagney flicks.
Never one to let a blatantly hateful statement go unsupported, Coulter praises O'Reilly for speaking truth. She gives a bunch of history and statistics about how Lyndon Johnson ruined everything, lines that are just cut and paste jobs from her latest book (no, really, self-plagiarism is how she "writes" "her" "columns" and gets paid for them). She scratches, "Liberals keep using the bad consequences of their policies as an argument for more of the same policies. Government subsidies to unwed mothers increase the illegitimacy rate, which in turn leads to poverty, criminal behavior and more illegitimacy. So Democrats reverse cause and effect to claim it's the poverty that causes illegitimacy and then demand more payments to unwed mothers."
And O'Reilly concludes, "The solution to the epidemic of violent crime in poor black neighborhoods is to actively discourage pregnancies out of marriage, to impose strict discipline in the public schools, including mandatory student uniforms, and to create a zero tolerance policy for gun and drug crimes imposing harsh mandatory prison time on the offenders." Of course, the notion of institutional and societal racism having an effect here is completely lost on these conservative cockbiters.
Now you may be sane and think, "These two stupid fuckers are missing something big. But I can't put my finger on it."
Coulter says, "We know poverty does not cause illegitimacy." That's an argument you can have with Coulter if you enjoy chasing your tail around a tree. But here's the deal: we do know what prevents illegitimacy - sex education, access to birth control, and abortion.
Follow the bouncing ball of blatant obviousness here: If we take Coulter and O'Reilly at their word, then what would make for lower crime rates? Fewer criminals, all those bastards born to those wretched black single moms. And what would ensure that fewer babies are born? Well, shit, start with honest sex education, the kind that O'Reilly and Coulter oppose. Move on to access to birth control - at school or at, you know, Planned Parenthood - which O'Reilly and Coulter oppose. And if all else fails, make sure that women with unwanted children can get safe abortions, which O'Reilly and Coulter oppose, paid for by Medicaid, which would cause O'Reilly and Coulter's heads to explode like so many melons under Gallagher's novelty sledgehammer.
It's a cruel calculus, for sure, but it's only so for playing on the nutzoid right-wingers' field. Shit, Coulter says the solution is to go back to a time when women were required to have husbands in order to qualify for welfare. So who is being crueler? (Answer: Coulter.)
Oh, by the way, you know the other effect that the sex-ed/birth control/abortion axis of access would have? Many, many empowered black women not held back by unwanted children, which probably would cause O'Reilly and Coulter to head to the Fox "news" panic room to wait out the horrors, balling madly and frantically until Coulter, like a female praying mantis, bites O'Reilly's head off.
In her latest "column" (if by "column," you mean "the skidmarks of the unclean soul"), Ann Coulter defends Bill O'Reilly from Lawrence O'Donnell, which, if you think about it, is a little like Rodan defending Godzilla from a Tokyo tank attack (interesting, "Tokyo tank attack" is one of the Rude Pundit's favorite new sexual positions, involving an asshole, a speculum, two mutually masturbating Japanese men and...well, do the math). See, O'Reilly said, shortly after the verdict acquitting George Zimmerman of murdering Trayvon Martin despite the fact that George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Marton, that single black mothers are to blame for violent crime by black youths.
Thus spaketh O'Reilly: "White people don't force black people to have babies out of wedlock. That's a personal decision -- a decision that has devastated millions of children and led to disaster both socially and economically. So raised without much structure, young black men often reject education and gravitate towards the street culture, drugs, hustling, gangs. Nobody forces them to do that -- again, it is a personal decision." At this point, to say that Bill O'Reilly says something ignorant and racist is like saying that Bill O'Reilly took a breath. Oh, and O'Reilly also blames the entertainment industry for making thugs look glamorous, which is something they totally never did in the salad days of Jimmy Cagney flicks.
Never one to let a blatantly hateful statement go unsupported, Coulter praises O'Reilly for speaking truth. She gives a bunch of history and statistics about how Lyndon Johnson ruined everything, lines that are just cut and paste jobs from her latest book (no, really, self-plagiarism is how she "writes" "her" "columns" and gets paid for them). She scratches, "Liberals keep using the bad consequences of their policies as an argument for more of the same policies. Government subsidies to unwed mothers increase the illegitimacy rate, which in turn leads to poverty, criminal behavior and more illegitimacy. So Democrats reverse cause and effect to claim it's the poverty that causes illegitimacy and then demand more payments to unwed mothers."
And O'Reilly concludes, "The solution to the epidemic of violent crime in poor black neighborhoods is to actively discourage pregnancies out of marriage, to impose strict discipline in the public schools, including mandatory student uniforms, and to create a zero tolerance policy for gun and drug crimes imposing harsh mandatory prison time on the offenders." Of course, the notion of institutional and societal racism having an effect here is completely lost on these conservative cockbiters.
Now you may be sane and think, "These two stupid fuckers are missing something big. But I can't put my finger on it."
Coulter says, "We know poverty does not cause illegitimacy." That's an argument you can have with Coulter if you enjoy chasing your tail around a tree. But here's the deal: we do know what prevents illegitimacy - sex education, access to birth control, and abortion.
Follow the bouncing ball of blatant obviousness here: If we take Coulter and O'Reilly at their word, then what would make for lower crime rates? Fewer criminals, all those bastards born to those wretched black single moms. And what would ensure that fewer babies are born? Well, shit, start with honest sex education, the kind that O'Reilly and Coulter oppose. Move on to access to birth control - at school or at, you know, Planned Parenthood - which O'Reilly and Coulter oppose. And if all else fails, make sure that women with unwanted children can get safe abortions, which O'Reilly and Coulter oppose, paid for by Medicaid, which would cause O'Reilly and Coulter's heads to explode like so many melons under Gallagher's novelty sledgehammer.
It's a cruel calculus, for sure, but it's only so for playing on the nutzoid right-wingers' field. Shit, Coulter says the solution is to go back to a time when women were required to have husbands in order to qualify for welfare. So who is being crueler? (Answer: Coulter.)
Oh, by the way, you know the other effect that the sex-ed/birth control/abortion axis of access would have? Many, many empowered black women not held back by unwanted children, which probably would cause O'Reilly and Coulter to head to the Fox "news" panic room to wait out the horrors, balling madly and frantically until Coulter, like a female praying mantis, bites O'Reilly's head off.
6/14/2006
More Ann Coulter Plagiarism (Updated):
(Relatively profanity-free for tender ears.)
The Rude Pundit has been investigating Ann Coulter's new "book" Godless for potential plagiarism, having discovered at least one rather textbook example and one suspicious simlarity in the first chapter. But, still and all, it didn't amount to much unless more parts of the book were shown to be plagiarized. So here ya go.
The Rude Pundit and Ron Brynaert of Raw Story are offering more examples of Coulter's loose belief in giving credit where credit is due if that credit is not hers. Brynaert's work will appear at Raw Story.
The following is from Coulter's chapter on the Willie Horton furlough case from the 1988 election campaign, following Coulter's belief that one should continue to fight battles that are decades old:
From page 66 of Godless: "Other murderers furloughed by Dukakis included Donald Robertson and Bradford Boyd. Robertson raped a ninety-three-year-old woman and her seventy-two-year-old daughter and then stamped on their chests so hard that he crushed their internal organs."
From an October 27, 1988 press conference with Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes and Cliff Barnes, who was nearly murdered by the furloughed Willie Horton, Barnes said: "Donald Robertson raped a 93-year-old woman and her 72-year-old daughter. Okay? After he raped them, he kicked them and beat them so bad, he crushed their chests and the internal organs in their chests."
Awfully damn similar, no? This next part is not direct plagiarism, but it's important nonetheless.
On page 66-67, Coulter finishes what she says about Robertson with this: "Despite being sentenced to two consecutive life terms, Robertson was released under Michael Dukakis's furlough program after only eight years in prison."
Barnes, in 1988, said: Robertson's "sentence was overturned to two life terms to serve consecutively, without the possibility of parole. Eight years later, he escaped on a weekend pass."
On page 67, Coulter continues: "Bradford Boyd was serving time for rape when he committed first-degree murder in prison. Still, he was furloughed. While out on furlough, he viciously beat a man, repeatedly raped a woman, and then killed himself."
Barnes, in the press conference continued: "Bradford Boyd was a convicted rapist and went to prison in Massachusetts. While in prison, in a controlled environment, behind locked doors with armed guards, committed first-degree murder in prison and that didn't preclude him from getting weekend passes. He went out, kidnapped -- he beat his sponsor and tied him up, with a gun -- beat him with a gun and tied him up, kidnapped a lady guest of the house, drug her off to some orphanage, and repeatedly raped her, and his final testimonial to suitability for the furlough program, blew his own brains out right beside her."
Now, here's the thing: Not only does Coulter blatantly cut and paste the first part, she also presents the exact same information in the exact same order as Barnes did back in 1988, including many directly quoted phrases, without citing anywhere the source for the information. As if it just appeared out of thin air. No footnotes. No mention in the text.
How do we know that Coulter took the information from that press conference, led by Alan Keyes' campaign manager William Kristol? Because there's only place between Google and Nexis that has the names "Bradford Boyd" and "Charles Robertson" in the same place: the Keyes press conference transcript.
Oh, and there's this: Coulter quotes Alan Keyes from the press conference. On page 71, citation-less, Coulter writes, "As Alan Keyes said, when Democrats 'look at Willie Horton they see a black man. When I look at him, I see a rapist and a murderer.'" The only place, again, in Google or Nexis that the quote appears is that press conference transcript. So Coulter had to have used the Alan Keyes press conference. And its mention is simply absent from Godless.
It would have been simple for Coulter to avoid even seeming like she plagiarized: a couple of quotation marks, one of those footnotes she's always bragging about. But she didn't. And she's either trying to steal so she can look smarter than she actually is or her work (and the work of her editors) is just damned sloppy or she just doesn't give a good goddamn and neither do the majority of her readers and the interviewers who keep inviting her to come on their shows to gurgle madly for a while.
Is Coulter committing plagiarism? Well, according to every definition of plagiarism - the use of ideas that are not your own without attribution - it sure seems like it. Hell, let's check out what Coulter's alma mater, Cornell University, says about plagiarism: In addition to direct quotation, it's "where you reproduce part or all of someone else’s idea in your own words (commonly known as paraphrasing), where you use or summarize someone else’s research, where you use facts or data that are not common knowledge, where you reproduce source material in slightly altered form while retaining the main idea or structure. Both direct and indirect citations require proper documentation."
The University of Michigan, where Coulter attended law school, says: "Plagiarism is representing someone else's ideas, words, statements or other works as one's own without proper acknowledgment or citation. Examples of plagiarism are: Copying word for word or lifting phrases or a special term from a source or reference without proper attribution. Paraphrasing: using another person's written words or ideas, albeit in one's own words, as if they were one's own thought. Borrowing facts, statistics, or other illustrative material without proper reference, unless the information is common knowledge, in common public use."
So in any college freshman class, Coulter would be given a failing grade and possibly ejected from the school for her acts. Is there any reason she shouldn't be held to the same standard for her books where she allegedly demonstrates her "expertise" in pulling together information to screech crazily about liberals? And if so much of what she wrote is so easily demonstrated to be plagiarism, why should anyone, of any political stripe, pay attention to the rest of it?
For Gawker and Scoop readers who may be returning here for more info, we can now say we're at Defcon Jacko.
When the story comes up, the Rude Pundit will link to it at Raw Story. Ron Brynaert has more fun examples.
Tomorrow: why all of this matters.
Extra bonus hypocrisy points: despite Coulter's condemnations of the 9/11 widows for getting involved in pushing for the 9/11 commission and endorsing John Kerry, she seems to have no problem with Cliff Barnes exploiting his personal tragedy to change the furlough program in Massachusetts, as well as campaigning with Republicans in 1988. (Barnes did not specifically endorse a candidate, but he did not appear with Democrats.)
Update: The first of several Raw Story articles is up. It spanks Coulter for nearly word-for-word plagiarism, without citation, of a pro-life website. Chances are, this list and its exact wording are not "common knowledge," as so many defenders of Coulter's "research" and "writing" methods wish to assert.
(Relatively profanity-free for tender ears.)
The Rude Pundit has been investigating Ann Coulter's new "book" Godless for potential plagiarism, having discovered at least one rather textbook example and one suspicious simlarity in the first chapter. But, still and all, it didn't amount to much unless more parts of the book were shown to be plagiarized. So here ya go.
The Rude Pundit and Ron Brynaert of Raw Story are offering more examples of Coulter's loose belief in giving credit where credit is due if that credit is not hers. Brynaert's work will appear at Raw Story.
The following is from Coulter's chapter on the Willie Horton furlough case from the 1988 election campaign, following Coulter's belief that one should continue to fight battles that are decades old:
From page 66 of Godless: "Other murderers furloughed by Dukakis included Donald Robertson and Bradford Boyd. Robertson raped a ninety-three-year-old woman and her seventy-two-year-old daughter and then stamped on their chests so hard that he crushed their internal organs."
From an October 27, 1988 press conference with Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes and Cliff Barnes, who was nearly murdered by the furloughed Willie Horton, Barnes said: "Donald Robertson raped a 93-year-old woman and her 72-year-old daughter. Okay? After he raped them, he kicked them and beat them so bad, he crushed their chests and the internal organs in their chests."
Awfully damn similar, no? This next part is not direct plagiarism, but it's important nonetheless.
On page 66-67, Coulter finishes what she says about Robertson with this: "Despite being sentenced to two consecutive life terms, Robertson was released under Michael Dukakis's furlough program after only eight years in prison."
Barnes, in 1988, said: Robertson's "sentence was overturned to two life terms to serve consecutively, without the possibility of parole. Eight years later, he escaped on a weekend pass."
On page 67, Coulter continues: "Bradford Boyd was serving time for rape when he committed first-degree murder in prison. Still, he was furloughed. While out on furlough, he viciously beat a man, repeatedly raped a woman, and then killed himself."
Barnes, in the press conference continued: "Bradford Boyd was a convicted rapist and went to prison in Massachusetts. While in prison, in a controlled environment, behind locked doors with armed guards, committed first-degree murder in prison and that didn't preclude him from getting weekend passes. He went out, kidnapped -- he beat his sponsor and tied him up, with a gun -- beat him with a gun and tied him up, kidnapped a lady guest of the house, drug her off to some orphanage, and repeatedly raped her, and his final testimonial to suitability for the furlough program, blew his own brains out right beside her."
Now, here's the thing: Not only does Coulter blatantly cut and paste the first part, she also presents the exact same information in the exact same order as Barnes did back in 1988, including many directly quoted phrases, without citing anywhere the source for the information. As if it just appeared out of thin air. No footnotes. No mention in the text.
How do we know that Coulter took the information from that press conference, led by Alan Keyes' campaign manager William Kristol? Because there's only place between Google and Nexis that has the names "Bradford Boyd" and "Charles Robertson" in the same place: the Keyes press conference transcript.
Oh, and there's this: Coulter quotes Alan Keyes from the press conference. On page 71, citation-less, Coulter writes, "As Alan Keyes said, when Democrats 'look at Willie Horton they see a black man. When I look at him, I see a rapist and a murderer.'" The only place, again, in Google or Nexis that the quote appears is that press conference transcript. So Coulter had to have used the Alan Keyes press conference. And its mention is simply absent from Godless.
It would have been simple for Coulter to avoid even seeming like she plagiarized: a couple of quotation marks, one of those footnotes she's always bragging about. But she didn't. And she's either trying to steal so she can look smarter than she actually is or her work (and the work of her editors) is just damned sloppy or she just doesn't give a good goddamn and neither do the majority of her readers and the interviewers who keep inviting her to come on their shows to gurgle madly for a while.
Is Coulter committing plagiarism? Well, according to every definition of plagiarism - the use of ideas that are not your own without attribution - it sure seems like it. Hell, let's check out what Coulter's alma mater, Cornell University, says about plagiarism: In addition to direct quotation, it's "where you reproduce part or all of someone else’s idea in your own words (commonly known as paraphrasing), where you use or summarize someone else’s research, where you use facts or data that are not common knowledge, where you reproduce source material in slightly altered form while retaining the main idea or structure. Both direct and indirect citations require proper documentation."
The University of Michigan, where Coulter attended law school, says: "Plagiarism is representing someone else's ideas, words, statements or other works as one's own without proper acknowledgment or citation. Examples of plagiarism are: Copying word for word or lifting phrases or a special term from a source or reference without proper attribution. Paraphrasing: using another person's written words or ideas, albeit in one's own words, as if they were one's own thought. Borrowing facts, statistics, or other illustrative material without proper reference, unless the information is common knowledge, in common public use."
So in any college freshman class, Coulter would be given a failing grade and possibly ejected from the school for her acts. Is there any reason she shouldn't be held to the same standard for her books where she allegedly demonstrates her "expertise" in pulling together information to screech crazily about liberals? And if so much of what she wrote is so easily demonstrated to be plagiarism, why should anyone, of any political stripe, pay attention to the rest of it?
For Gawker and Scoop readers who may be returning here for more info, we can now say we're at Defcon Jacko.
When the story comes up, the Rude Pundit will link to it at Raw Story. Ron Brynaert has more fun examples.
Tomorrow: why all of this matters.
Extra bonus hypocrisy points: despite Coulter's condemnations of the 9/11 widows for getting involved in pushing for the 9/11 commission and endorsing John Kerry, she seems to have no problem with Cliff Barnes exploiting his personal tragedy to change the furlough program in Massachusetts, as well as campaigning with Republicans in 1988. (Barnes did not specifically endorse a candidate, but he did not appear with Democrats.)
Update: The first of several Raw Story articles is up. It spanks Coulter for nearly word-for-word plagiarism, without citation, of a pro-life website. Chances are, this list and its exact wording are not "common knowledge," as so many defenders of Coulter's "research" and "writing" methods wish to assert.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)