mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
Every six months or so, reliable as clockwork, we’re treated to some grotesquely bilious new statement from Ann Coulter. Lefties roar. Some righties run for cover. Others look the other way or bow their heads in half-apology. Cable news stations dive headlong into another easy-to-moralize-on filler topic perfectly suited for the 24 hour news cycle. And round and round we go.
This weekend, as you must’ve seen, and if you haven’t click here, Coulter shocked no one with her latest foray into clownery, effectively calling John Edwards a “faggot.” It was by no means the first time she’d suggested that a major Democratic figure was gay. She saddled Bill Clinton with that one last year, which led to this excellent Letterman bit:
(She also called Al Gore gay. But all in good fun!)
What’s curious to me about the woman Andrew Sullivan once nailed as a “drag queen fascist impersonator” isn’t that she keeps saying these things–nobody with functioning gray matter should be surprised at this point–it’s that she’s still allowed to be a part of the national discussion. Tim Hardaway, for one, went off on a nasty anti-gay tirade last week, and the NBA has since taken pains to ensure that he’ll never go anywhere near a microphone again. Jimmy the Greek faded away after his racist comments. Al Campanis, too. But why is it that Coulter can defame whomever she damn well pleases in the most audacious manner possible and still be given a seat at the table? I’m not being rhetorical here. Why? Drop your opinions in the comments section. My guesses include: 1) she’s too profitable a member of the publishing community; 2) political pundits essentially have tenure, making them impossible to dispose of (how else to explain David Brooks?); 3) there’s a serious attraction/repulsion thing going on in watching a tall, blond, and skinny woman rowdily spew hate speech.
Anyway–and I can’t believe I’m saying this–but we could all learn something from Adam Carolla:
Or from these two television reporters, who didn’t bow, Alan Colmes-style, to her harpiness:
And here is a pie in the face:
I understand there are more pressing and ethically muddied issues to take on, but when are we gonna pull the plug on this lady? I’ll admit, in the Clinton and early W. days, I respected her marketing savvy and used to think she was passably good entertainment–a comical counterpoint to the Franken/Moore left–but we’re no longer living in relatively happy-go-lucky boom days. Our world is sordid, scary–and far too serious for a contemptuous clown like Ann to hold sway over public opinion.
[Also, this is the first entry I’ve posted myself. I owe a huge thanks to Mary and Winslow, whose lives I made miserable once a week for the last eight months.]
Comments (30)
Comment
This was posted on the Cellar by it’s founder and I think it underscores the reason AC is able to get a seat at the table. FEAR!
(sorry it’s long but I can’t post the link here)
I wrote this to send to Jesse Walker, whose writing I enjoy and who has asked whether Ann Coulter is truly attractive. This is my own personal attempt to answer that question. If you don’t care for pornographic screeds, please don’t read on.
–
I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to write this…
It’s shallow to give Ms. Coulter a free pass due to her looks, but that’s what we are as men. Most Coulter-critics would ask men to step back a bit, stop being transfixed by high cheekbones, and evaluate her based on her words.
Of course, if you do that, she falls apart rather quickly.
Instead let’s remain shallow. She’s good-looking, fine. How long would that last? Would you be able to have a drink with her? Would you go home with her? Would you be interested in bedding her? Let’s say you find her alone at a trendy watering hole: how would it go?
During the first five minutes, you would stare at the pleasant smile and the high cheekbones and wonder at how some people are just put together nicely.
During the second five minutes, she boldly insults the waiter for getting her drink order slightly wrong. You take it as a sign of strength. The woman knows what she wants and relentlessly demands it. But when the waiter brings her corrected drink and she puts him through a second round, you’re a little embarrassed for the guy. After all, he didn’t make that drink.
You share a lot of beliefs, but at minute 12 you find a difference. She starts to bark at you with her most put-on man-voice, and you notice that she attacks you with the same vigor she did the waiter. Well that’s OK; you’re not expected to agree on everything, and you don’t mind strong independent women.
After a while you notice that when she’s drinking her drink, her throat visibly moves through her neck skin. Normally you’d not give it a second thought, but since she’s been harsh on you, you fixate on it a little. It’s comforting to think she has an oddity, a flaw.
A “Seinfeld” re-run comes on the bar television, and she announces her displeasure with the choice very loudly, so that not only you are clear about it, but all the surrounding patrons are clear as well. During her rant she questions the family history of anyone who enjoys the show. You make a mental note not to show her your TiVo To-Do list if you wind up together at your place. Her rant goes a little too long and you squirm uncomfortably in your seat as others look at you.
You’re still interested in her, but as time goes by, now that throat starts looking less like a throat and more like an adam’s apple. Just then she questions the manliness of your job, and some of her attractiveness starts to wear a little. You notice that her perma-smile has not altered one bit, even through her more bitter statements. But you’re still attracted to her… kinda.
She asks whether you’d like to leave to go back to her place, and when you take a moment, she says “Or aren’t you man enough?” And you realize that she isn’t joking; she’s honestly questioning your manhood. And while you have no concerns at all about your manhood, you wonder why she has to question it.
She leaves a tiny tip and grabs your arm. Out to the cab, where she is a little too irritated at the taxi driver’s accent. At this point, in your mind, her throat/adam’s apple has grown to the size of a real apple. You realize that the beauty of her face is a little less when it’s a piercing, power-play stare. She asks if you know anyone powerful at treasury or the DER, and you sense that she’s not about having fun with you but about playing you for networking purposes.
She takes a phone call in the cab and starts yelling at the phone. Her determined growl sounds a little too familiar and you recognize it as the same as your boss when he plays petty office politics. She brazenly insults her caller. Her throat is now like a cantaloupe to you, her high cheekbones are symbols of power rather than beauty. You start to protest that maybe you have an early morning meeting tomorrow. She grabs your crotch and says “You’ll be staying,” and you manage to turn off your upper brain.
You reach her place and she demands that you hold her purse and coat while she rummages for her keys. You get in and she immediately wants to go to business. She notes “This is what you’re here for, right?” as if there was a contractual agreement from the first five minutes in the bar. She throws you down on the bed, carefully removes her skirt and pantyhose and folds them over a chair. She demands that you go down on her for fifteen minutes. She proclaims that every other male who has been here in the last three months has been a horrible disappointment.
You start the task. Immediately she starts giving orders about how you are to proceed. After about a minute of this, you lose any hard-on you might have managed. Her throat is like a watermelon. Her voice is utterly masculine. Her hands are huge and cold and you realize you don’t really want them touching you. She finds you hesitating and asks whether you’re really up to the job.
After fourteen minutes, she finds a groove and basically humps your tongue and gets off. In the process she has practically knocked out your front teeth with her pubic bone, but she’s satisfied. After 20 seconds of recovery, she says “And I suppose you want something for that effort?” Finally, at last, some consideration for you. She whacks you off, mechanically and without any emotion or even interest. Halfway through it, she asks what’s taking so long. Her man-hands how completely frighten you, especially for where they are. You put it all out of your mind and try to think of Christie Brinkley. Then you realize that it took nine years for Billy Joel to find Brinkley unattractive, while you have found the unattractive side of Coulter in a single night. But remembering Brinkley gives you a moment, and you orgasm. Coulter coldly avoids your jizz as if it were toxic, cleans up immediately, even getting out a mini-bottle of Febreeze to spray where you got some on her high thread count sheets.
Forget the niceties of a goodbye drink; she expects you to go now. Five minutes later you have been ushered out the door. She didn’t ask for your phone number and she didn’t expect you to ask for hers. She’s pleasant enough at the door, but leaves you with a statement that could be taken as an insult. As you walk out you realize that it has been a most unsatisfying experience, for which an orgasm was more the conclusion of a bad deal as it was intimacy.
Well that’s how I think it would go, anyway.
posted by Sheldon Siegel on 3-7-2007 at 3:15 pm
So elected politicians in our country get to compare the president to Hitler, but Ann Coulter isn’t allowed to disparage someones character. This is the nature of the free press, both hardcore conservatives like coulter and east and west coast liberals(such as though who often contribute to this magazine and blog) are allowed to present their opinions. Its up to the public to determine whether they make a legitimate argument(sadly a dying art).
posted by Jeremy on 3-7-2007 at 3:30 pm
I find Ann Coulter beyond ridiculous. If you’re interested in more of her shenanigans, search youtube for her opinion on the apparently crazy sex scene at Columbia University.
I was a student there last semester, and unless I was seriously missing something, I don’t remember that place holding too many orgies…
posted by kay on 3-7-2007 at 4:00 pm
If they want to call burning an American flag and pornography freedoms of speech I don’t see a problem with Ann Coulter using the word “faggot” or towel head.
posted by Jarred Hanson on 3-7-2007 at 4:22 pm
AC gets to spew her stuff because she gives people (news people) something to have righteous indignation about. Its all a distraction game to keep people from asking questions about Iraq, Afganistan, Darfur, etc.
Also never discount the fact that many of the “news” programs and channels she appears on have financial ties to her publishers. If she weren’t controversial she wouldn’t sell books.
I also agree with Jarred Hanson, its her absolute right to say all the crap she says, I also think (as with pornography and flag burning), its our right not to buy into it.
posted by Scott on 3-7-2007 at 4:37 pm
I have enjoyed Mental Floss for the lack of political comments. It has been a fun site with no vitriol. Please let’s keep it that way. Greg, you said this was your first post. If you are going to continue with political rants, I will never visit this site or recommend it. Sigh.
posted by Kaylan on 3-7-2007 at 5:08 pm
I agree with Jeremy and Jarred; when Bill Maher can say he wishes an the assasination attempt on VP Dick Cheney had been sucessful, the President is likened to a dictator, and movies are made about assasinating a sitting U.S. President, Ann’s comment doesnt seem so ridiculous.
posted by Andrew on 3-7-2007 at 5:15 pm
I agree that she should be allowed to say whatever she wants and it is a shame when people want our freedom of speech to only be exercised by one side of the political spectrum. My only problem is with how childish her comments are and how rude she is. I have seen one interview with her on Donny Deutsch where I surprisingly left with a positive opinion of her (that is she actually seemed human). I, by no means, agree with any of the things that she says and it is unfortunate that someone is so unhappy and vocalizes herself in such an unflattering way.
I honestly don’t understand what her goal is. She is obviously not convincing anyone to switch their political beliefs, so why does she say the things she does if not only to sell more books?
posted by Isaias Torres on 3-7-2007 at 7:13 pm
I agree with Kaylan, if Mental Floss is going to become a forum for bashing beliefs that don’t fit your own, I will never come again and I will never recommend it.
posted by Claire on 3-7-2007 at 7:22 pm
I do not gree wih Ann Coulter. I also do not like her. True, I do not know her personally, but I also do not have to make contact with water to know that it feels wet! That said, I think its fine for her to say what ever f-word,t-word, n-word or whatever comes to her narrow mind. After all, don’t we always need an example of how not to behave? Through her ungracious and haughty manner, and ill-chosen public statements, Ms. Coulter reveals more about herself than anyone to whom her comments may be directed. She reveals to me to me that her manners are the essence of tacky and is an excellent example of how ANY polite, civilized American, (regardless of political opinion)should never, ever speak or behave. Just because you CAN do, doesn’t always mean you should.
posted by Allison on 3-7-2007 at 9:01 pm
You know, I have to chime in along with Kaylan & Claire; how exactly does this montage of Coulter bashing fit the Mental Floss template for great content?
Mental Floss has always been a great site to visit for something interesting to read that doesn’t smack of the political bias that’s so prevalent elsewhere. If I want to read left-of-center diatribes against anything that is not, there are plenty of other places on the net to go.
I won’t be chased away by one boneheaded post by a new guy; just count me as sorely disappointed.
posted by Dave on 3-7-2007 at 9:32 pm
I agree with several of the posters here in disliking political posts on this site. If it’s going to get political, then I’ll go elsewhere.
I would also like to agree that the criticism Ann Coulter has received is ridiculous. George Bush is called a terrorist and Nazi a thousand times a day by the left, when his administration isn’t being lambasted by the same people for being a tool of the evil jooooos, so Ms Coulter’s remarks are mild indeed in comparison.
Freedom of speech means tolerating those who say things you don’t like. Suck it up. Mental Floss is a site which offers interesting snippets of fun facts. If I wanted to read the rants on the Daily Kos I can go there for them.
posted by Joanne on 3-8-2007 at 2:44 am
My reply isn’t really about Coulter, who deserves all the derision she gets. But Greg raises an interesting question about why some people (Tim Hardaway, Jimmy the Greek, Al Campanis…add Michael Richards to the list) are denounced for inflammatory, hateful remarks and others are not.
Forget Ann Coulter for one second. What about Isaiah Washington? He used the exact same expletive Coulter did…on several occasions…and weasled about it for weeks before apologizing. His penance?
An NAACP award.
People who say they are troubled by slurs, hatred, intolerance and unfairness are generally only troubled by slurs, hatred, intolerance and unfairness against THEMSELVES. Slurs, hatred, intolerance and unfairness against others are no cause for concern.
posted by Dick S. on 3-8-2007 at 7:39 am
If they took Ann off, how else would Fox hold onto their demographic of 18-34 fascist rightwingers who live in their mom’s basement and jerk off when she appears on screen?
Michelle Malkin????
posted by actor212 on 3-8-2007 at 8:36 am
I think some of you guys are just missing the point. I think what the article was saying is why is AC allowed to say these things and get away with it with no real consequences while others receive a huge backlash for say comments in the same ballpark? I agree that maybe this website isn’t the greatest for political talk, but I think maybe this is being taken too seriously.
posted by Kimberly on 3-8-2007 at 8:44 am
Just a few quibbles…though I’m with Greg all the way.
I like the, “Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want! Oh, and stop talking about politics on here.” Nice.
Bill Maher is first and foremost a comedian. He will always be a comedian, whether you find him funny or not. He, like Jon Stewart (although I think Bill loses sight sometimes), count that as their real job, they just base it in politics. Therefore, Bill Maher will always go for the funny. Plucking a comment on the VP out of context and comparing it to Coulter’s comment isn’t fair.
The problem with Coulter’s comment, besides making her sound like 12 year old boy who hasn’t learned how to actually be witty, is it’s offensive. Calling Bush a Nazi is stupid and ineffective, but not the same thing. We use Nazi all the time, it’s a nickname for anyone who’s mean to you or overbearing. Same with terrorist, it doesn’t have the intentionally hurtful meaning behind it. For anyone to use that word on someone who is gay is bad, for them to use it on someone who’d not to insult them is even worse.
Don’t believe me? Fine. Go on the street and scream “Nazi!” or “Terrorist!” at someone as they walk by. You’ll get looks and maybe a talking to, but you’ll be okay. Now go and scream the word Coulter used at someone. How about “Towelhead”? No? Why not? Don’t want to? It’s just words and freedom of speech, right?
And the worst thing is, she’s just not funny. I don’t care if you disagree with me, but if you’re going to try to be funny, BE FUNNY. There are plenty of other things to pick on Edwards for, and that’s the one you go for? Geez…
posted by Lyssa on 3-8-2007 at 9:01 am
Dick, the NAACP Image Awards has a history of ignoring a performer’s controversy and awarding them on their work. I find Isaiah Washington ridiculous, but I find your inference on SOME people even more ridiculous and completely insulting.
posted by Lyssa on 3-8-2007 at 9:10 am
To the editors of this blog: please don’t listen to the poster telling you not to post politics. You post whatever you want. Let your readers decide if they wish to stay or go. Why can’t these readers just skip over the posts that they are not interested in? Why should they tell the editors not to post them? I for one quite enjoy a little Ann bashing.
posted by Chilly V on 3-8-2007 at 9:29 am
I don’t normally post, but I wanted to agree with Lyssa. I don’t think of m_f as a political site, but I also don’t have to read every post. So if this post scared you off, it really makes one wonder.
Re: Greg’s original post, I really don’t think of it as political as much as raising the interesting point of where we draw the line. She spews hateful things and gets away with it FROM A GENERAL PUBLIC PERSPECTIVE. The other people mentioned were crushed by public opinion.
But I don’t care if she’s on TV or not… I can always change the channel. I do, however, agree that comparing her to Bill Maher is not a fair comparison due to the fact that she’s trying to put herself up as being right as opposed to mocking whomever is in power.
She can say whatever she wants; it’s just odd that we, as the general public, tolerate her. She certainly isn’t mainstream and I seriously doubt that most of the people that buy her books believe everything she says.
posted by Shane on 3-8-2007 at 9:41 am
Ann Coulter is doing more harm than good to her own party, in the race to maximize her own pocketbook.
posted by Miss Cellania on 3-8-2007 at 9:44 am
I don’t see what all the fuss is about. I don’t see anything wrong with what she said personally. Bill Maher (and many others like him) can seem to say whatever they like and nobody makes a big deal about it. Since when does free speech only apply to left-leaning liberals?
posted by Chris on 3-8-2007 at 11:05 am
I’m sorry. Didn’t Greg say he originally liked Anne Coulter for being the opposite of Franken and Maher? But quit liking her after she became a media clown?
But it’s true, how can you stand behind someone who is only saying these things to get press? And, calling someone a “Faggot,” should not be protected by free speech, no matter what party you are aligned with. Even more disheartening is when she told a disabled Vietnam Vet, that people like him had lost them the war. HOW can anyone defend that? HOW?
Fine, defend her for making statements about Liberals, when Bill Maher and Al Franken get away with the same sort of thing.
But don’t defend someone who just attacks to get a rise out of people and in such a rude, rude fashion as to insult a vetern and 9/11 wives.
Shame.
posted by Scott on 3-8-2007 at 12:49 pm
Let’s leave politcs out. Please! Lump Ann Coulter in with The Daily Show and Colbert Report. Comedy/Sattire and biased news reports; if you can stomach those (ratings say you can) then you can stomach her too.
posted by Priscilla on 3-8-2007 at 1:48 pm
I think the media lets AC have a seat at the table BECAUSE she occasionally goes off into the ozone (Raising the question “Is AC bad for the environment”???).
As people have pointed out, Media Lefties say stupid or horrible things all the time. They don’t get much press because their part of the same “team” in the Them vs. Us battle of US politics.
Perhaps it’s time for a little revolution and build a viable, grass-roots based, middle-of-the-road third party. I don’t think the country needs any more Left or Right wing self-appointed demagogues. I think it needs a reasonable, moderate alternative that can compete on a national level and start taking seats (and thus power) AWAY from both Democins and Republicrats.
posted by Michael on 3-8-2007 at 5:53 pm
Wow! Lighten up Francis. How in the world did that Fox News envy get into this? I’d prefer we stick to safer subjects…like religion.
posted by bob cothroll on 3-8-2007 at 5:59 pm
Just wanted to say David Brooks deserves to be tenured, to use your turn of words.
posted by Trent on 3-9-2007 at 6:54 am
How is AC any different than Jesse Jackson and his rants against Jews and Whites?
If you want to bring up racist comments, cover both sides, please.
posted by Barnaby on 3-9-2007 at 9:24 am
AC is another media phenomena. Created by the media because she says off the wall things (many true and well said). I agree with what Barnaby says. Personally, I like her and read with interest what she says. She’s a spokesperson for the people in this country who are sick to death of everything having to be said correctly and not stepping on someone’s poor little black, white, green, yellow, red toes. The general American public person, like myself who is just sick of the media blowing everything out of proportion.
posted by deriter on 3-10-2007 at 1:23 pm
Hey, the reason Ann Coulter is popular is because the far right wing is stupid and gullible. Nobody could believe the bile she puts forth on a regular basis, but they keep buying her books.
posted by Moon on 3-10-2007 at 7:38 pm
She is just doing what she is paid to do!
Edwords is good looking and well dressed, things a certain segment of the population associate to gays, the word faggot resonates with these same people . Coulter made the Edwords/faggot association and then everybody else repeated it ad naseum. But that was OK because everybody else was just talking about what Coulter said. Still the claim was repeated until it will never be forgotten and nobody has to say they approve. It’s the street theater of political advertising.
posted by moebius on 3-11-2007 at 11:59 pm