Click here to read my commentary on Ann Coulter and her new book in Flagpole.
1 comment:
Anonymous
said...
The following response to the Ann Coulter commentary appeared in the July 5, 2006, issue of Flagpole.
Coulter Dangerous?
As I was reading the article on Ann Coulter this week [“This is Not a Review!” June 21], I could not help but notice a similarity in her rants and those of one of my favorite comedians, Bill Hicks. The example of ”corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons“ sounded like something straight out of the late comedian’s act, except he tended to lean hard to the left instead of hard to the right.
This begs the question: was Hicks dangerous to democracy in the same manner that Old Smiley says Ann Coulter is?
Here are some examples of the hyperbolic statements Bill Hicks made in the permanent public forum of his recorded albums:
“We should have assassinated George Bush. And then said, ’That’s how you do it, towel-head, don’t fuck with us.’”
“Hitler had the right idea! He was just an underachiever!”
“You know what would make ’tightening my belt’ a little easier? If I could tighten it around Jesse Helms’ scrawny little chicken neck.”
“You know that only a handful of people control everything in the world. You know that, right? It’s true.”
Funny stuff. Really funny stuff. And all of it is taken out of context. (The “Hitler” quote came from an explosion against a testy audience, for those of you sensitive to Hitler issues.) I would imagine the same happened with the Coulter article, as Mr. O’Smiley picked soundbites from Wikipedia for examples of how totally nuts Ann Coulter can be.
Back to the question: is any of this stuff truly dangerous to the public discourse? Like much of America, I don’t believe Ann Coulter has any clue what she is talking about. She is just one more talking head to add to this volatile mixture we have spreading across our airwaves and newsprints. Maybe the “threat” lies in her book being the number one best-seller in the country right now, but guess what - it isn’t a threat or danger to democracy. It’s a book you can choose to read or not to read. Old Smiley and myself have that choice in common. But I cannot call her a danger any more than I would call Bill Hicks a danger. I can agree with one more than the other, as I do agree with many things Hicks had to say.
In a free market of ideas, the most dangerous thing is not the person with the loudest voice, but the person trying to silence that voice - no matter if you stand with or against their ideas.
1 comment:
The following response to the Ann Coulter commentary appeared in the July 5, 2006, issue of Flagpole.
Coulter Dangerous?
As I was reading the article on Ann Coulter this week [“This is Not a Review!” June 21], I could not help but notice a similarity in her rants and those of one of my favorite comedians, Bill Hicks. The example of ”corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons“ sounded like something straight out of the late comedian’s act, except he tended to lean hard to the left instead of hard to the right.
This begs the question: was Hicks dangerous to democracy in the same manner that Old Smiley says Ann Coulter is?
Here are some examples of the hyperbolic statements Bill Hicks made in the permanent public forum of his recorded albums:
“We should have assassinated George Bush. And then said, ’That’s how you do it, towel-head, don’t fuck with us.’”
“Hitler had the right idea! He was just an underachiever!”
“You know what would make ’tightening my belt’ a little easier? If I could tighten it around Jesse Helms’ scrawny little chicken neck.”
“You know that only a handful of people control everything in the world. You know that, right? It’s true.”
Funny stuff. Really funny stuff. And all of it is taken out of context. (The “Hitler” quote came from an explosion against a testy audience, for those of you sensitive to Hitler issues.) I would imagine the same happened with the Coulter article, as Mr. O’Smiley picked soundbites from Wikipedia for examples of how totally nuts Ann Coulter can be.
Back to the question: is any of this stuff truly dangerous to the public discourse? Like much of America, I don’t believe Ann Coulter has any clue what she is talking about. She is just one more talking head to add to this volatile mixture we have spreading across our airwaves and newsprints. Maybe the “threat” lies in her book being the number one best-seller in the country right now, but guess what - it isn’t a threat or danger to democracy. It’s a book you can choose to read or not to read. Old Smiley and myself have that choice in common. But I cannot call her a danger any more than I would call Bill Hicks a danger. I can agree with one more than the other, as I do agree with many things Hicks had to say.
In a free market of ideas, the most dangerous thing is not the person with the loudest voice, but the person trying to silence that voice - no matter if you stand with or against their ideas.
Kris Langley
Athens
(http://flagpole.com/News/Letters/2006-07-05)
Post a Comment