Thoughts on Ann Coulter
I checked out her latest book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” from the library last week, and started reading it this morning. I think she’s out done herself as I could only make it to 6 pages before I gave up. I then looked at her footnotes (she only sources maybe a third of what should be sourced, if she were writing a “serious” piece of nonfiction and commentary.) and found them frustrating as I wanted to check out a couple of her sources, but there were no footnotes on that stuff. Then I checked out her index, and realized that this index was misleading also. You know, if she’s going to write a “jokey” book condemning “them” (she writes in a plural form of first person—using “we” and “them” mostly) then she shouldn’t mask her book with an index or footnotes. If she’s going to write without them, then more power to her, go for it, but don’t make a half-hearted attempt to use them so you can go on the air declaring that this is a “serious” book, when more than half of the sources referenced are not listed.
As far as humor goes, she’s so one note, its just so lame and I only made it to page 6. She doesn’t say anything that’s new for anyone who lives in the United States, at least in the first 6 pages. If she’s going to attack liberals, that’s totally cool, but in the first six pages I found holes in her arguments, misleading use of information, half truths, almost every logical fallacy known to men used. If she hates liberals that much, and has a strong case against them, why does she have to distort the information so blatantly? Can’t she crack a joke without pandering to her audience, distorting the information and dumbing down the debates between conservatives and liberals?
I know several peeps who read this blog like Ann Coulter, and that’s cool. I can’t help but wonder if these political pundits like Coulter (on both sides) loved their country more than they loved their money, if they would fuel fire into the “red-blue” war as much as they do? Would they pander to whatever side they belong to and thumb their noses at the other? Seriously, the actual division between both sides is more complicated than what Coulter, Moore, Sorkin, Franken, and almost everyone on Fox News etc dumbs it down to. Do they give the people on both sides, your average Joe Red or Joe Blue a disservice by simplifying it down the way they do? Would we profit more as a country intellectually if the lowest common denominator in political pundit world was held to a higher standard?
After trying to read this book, I couldn’t help but think of a quote that I found recently:
“The Great flaw in American Democracy has nothing to do with voting machines or lobbyists; it is the enormous tolerance for intellectual dishonesty.