Re-posted without permission... so blame me, this shit is GOOD
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=35831674&blogID=237395794&Mytoken=85C41EB5-FD0B-47CF-9890DF2DCB6E65F937433504If there is one thing Ann Coulter knows how to do well, it's how cause a shit storm. Yet shit storms are not brought about by any talent, since any terrible two-year old with a poop-filled diaper can create a similar result all on their own; albeit at a much smaller scale. Rather than talent, all one needs to have is a microphone, a camera, a national audience, and balls; all of which Coulter has.
This Saturday...er...Friday (scuse me, just did a fact-check) Coulter outed Presidential hopeful, Jonathan Edwards, during the American Conservative Union's Political Action Conference, much to the shock of everyone in attendance. It was probably the first time someone had used this particular forum to out a fellow homosexual. And in many ways it was brave on Coulter's part, considering the stereotypical assumption that all Republicans are Red-necked, Bible-thumping, mentally deficient, illiterate fuck-tards, some of which don't care to much for gays. Her words created quite a stir among those in the crowd, and a string of carefully crafted words of refute from all corners of the political arena followed suit. Thanks to C-Span, followed closely behind by Youtube, Ms. Coulter's startling revelations flamed hot for everyone to see.
Coulter made use of the word faggot, which initially could have been interpreted by some as a commentary on the tobacco industry of the great state of North Carolina. After all, when one thinks of faggots, one naturally envisions the site of a smoldering cigarette, red tipped and smoking, full of soothing sweet nicotine. Everyone knows the British like to call their smokes "fags" or "fagots," since the word fagot actually means a bundle of sticks or twigs which can be used as a torch. Those clever Brits. But, no, sad to say Mr. Coulter was not clever enough to make use of the word with that intent.
The problem with Coulter's public disclosure was that it fell well outside the bounds of propriety, and exposed a lack of compassion and common decency on Coulter's part. Being a gay man herself, Coulter must have understood that only when an individual is ready to come out of the closet is it permissible to discuss the subject in a public forum. The closeted individual requires coming to terms with their homosexual feelings, accepting them, and when comfortable, discussing their true identities with their friends and loved ones. But when one takes it upon himself, as Ms. Coulter did this past Friday, to talk freely about a subject without consulting the person in question, it's bad form. Does Coulter have no compassion at all for Mr. Edwards or his beard-family and what this revelation might do to them?
And what could have possibly lead Ms. Coulter into believing that such a public pantsing was warranted? What did John Edwards ever do to her? Or better yet, what wouldn't he do to her to make her strike out in such a fashion? (If you know what I'm saying...) One can take a look at a picture of John Edwards, and juxtapose it with one of Coulter, and things become a lot clearer. John Edwards is clearly the better looking of the two. One might even say he's a bit man-pretty. Could Coulter's words have been brought about by her jealousy of John Edwards, who is arguably a much prettier man than she could ever hope to be? It's highly probable. You know how bitchy those queens can get.
But let's cut Ms. Coulter some slack here. This guy has the chutzpa, charm and likeability of a young Roy Cohn. While it would appear that someone with her education, and her questionable set of manners might do some real damage in the world, she is thankfully relegated to the arena of mere political commentator. Being able to earn a living off of the regurgitation of political partisanship is a fast and easy buck, done by either making the typical idiot happy, or by pissing them off. Or both. People such as Coulter stir up an emotional response with words that have no true substance or value to stand on their own. They require no thought to be said, nor no thought to illicit an instant reaction. To badly quote from one of my writing instructors in college, her words "will be forgotten like yesterday's farts."
And by calling her a gay man, or a transvestite, or a transsexual, or even a hermaphrodite are all cheap shots, I admit. It is a bit unfair to the Gay, Bi, and Transgender community to infer that this person is one of them when no community should be forced to admit her as one of their own. Happily, with the sweet sound passage of time, this incident will fade away from our short-term memories so that some other hapless celebrity can cause a new uproar for us to mill over. There will always be someone doing or saying something remarkably stupid to make us feel better about ourselves, and the burning flame of moral indignation always feels good on a cold day.
*And I don't think Mr. Edwards from the great state of North Carolina is gay. He's not that man-pretty.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
