Intolerance

This has certainly been a week that, with rather broad brush strokes, helps define just how intellectually moronic many of us have become. This is focus group-encouraged, media-driven devolution, I suppose, but it is reg'lar folks who have to take their share of the blame for falling for it, because we're the ones who have to deal with it. The focus group minions and talk show whores are all schmoozing it up and patting each other on the back, congratulating themselves on pulling yet another fast one.

Ann Coulter's latest spew of choleric nonsense has done exactly what it was supposed to do, which is sell books that no one with any sense would actually read. What they buy is the hateful she-beast with the long legs and long blonde hair (though rapidly looking more and more ridden hard and put away wet, meaning her fifteen minutes are just about up in wankerland), who for some reason is granted passage on suppsedly respectable media.

Here is cognitive dissonance: A quarter-second (literally) of a side shot of a boobie at the Super Bowl, Congress rants for six weeks straight and levels six-figure fines at broadcasters; Ann Coulter rakes 9/11 widows over the coals on a morning show, and the media spend the rest of the week examining each other's navels over whether she was out of line or not. Jesus H. Christ, people, would you grow a pair for once and just call an entrenching implement a spade?

So the discussion has naturally turned to the "intolerance" of the "left", and how they simply cannot "handle" an "opposing" viewpoint. It is a discussion scarcely worth having; for one, Coulter is not and has never been the least bit interested in debating anything. It is merely obnoxious rhetoric, carefully calculated to incite and provoke. That would be fine, if she had anything worthwhile to say, but she merely vocalizes the projected anxieties of what can only be described as emotionally stunted people.

What sort of person attacks the widows and families of 9/11 on a personal level, as Coulter most assuredly did, for expressing their opinions politically? Rather than point out where they were supposedly wrong or in error about something factual, Coulter merely trots out the same old schtick we've come to expect -- ugly, catty remarks about their looks and whether or not they loved their husbands; cheap speculation as to their being motivated financially, as if she herself does what she does for free; nothing remotely factual, just emotionally-charged rhetoric that apparently revolves around which political segment of a polarized, fragmented populace "owns" 9/11.

And what sort of person in their right mind whinges about the insidious power of the political "left"? What "left" would that be? Bloggers? Barbara Boxer? What exactly of the Cheney junta's manifold failures have this "left" been a part of either enacting or obstructing? Coulter and her fellow troglodytes got exactly what they wanted -- their war, their tax cuts, their deficits, their wage stagnation, their Supreme Court justices.

This cheap foamy rhetoric Coulter trucks in is not unlike a Super Bowl champion team taking pains to talk shit about a team they beat in the pre-season that didn't make the playoffs. It's unnecessary and it's vulgar, in the sense of a sore winner going out of their way to shit on everyone and everything.

Well, fine. I and many others in the "fever swamp" have been saying for quite some time that these are and have been the rules of decorum, and the least we can do is start fighting fire with fire instead of straw. Gutless DLC cocksuckers like Joementum and Bullwinkle want none of it; they think that if we just keep playing nice and genuflect to the Hank Hill Democrats, talk about how we loves us some Jeebus enough for the red-state brain surgeons that inflicted the likes of Tom Coburn on the United States Senate, that the tide will eventually turn back our way.

Fuck that shit. Enough is enough.

So when a well-known Republican sock puppet like Mary Matalin sticks up for Coulter, implicitly endorsing and refusing to disavow Coulter's contentions that the 9/11 widows are "enjoying their husbands' deaths", among other vile things, I expect every member of the Democratic Party to step forward and ask why an aide of Dick Cheney is endorsing such views. I expect them to force someone's hand, and either Matalin retracts her defense and publicly disavows Coulter, or an actual party functionary can do it. Nothing less should be acceptable.

You want your wedge issue, there ya go. Tie Coulter's mangy ass around the necks of the Republicans, and make them either defend or refute what she said. She may be laughing all the way to the bank, but we have to decide that we've had enough of this vicious cunt, and make it known to the people who continue to do business with her. And that's where the intolerance debate gathers a bit of momentum.

Does Coulter have the right to say what she's saying? Of course. But a sensible, motivated citizenry, instead of just running like sheep to order her book because they heard this hag's latest sound bark on Hannity & Colmes, need to condemn this level of haughty, fact-free rhetoric which has no boundaries on whom to attack.

I would have assumed that the families of the 9/11 victims were way off-limits; I am aware that there are actually some politically organized widows and family members who support the Cheney junta, but I'll be damned if I've ever heard of Michael Moore (or anyone else) attacking them at all, much less on anywhere near such a personal level. The troglodytes would undoubtedly respond that that's because the librul media is suppressing that story. There's no winning with those loons.