Let’s Not Demand an Apology from Ann Coulter


Rose Woodhouse

Elizabeth Picciuto was born and reared on Long Island, and, as was the custom for the time and place, got a PhD in philosophy. She freelances, mainly about disability, but once in a while about yeti. Mother to three children, one of whom is disabled, two of whom have brown eyes, three of whom are reasonable cute, you do not want to get her started talking about gardening.

Related Post Roulette

145 Responses

  1. Avatar MikeSchilling says:

    It’s sad to see a 50-year-old woman act out like a teenager looking for attention. Let’s not reward it.Report

  2. Avatar Kazzy says:

    Ann who?Report

    • Avatar Remo in reply to Kazzy says:

      My first reaction also. Had to go google it to find that she is the hot famous republican woman.Report

      • Avatar Russell Saunders in reply to Remo says:

        She’s hot? Really? Huh.

        I mean, I think she thinks she’s hot. But I would imagine most dudes would take a pass.Report

        • Avatar joey jo jo in reply to Russell Saunders says:

          Not Dinesh D’Souza.Report

        • Your imagination is correct.Report

        • Avatar Glyph in reply to Russell Saunders says:

          Could be a ‘pretty is as pretty does’ (TM Glyph’s grandma) thing. I just looked at some pics online, and she isn’t especially physically unattractive (and some guys just dig leggy blondes, no matter what) – but coming across as a thoroughly unpleasant person definitely negatively impacts my perception of her physical appearance, to where I remembered her as uglier than she actually objectively is.Report

        • She’s hot? Really? Huh.

          This hetero guy says… “Meh.”

          Ms. Coulter has never been interesting because of her physical appearance anyway. She is interesting on those occasions when she brings her formidable intellect and legal training to bear on a subject. Something which, compared to throwing rhetorical grenades, does not seem to happen all that often these days.

          Well, no one’s paying her to do sophisticated Con Law briefs; they pay her to throw out the red meat, so that’s what she does instead.Report

          • Avatar MikeSchilling in reply to Burt Likko says:

            You’ve mentioned that before. Do you have a link to an example of it?Report

            • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to MikeSchilling says:

              She wrote a column defending Arizona’s immigration law which particularly impressed me as well researched and lawyerly. I’m having computer issues and am commenting on my Kindle Fire at the moment so that’s not ideal for researching a link. If you care to search it, my sub blog has a brief writeup acknowledging this column and the link is probably still good.Report

    • Avatar Glyph in reply to Kazzy says:

      I have never understood why she is popular, on any level. I have never found her interesting/thought-provoking, or witty/funny, or physically attractive. Normally you need at least one of these attributes to be successful in showbiz. So what exactly is the appeal? Is it just that for some people, she makes the “right” (=left) people angry?Report

      • Avatar Snarky McSnarksnark in reply to Glyph says:

        Don’t think of her as a political commentator. She’s a comedienne.

        She’s the Howard Stern of the political right. The “comedy” is not in wit, or insight, but in outrage. And the denouement of her “routines” is when people–well, liberals–rise up and demand an apology, or threaten to boycott newspapers that carry one of her columns.

        I don’t really understand our historical moment, but that seems to be the essence of conservative humor: pissing off liberal sensibilities. That’s the engine that drives the humor of Glen Beck, of Rush Limbaugh, and–to an almost hyperbolic degree–Ann Coulter. Liberal overreaction is the point of it. It seems very much like the same kind of thrill boys get by urinating on the mean neighbor’s bushes.

        So, liberals… If you want this moment to pass, just sit on your hands.Report

        • If I may date myself (it’s like high school all over again!), the comparison I’d make is to Andrew “Dice” Clay.Report

        • Avatar Plinko in reply to Snarky McSnarksnark says:

          Spot on, Snarky.Report

        • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Snarky McSnarksnark says:

          ” that seems to be the essence of conservative humor: pissing off liberal sensibilities. ”

          Which is part of a grand historical tradition.Report

          • Avatar NewDealer in reply to DensityDuck says:

            With the exception of Rimbaud, I would say your link is largely left-wing people shocking conservative (not politically but as operationally) middle class people.

            One does not hear Ann Coulter endorse hash or opium.Report

            • Avatar Glyph in reply to NewDealer says:

              I heard Rush endorsed opiates, at least.Report

              • Avatar LWA (Lib With Attitude) in reply to Glyph says:

                The band or the shock jock?

                Both are plausible.Report

              • Avatar NewDealer in reply to Glyph says:

                For his masses?Report

              • Avatar Glyph in reply to NewDealer says:

                Oh man, if no one ever did an ‘opiate for his masses’ joke when Limbaugh was still in the news for painkillers, it was a missed opportunity for sure.Report

              • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to Glyph says:

                I kinda draw the line at Rush’s Oxycontin issue. The man had spinal surgery, was on a legit prescription, got addicted and his jones got out of control. It can happen to anyone. I just won’t condemn an addict for his addiction.

                But I can and will condemn Rush Limbaugh for condemning drug abuse while he was addicted himself. One of the addict’s first moral lapses is denial of the truth of his addiction and it’s the first truth he must regain to seize control of his life again. I speak from personal experience.Report

              • Avatar Glyph in reply to BlaiseP says:

                Blaise, it is indeed the hypocrisy of condemning others while indulging oneself that bothers me. Just like Spitzer. Save us from the moralists who can’t (won’t) follow the rules they want for everyone else.Report

              • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to Glyph says:

                The greatest appeal of Vice is not the sordid little pleasures of these indulgences, but the fact that they’re forbidden. A life of upstanding morality can only be spiced up with a bit of transgression.

                I once knew a startlingly beautiful prostitute who insisted it wasn’t the sex which drew her wealthy clients to her. She said they mostly loved the sneaking around.Report

              • Avatar Glyph in reply to BlaiseP says:

                I don’t doubt it. But be a banker, or whatever other straightlaced lifestyle you need to get off on that frisson – don’t spend your time and make your money haranguing (Limbaugh) or hassling (Spitzer) the rest of us.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to BlaiseP says:

                Depends. In DC, a lot of folks just like intelligent company — and are willing to pay a bit for a good night on the town.

                In NYC, they do the whole “sneaking around to cheat on your spouse” thing… James Bond style. Because people want to have some fun in their lives…Report

              • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Glyph says:


                Save us from the moralists.


              • Avatar Glyph in reply to James Hanley says:

                Heh. I originally had it that way, but appended to it because the term ‘moralist’ has multiple meanings, not all of which are negative.Report

              • Avatar NewDealer in reply to Glyph says:

                Did Spitzer ever moralize people on prostitution*?

                The problem is not moralizing and going after any vice but going after vices that you indulge in. Spitzer went after Wall Street excess, not Prostitution. Many Republicans go against stuff that they are later caught indulging in. It is not the same situation.

                *In the movie Inside Job, they talked about how a lot of hot Wall Street guys used escorts and prostitutes. Spitzer was interviewed for the documentary and said something along the lines of “I really can’t comment on this” because of his sex scandal. I think he is still capable of being a critic of shady financial practices.Report

              • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to NewDealer says:

                In his role as a prosecutor, I have every reason to believe Elliot Spitzer was moralizing every time he enforced Article 230 of the New York State Penal Law.Report

              • Avatar NewDealer in reply to NewDealer says:


                Spitzer was the Attorney General of New York. IIRC he was never a prosecutor or district attorney.

                I don’t recall him ever making a press conference about that law or trying people from it himself, though I could be wrong. He was about financial misdeeds.

                Of course, his assistant attorney generals could have brought those cases but I think that would be largely done by local DAs who were not under his authority or supervision.Report

              • Avatar Rose Woodhouse in reply to NewDealer says:

                I wasn’t in NY at the time, but didn’t he make a point of busting up prostitution rings?Report

              • Avatar Glyph in reply to NewDealer says:

                Yes, Spitzer went after prostitution. He also pushed for new legislation that increased penalties for johns. Luckily for him, these increased penalties do not seem to have been applied in his own case, or he could have spent up to a year in jail.


              • Avatar Kim in reply to NewDealer says:

                *eyeroll* you realize in a lot of top fields, it’s considered “part of the business” to be blackmailed?
                The people using escorts and prostitutes don’t worry me so. it’s the people who are into queerer things.Report

              • Avatar dhex in reply to NewDealer says:

                “Did Spitzer ever moralize people on prostitution*?”

                if by moralize you mean hold press conferences for large bust-ups of rings, including higher end ones, then yes. it’s part of what made his little downfall (sadly likely temporary though it may be) so amusing.Report

              • Avatar NewDealer in reply to NewDealer says:

                I stand corrected.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to NewDealer says:

                It’s also something that makes me wonder if he ever got, ahem, “in-kind” payments for fixing his eye elsewhere.Report

            • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to NewDealer says:

              ” I would say your link is largely left-wing people shocking conservative ”

              The point, you congenitally syphilitic retard, is that shock as a form of satirical humor is hardly something limited to modern conservative commentators, you filthy dogfucker.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to DensityDuck says:

                Perfect example of why conservatives are so bad at it. Shock as a technique is intended to knock people off balance so they entertain thoughts they would otherwise reject out of hand. Rephrasing “I dislike liberals” as “I want to torture and kill liberals” doesn’t cut it.Report

              • Avatar Rose Woodhouse in reply to DensityDuck says:

                DD, I’m not going to ask that you apologize either. But as I indicated in the OP, I really, sincerely don’t like “retard” as a pejorative. You can check out my original post on the issue if you like– link in OP. If your point is to be outrageous, please find another way. Eg, filthy dogfucker.

                I understand you think demands like this are a form of persecution. I see it as a demand for some respect. If you don’t have that respect, well, you know. Don’t say anything at all.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Rose Woodhouse says:

                I don’t think demands like this are a form of persecution. I think that insisting that shock comedy is a uniquely reprehensible-conservative mode of speech invented by Rush Limbaugh in 1994 ignores several hundred years of intellectual tradition.Report

              • Avatar DRS in reply to DensityDuck says:

                Funny shock comedy precedes 1994. Unfunny shock comedy is post-1994. That might help keep things clear. Has Coulter ever said anything genuinely funny?Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to DRS says:

                Did Johnathan Swift?Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to DRS says:

                Why stop there? Coulter is our century’s Thomas Aquinas.

                A man has free choice to the extent that he isn’t a retard

                By nature all men are equal in liberty, but most of them are retards

                Because philosophy arises from awe, a philosopher is bound in his way to be a lover of myths and poetic fables. But the rest of you are retards.

                To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, stop being such a retard.

                That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the retards in hell.

                Three things are necessary for the salvation of man: to know what he ought to believe; to know what he ought to desire; and not to be such a fucking retard..


              • Avatar Tom Van Dyke in reply to DRS says:

                You do realize that was funny, Mr. Schilling, which subverts your point.


              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to DRS says:

                It’s funny because it’s not just name-calling; there’s an idea behind it. And, for once, you’re my best audience, because you’re so familiar with the source material.Report

              • Avatar Snarky McSnarksnark in reply to DRS says:

                That was pretty dang good, Mike. You get a seldom-proffered McSnarksnark Snarkity-Snark award. Make sure you have it ensured before you bring it out in public places.

                It reminds me, a bit, of a classic piece from the National Lampoon, from the 70s: The Churchill WitReport

        • Avatar NewDealer in reply to Snarky McSnarksnark says:

          I don’t think this is part of our historical moment. I think this has been going on for ages and is a largely persistent but constantly present part of American History. Or at least for the past several decades.

          Conservative Politics in the United States has always seemed to have a love/hate fascination with the “in-crowd”. The in-crowd being the “elite” not so much in terms of wealth (though they are often well-to-do) but in terms of cultural importance.

          Richard Nixon famously started a look at Whittier for the students who could not get into the cool-kids club. A biography recently came out of the National Review’s original publisher. According to a review (I think in the New Republic), he also felt a kind of seething anger at his more established classmates and felt mocked for being a “black shoe” IIRC black shoe was a Princeton insult for striving undergrads and also ones who were less than sophisticated and kind of prudish.

          The new variant of this is to regale in a kind of anti-PC against anything that upper-middle class professionals consider good. Hence the dissonant combination of Hell’s Angels with the Christian Right. But a certain subset of American Conservativism has never understood why the upper-middle class and economically well-off choose to go for cultural sophistication over thrift and homespun values.

          In short, I don’t think this a moment that is going to pass but will be with us for a long time if not forever.Report

        • Avatar NewDealer in reply to Snarky McSnarksnark says:

          It is also worth noting that Ann Coulter comes from upper-middle class suburban Connecticut and her father was a big-time Corporate/Union busting lawyer. She is not from the same resentment background of the Sarah Palins of the world. Rush Limbaugh comes from an equally important line of Missouri Republican Judges. These are not people who grew up in the lower-middle class that Marx marked as the most reactionary.

          Though most poltiical strife can probably be explained by resentment and ressentiment.


  3. Avatar Damon says:

    You know it’s funny. Why would anyone expect a professional bomb thrower like Ann to apologize? That’s her shtick–throwing out these things and letting everyone get all riled up.

    And god bless her. It’s like watching a movie. I don’t care who she insults, it’s the reaction that’s fun to watch. Now, if you just ignored her, she’d fade away.Report

    • Avatar Vertov in reply to Damon says:

      As to what we enjoy in life, I say, to each his own. I mean, I knew a kid in grade school who liked to hit cats and dogs.

      But people around you are free to judge if you that’s the kind of thing you like.Report

    • Avatar MikeSchilling in reply to Damon says:

      Somebody needs to put rat poison in your coffee.Report

      • Avatar Glyph in reply to MikeSchilling says:

        If anyone else, like me, was confused by this, this apparently is in reference to something Coulter said (make sure you include “Coulter”, not just “rat poison coffee” in yr search terms – there are a surprising number of non-Coulter-related cases of actual rat-poisoned coffee out there).

        I initially thought Mike must be extraordinarily grumpy and was about to recommend that he increase his own (non-adulterated) coffee consumption.

        Which sounds like a capital idea. Off for my first cup.Report

        • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Glyph says:

          The precise quote is”We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee,” She’s even wittier than Oscar Wilde.Report

          • Avatar Glyph in reply to Mike Schilling says:

            Yeah, I figured it must be a reference of some kind, b/c it didn’t seem like the kind of thing you’d seriously say, but until I included “Coulter” in my google search terms, I was just getting news reports of *actual* murder attempts using rat poison in coffee.Report

  4. Avatar joey jo jo says:

    From way back in the archives of last week from Ann:
    “If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have “racist,” “fascist,” “homophobe,” “ugly,” and a few other highly nuanced arguments in the quiver. But the loss of “dumb” would nearly cripple them.”

    You know it’s IOKIYAR if Sister Sarah of the Northwoods doesn’t immediately defend Tripp.Report

  5. Avatar Vertov says:

    I believe a few weeks ago, someone in the comments section of this website was semi-defending Ann Coulter, arguing that behind the insulting demeanor there was a well-trained legal mind capable of offering strong arguments to whatever issue she advocates.

    While I believe that, she’ll only be remembered for being a male Mark Levin – a sleazy, witless insult machine who ignored their legal education and took the easy path to political fame.

    Why bother with someone who chooses to sound like a nasty bullying child?Report

  6. You know I agree with you about ersatz, forced apologies, even assuming she could be somehow dragooned into offering one.Report

    • Avatar Rose Woodhouse in reply to Russell Saunders says:

      I know. Even if it weren’t exactly what she were hoping for, I would still hope we did not demand an apology.Report

      • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to Rose Woodhouse says:

        Moreover, a genuine apology consists of three parts:

        1. I have offended you. [insert exact and truthful statement of the offence here]
        2. I will never repeat this offence, for I know was wrong to say or do such a thing.
        3. [Insert statement of how I intend to make amends for what I’ve done here]

        Without those three parts, it’s not really an apology.Report

  7. Avatar Neil Hébert says:

    I was just thinking about Coulter and Limbaugh today, and wondering why I don’t see their names online more than I do. Limbaugh in particular…have the rest of the media decided to not play into the latest outrageous quote game?Report

  8. Avatar hazemyth says:

    “Crippling” sanctions would qualify as a literal usage of the word. The sanctions are meant to disable their target.Report

  9. Avatar Sebastian March says:

    Just as I wouldn’t expect smegma to be anything other than smegma, I wouldn’t expect Ann Coulter to be anything other than Ann Coulter.Report

    • Avatar mark boggs in reply to Sebastian March says:

      Smegma is water soluble, no?Report

      • Proving Ann Coulter’s detractors are far uglier than she. Another Rorschach test complete.Report

        • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

          Awww. Innat preshis? Are you trying to save Ann Coulter’s reputation by some appeal to decency in her critics? Really?Report

        • Avatar joey jo jo in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

          You had a wait kind of a long time to play the victim here. But your patience was rewarded. No one noticed your tactics, though. Hope the fainting couch was soft.Report

          • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to joey jo jo says:

            There comes a point in every bully’s life where he picks on the wrong kid. Watch what happens next: when the tormented kid is finally pulled off the bully, there are a considerable number of people who are actually sorry for the bully.

            With all these recent tragedies surrounding bullying, especially cyber bullying, there seems to be a constant in these incidents. The bully isn’t alone: there are always bystanders who amplify the bully’s message. Not verbally, but the bully isn’t communicating with his target so much as with those sniggering bystanders. Look at me, I’m powerful, I can harass others and get away with it. I’m funny and if my funny arises from making other people cry, those people don’t matter.

            While Ann Coulter throws bombs around, she’s not really saying Obama’s a Retard. She’s communicating with her readers, people like Tom f’rinstance. Now Tom wouldn’t call anyone a retard, but when others lash out at Coulter, he’s right in there to tell them to get back in place, be quiet, be subservient.

            Ignoring a bully doesn’t work. The Bully and the Bystanders depend on Reasonable Responses. It’s pointless to pretend the bully isn’t talking. At some point, the bully has to be separated from the Bystanders and confronted alone. Ann Coulter is protected by the First Amendment. But she is vulnerable, nonetheless. Pick away at her toady Bystanders and she stands alone.Report

            • Avatar Tom Van Dyke in reply to BlaiseP says:

              right in there to tell them to get back in place, be quiet, be subservient.

              Not atall, Brother Blaise. I want you to keep it up, keep revealing yourselves. Rock on.Report

              • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

                Oh, Tom. Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim. And you gotta rescue Ann Coulter from her Ugly Detractors. Eet eez to larf.

                And oh, by the way, that’s President Retard to you.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to BlaiseP says:

                I remember how using sexual slurs to describe a woman was a terrible, terrible thing, clear evidence of the reprehensible nature of the person doing it, an undeniable refutation of that entire philosophical outlook’s claims to legitemacy. But, hey, obviously different rules apply when we’re talking about conservative women.Report

              • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to DensityDuck says:

                How very right you are. When it’s conservative women calling people nasty names, we can’t talk about them.Report

              • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to BlaiseP says:

                So it’s okay to insult women, now?

                I mean, I just want to get that on record, from you, that it’s okay to use overtly gendered insults to describe women we disagree with.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to BlaiseP says:

                So it’s okay to insult women, now?

                Ahhh, I see how this game is played, DD. On your view, if I were to insult Krauthammer because of the views he expressed, I’d be insulting the physically disabled. And that’s a PC violation of the first order.

                Nice work! There’s just no way for a liberal to get out of this masterful trap. Hypocrisy abounds!Report

              • Avatar James Hanley in reply to BlaiseP says:

                I’m confused. Can DD please point out to me where BlaiseP used an “overly gendered insult” against Coulter? Or is he referring to another comment that I’m not seeing at the moment?Report

              • Avatar Glyph in reply to BlaiseP says:

                Caveat – I think comparing anyone to “a secretion of mammalian genitals”, is admittedly pretty tasteless (so likewise is anyone older than say 10 calling anyone a ‘retard’) – but FTR, smegma has no gender.

                More to the point, what exactly is it that you and TVD are arguing here? Scroll back up to the top of the post, to the tweet that sparked the whole discussion – do you think it’s cool (not as a matter of free speech, but as a matter of civility) for an adult to call another adult a ‘retard’? Is it cool to the person being so called? Is it cool to people with developmental disabilities? What does it bring to the table?

                No one is saying Coulter shouldn’t have the right or freedom to say this stuff. They are just saying that it is tasteless and stupid and pointless; and to some, hurtful.

                What is it that you are saying? Is it just that 2 wrongs don’t make a right (which I readily concede; but if this is what you mean, why not just come out and say that, while conceding Coulter did in fact say something crappy to start with?)Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to BlaiseP says:

                James, I think that’s demanding too much. For DD – and apparently Tom up above – the argument is that BP said nasty things about Ann Coulter; Ann Coulter is a woman; so therefore, BP is sexist.


                I also didn’t see any “sexual slurs” from BP. I looked (briefly) since that would be completely out of character for Blaise.Report

              • Avatar Glyph in reply to BlaiseP says:

                That was to Duck, obvs.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to BlaiseP says:

                It’s always okay to insult women. It’s not, however, okay to insult women for being women. Or to bring the fact that they’re women into the conversation when, really, the conversation doesn’t much call for it. Or, for that matter, relying on a lot of gender-specific tropes.

                Ann Coulter says something. The response “What a horrible human being. She embodies everything that is wrong in politics today and, specifically, everything that is wrong with the Republican party.” This is totally awesome.

                Ann Coulter says something. The response “Let’s talk about what she looks like. Let’s talk about sex. Let’s make oblique references to insults used against ugly women.” This is one of the things that should piss people off.

                I mean, if we actually shouldn’t do it. If it’s just something that we complain about when they do it and then we do it when it’s our turn, well… That’s how the game is played.Report

              • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to BlaiseP says:

                Poor old Duck. You’ve already said Conservative Women can say whatever they like, no matter how crude. You’ve only stuck your hairy ass farther out the window by saying nobody else can respond in kind.

                When Ann Coulter insulted a group of 9/11 widows who had the temerity to endorse John Kerry, she said “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.”

                Your argument is sorta like Jack Nicholson’s Joker, who put on a pair of specs and asked Batman “You wouldn’t hit a man with glasses, would you?”

                Get this on the record, Duck. Ann Coulter gets to call people faggots and retards. Ann Coulter doesn’t care what people call her. She’s on record saying “We’re not pussies like them. We don’t care what names we’re called. We all stop whining and weeping and ‘Oh he called me a name.’”

                So take heed, Duck. Dr Blaise prescribes 4mg STFU q.d. p.r.Report

              • Avatar Glyph in reply to BlaiseP says:

                @ Jaybird – I did get into the ‘Hot or Not’ game above w/r/t Coulter – but I was 1.) exploring whether or not there was any explanatory power there in regards to her (to me) inexplicable popularity and 2.) Noting that my own assessment of her physical attractiveness is affected by my perception of her persona (that is, it is entirely possible that she is objectively physically attractive, but her public persona makes her ‘uglier’, to me).

                Are these the kinds of comments that you see as out of bounds? I could see making similar comments about a male media figure who was considered (by some) to be physically attractive while saying or doing odious things, though I am having trouble coming up with an example just now.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to BlaiseP says:

                I’m not trying to point fingers at anybody.

                Ann Coulter is an awful human being who deserves scorn shoveled upon her for the shit she pulls on an hourly basis.

                But one of the things she excels at is turning her enemies into people who act in ways that are reflections of how she acts. She’s positively brilliant at it.Report

              • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

                On the subject of Rockin’ On, may I quote Frank Zappa in this context?

                You can’t always write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say, so sometimes you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream.Report

              • Avatar joey jo jo in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

                We all reveal ourselves every day in here. You’re not immune to this.Report

            • Avatar joey jo jo in reply to BlaiseP says:

              Victimization is a key tool for the modern conservative–or for that matter any demographically diminishing group. I just want us all to acknowledge it for what it is. A dodge. A pivot. A tell.Report

            • Avatar zic in reply to BlaiseP says:


              But please, stop picking on toads; they deserve better. They do not cause warts, spread disease, or any act as receptacles for witch hearts.

              But they do eat annoying insects and are a part of the food chain. In some places, toads are an indicator species, the ‘canary in the coal-mine’ of an ecosystem going awry. A shortage of toads is only similar to a pack of bully bystanders in that both portend bad stuff on the horizon.

              So int that last line, Pick away at her toady Bystanders and she stands alone. I suggest the collective noun for crow — perhaps, ‘Pick away at her murder of crows and she stands alone.”Report

              • Avatar joey jo jo in reply to zic says:

                This is exactly the kind of justification that enables Tom to become even more trollish. There is no downside for him. If he escalates, he’s just “doing his job” and “you’d hate if it he were gone”. Would everyone hate it? Let the free troll market do it’s work. There are a bunch of junior right wingers out there itching to step up. You guys provide the demand. “We need balance” and so on.Report

              • Avatar zic in reply to joey jo jo says:

                I don’t mind picking on Tom, I was just defending Toads from comparisons to Toms. Trolls, on the other hand, isn’t it open season?Report

              • Avatar joey jo jo in reply to zic says:

                fair enough zic, I misread and thought you were calling Tom a toad. Toads provide benefits (as you outlined). One of them was that the Mormons (and other settlers of the west) could determine whether to drink from a water source by the existence of toads or frogs. I don’t think that the existence of tom = healthy blog. Have a good one zic.Report

              • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to zic says:

                Heh. Toady defined.Report

              • Avatar Rose Woodhouse in reply to zic says:

                Crows are really awesome, too. Impressive problem solvers.Report

              • Avatar zic in reply to Rose Woodhouse says:

                In reality, without crows, we’d be knee-deep in dead animals. I prefer ‘crows’ for Bully’s audience because ‘crow’ mirrors, reversing as mirrors always do. Crows clean decay; the Troll’s audience provokes it.Report

            • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to BlaiseP says:

              “Ann Coulter is protected by the First Amendment.”

              Fuckin’ Constitution, man, always makin’ it hard to really deal properly with those people who say shit we don’t like, right?Report

          • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to joey jo jo says:

            I don’t recall a”Sebastian March”. It was awfully convenient that he showed up when everyone else was taking the high road, wasn’t it?Report

      • Avatar NewDealer in reply to mark boggs says:

        Oh that was a pleasant image.

        Not really but thanks for the tag questionReport

  10. Avatar zic says:

    Books on dog (puppy) training taught me that dogs want attention. So they do the stuff that gets them attention. If you yell at them when they bark, when the jump on people, when the slobber on someone’s face, etc, they’ll continue doing those things.

    But if you tell them how good they are when they’re being polite in terms of human society — and you ignore them when they’re being rude, they’ll learn (quickly, too) to be polite.

    Now, obviously Ann Coulter is not a dog. It might take a big longer to break her of her rude habits.Report

  11. Avatar BlaiseP says:

    For the record, I am not tired of reading about your son. We who never knew such trials are instructed by what you write on this subject.

    To be truly human is to care for others who may not be able to return that care.Report

  12. Avatar BlaiseP says:

    The greatness of Lenny Bruce:

    Dig: if President Kennedy would just go on television, and say, “I would like to introduce you to all the niggers in my cabinet,” and if he’d just say “nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger” to every nigger he saw, “boogie boogie boogie boogie boogie,” “nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger” ’til nigger didn’t mean anything anymore, then you could never make some six-year-old black kid cry because somebody called him a nigger at school.

    Thus it is with Retard.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to BlaiseP says:

      This is another reason that I’d compare to Dice.

      You can bust out Lenny Bruce’s records *TODAY* and be amazed at his bits.

      Dice’s stuff worked *ONLY* because it was a reaction to a very particular moment in time…

      I’m pretty sure that, every day, dozens of folks out there listen to a Lenny Bruce bit. Dice? Nobody listens to him anymore.Report

  13. Avatar b-psycho says:

    Anyone else get the feeling she went with “retard” only because the word she *really* wanted would’ve went over far worse?Report

  14. Avatar Rufus F. says:

    Jesus, if anybody should be demanding an apology, it’s whatever comic has to follow material that hacky.Report

  15. Avatar John says:

    Well, it sounds like a bunch of you folks are no different than Ann Coulter and alot of your response dilute the issue. I am sure that Mr. John Franklin Stephens did not expect more people to call other people names when he wrote this letter. Your remarks are an insult to him and his letter. As far as Ms. Woodhouse is concerned, her comment “When I sense that my career is flagging, I do not need to revive it by insulting one or another group of people” should be followed by, I just need to latch onto the coat tails of the flagging person and help destroy them and I will be famous.Report