Michael Rectenwald replies to a rightwinger who declares, "ann coulter is right about you guys""ann coulter is right about you guys" *@verizon.net writes: > i just finished reading
your
response to the letter by john h Dear *@verizon.net
Slander: In addition to making substantive points, I did disparage the above-mentioned correspondent personally, but I did not utter anything false about him. I don't even know anything about him (nor do I want to), and didn't allege anything that he'd done or said, other than referring to what he did indeed write to us. Furthermore, "slander" applies to verbal comments, whereas "libel" refers to written ones. So, Ann's (and your) word usage is wrong on two counts. It would behoove you to be circumspect regarding your facts when telling someone that they need an education. I will show you the difference between slander and an ad hominem attack: Ann Coulter--the plastic blond heroine of bellicosity; a perfect symbol of contemporary stunted sensibilities, of the abbreviated social sense and lack of sympathy for other human beings so vaunted by rightwing moral imps; a vengeful Barbie doll who acts as if the Arabs have stolen her plastic corvette, run it out of gas and left it stripped in a velvet alley; a spoiled American reactionary BRAT with the political IQ of a nine-year-old--does nothing but make ad hominem remarks. If only she knew what word to use, she would be the pot calling the kettle...Instead, she's the pot calling the kettle "slanderous." She herself aims ad hominems at the left-wing, acting as if we have no retorts for her bilious and vapid slurs. But, what arguments does she make, other than that all swarthy people should be arrested or killed? What does she know, other than that she imagines herself to be a blue-blooded member of the new aristocracy of "Christian" belligerence? --exemplifying a classic case of "false consciousness;" they would surely jettison Coulter at the slightest hint of conflict. Ann Coulter suggested on Crossfire that it is the left or liberals who do not engage in substantive arguments. But she is the one who likened little Katie Couric, a media pussycat, to Eva Braun, Hitler's wife! Further, she has made no substantive arguments. Like the knee-jerk reactionary, mindless, and historically myopic moron that she is, she called for the carpet-bombing of Afghanistan after 9-11. Carol Schiffler aptly characterized that clarion call of madness (http://www.legitgov.org/schiffler_annie_gets_her_guns.html) as the hysterics of a puerile and fanatical nutcase. Meanwhile, the bombing that has been done in Afghanistan has killed mostly innocent poor people, largely to no avail in the supposed war on the black box "tearer." Bin Laden is reportedly out of the box and at large, and most the production of Islamic terrorism comes from Saudi Arabia anyway, where the Bush family oil buddies reign. But we suppose that Ann jumped for joy at the recent wedding rice thrown down from the skies by American bombers. That is her idea of a celebration! But enough of this "slander." I issue this challenge, to be carried, hopefully, by the legion witless rightwing couriers, through Freeperland, to be inevitably distorted and misspelled, to Coulter herself, sitting on her throne of epithets and malapropisms. If I am not singled-out for arrest or deportation, I hope to have this challenge taken up by Almighty Ann, Queen of the Miami Mob: Dear Ann: I will debate you, any time, any place, on any issue, contemporary, historical, or otherwise. Name the time, name the topic, name the venue. (By the way, in the above remarks, you will find ad hominem and other arguments--but you will find no slander. I didn't say that Ann Coulter robbed the brain trust of the American rightwing. Oh, so far from it. It's empty, in any case). Now, as for education (phonetics: ejukashen in your parlance): let's put yours, or Ann's, up against mine, any time. Sincerely, *(email address name changed to an asterisk)
|