Conservatives write books and articles, make arguments, and seek
The piece would morph from a flippant review at the start, to
something that would gradually move away from a review, per se, into a far
more serious discussion that which any good book of the genre should
prompt. Still, I knew I would lose some of my less than dedicated conservative
readers at the top and some of my own liberals as I approached and
entered the finale, just prior to the closing cadence.
- Joseph, 2011 -
Youre So Vain, I Bet You Think This Review Is About
The timing of the books release whether summertime perfect or
imperfect would be an interesting one. The general release would come
just days prior to the jump-ship, steward mutiny on the SS Gingrich as the
doomed steamship, sans steam, that bobbed aimlessly on the surface, much
like its namesake.
And this would be just the latest wrinkle in an emerging Republican lineup
for the 2012 presidential race, revitalizing Keystone Cop form, as the GOP
would revisit its sporadic penchant for self-mutilation.
Indeed, the partys only signature piece of the previous year or two
would be found in the Tea Party, standing proud as the nations Whitman
Sampler of psychiatric disorders where the elite among them would
be defined as those having two cars jacked up on the front lawn. In
short, a grassroots comprised principally of resilient weeds seemingly
enduring any humiliation, while still clawing their way through the cracks
in the pavement.
I really shouldnt talk this way or talk host, Joyce Kaufman
will fire off another email to my inbox, calling me an elitist ass
So no, at the time of the new Coulter release, it would not be a particularly
good time for Republicans what, with Donald Trump now so regrettably
out of the race, and all. And, with this, a new frontrunner would soon emerge
in Mitt Romney as one who would be whoever you wanted him to be, holding
firm with conviction as the transformable Mr. Potato Head of
American politics .. But wait In just the time it took me write
this piece, Congresswoman, Michele Bachmann would pull ahead by a nose in
the GOP horse race one comprised of horses without breeding.
As for me, I would luxuriously prepare myself as I always do for any new
offering by Tugboat Annie where she endeavors to navigate disabled conservatives
to harbor. So there I would sit, having put myself in The Coulter
Mood immersed in The Coulter Experience, fully readied
with my smoking jacket, a cigarette, a fresh cup of coffee and a spittoon
for said beverage.
With this, I would be fully prepared to read the new Coulter book, just as
I had several times before, in direct defiance of The Lefts Librorum
Prohibitorum Index There Id be just me and Ann
Coulter: #1 New York Times Best Selling Author; undisputed master of
When I played back my own words, I began to think that my smart-assed
characterization of her works being Politi-Porn was an unfair
one or rather implied something I didnt actually mean.
(Demonic) is a very smart book and one that involved a lot
of work, obviously. Politi-Porn would be a more apt description
for her imitators, without naming names, who have tried to use the Coulter
template. But I kept it in because it nevertheless spoke more to much of
her readership as the ones I was truly mocking. Joseph
And, as predicted, with this new book, the Coulter escalation motif would
continue, with liberals having been previously characterized as
slanderous, treasonous, godless,
brainless and now outright Demonic. Still,
as a specific genre of Pop Politics, I well understood the continued augmentation
as a necessary hallmark of Politi-Porn. And I really dont
coin this term with any derogatory intent, truly. Rather, I suggest that
Politi-Porn sharing some elements of pornography, more
conventional needs to keep its adherents stoked with an increased
intensity, ratcheting up the game with each pass ... each time, providing
audience satisfaction with the money shots.
With 1998s High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Ann could emerge
in a relatively understated, silky camisole. But in the years since, with
stepped-up fixes to continually feed conservative addiction, the Coulter
fan base would now be in the full-blown Leather Stage.
Surely, Im not the only one to offer this characterization if
in different words. Her own publisher, Crown Forum, does describing
(and promoting) Demonic as Ann Coulters most
shocking book to date. That is, more shocking than
the previous most shocking. The game-play strategy is clear.
And the continued success of this approach is also clear as Demonic
would offer a book so satisfying in its right wing, right-hand frenzy, the
fan base would respond with a glistening string of glowing, 5 Star reviews
at online booksellers often over a month prior to its June 7th general
release, and weeks before even most of the press had been provided advance
Coming June 7th!
I suppose this would be somewhat akin to jerking before the
date, in mere anticipation of what one might get if one were
to get lucky. It should also be noted, however, that there were
Major Metropolitan Newspapers I mean aside from The Daily
Planet that were serving up pre-reviews or
commentaries before the advance press copies of Demonic
went out, based solely on the publishers press release. So, perhaps
to her credit, it might be said that Ann can conjure a bit of pre-cum in
all. The difference, I reason, is that the compulsive conservative chooses
to taste it.
Challenging in its scope and that was just the title page.
Tea Party Patriot
Still, the Crown Publishing promotional press release would, by design, conjure
saliva or froth for prospective readers. As written:
Among the topics Miss Coulter will tackle in her book are: The Lefts
demonization of its enemies
. r-iiiiiight (as Ann would inflect it) much like
the publication of a book that describes indeed, titles its
socio-political opposition as Demonic, I suppose. But lets
not quibble over such minor details. After all, it wouldnt be the first
time that people in publishing houses demonstrated a need for an editor of
their very own. Theyre often much like Record Company executives who
remain challenged by the dexterous fingering of Heart & Soul.
But the thing is
Putting the books attention-getting title and global characterization
of liberals aside, the included premise that many among The Left demonize
conservatives isnt entirely without merit. And it isnt
the only area where Demonic rings true including the
Democratic partys rather unique and as convenient relationship
with minorities and civil rights one thats often had its history
and gestalt reworked by my fellow liberals inclusive of
more contemporary examples than even Ann provides. Yes, I say this as a Democrat.
I say this as a liberal. And perhaps youll come to find out why ...
In truth, the principle enemy of liberalism isnt Ann Coulter. Its
found in a tunnel-visioned liberalism that lies to itself, in a
near-hopeless denial of its own vulnerabilities. They do not listen
outside of their own voices. They do not learn. Coulter is no threat to
liberalism. In truth, the militant Pathological Progressives
have the potential to create far more in the way of political carnage for
the Democratic party.
Demonic, like most Coulter offerings, is nicely written and paced
in addition to being well researched and extensively footnoted
even if a few of Anns songs are missing a couple of stanzas
that could otherwise alter the tune somewhat. It may be her best book
to date, I think Im fairly sure. There are, in
fact, several portions of the book that are downright excellent. The fact
that I come from a different place doesnt matter to me.
Demonic, I feel, is not only worthy of consideration as a mere
purchase, but far more significantly, as something to be considered
after its procurement, upon its reading.
Said another way, dismiss every chapter each and every page
as you choose. But do so with consideration thats contemplative
not by way of predetermination.
So, no Dont anticipate a 100% hit piece on Ann Coulter
here. My close friends know that I do basically like her, if curiously, as
well as finding her and her works to be fun. Yes, much of that
fun is in fucking with her and her writings because you know
everyone needs a hobby. And this will surely be included below, just
as it was above. But none of it I regard to be mean spirited.
Im simply engaging in recreational mockery and mirth though
its known that Ann, herself, can sometimes get pissy over the most
incidental of bullshit while remaining entirely undaunted by those
refer to her a skanky whore or whatever ...
With that out of the way, lets get on with it
Interestingly, as a quick characterization, Demonic might be
regarded as something more reminiscent of a history book, than one
of current events, per se, whereby Ann endeavors to define the contemporary
by way of chronicling historic events. In addition, I do believe that it
may be her darkest of books as I would describe it but
many would likely misinterpret my description in that regard
So lets open the comparatively sparse cover both bold and yet
understated in design, at the excellent suggestion and seemingly keen eye
of yes Matt Drudge making one wonder why his own website
has long been regarded as the benchmark for horrid design presentation
opens in biblical terms quite literally providing the basis
for the books principle title and, along with the comparative examination
of Gustave Le Bons study of crowd behavior, its thesis. Culled from
Mark 5:2-9, Ann provides the story of Jesus encountering a man from the tombs,
tortured by an internal demon, unable to be restrained by chains or any other
means (Pop Reference for Agnathiests: Think Linda Blair, convulsively
writhing on her bed in The Exorcist, as an example). With this,
Jesus would say, Come out of this man, you impure spirit (Pop
Reference: The power of Christ compels you! The
Exorcist). Jesus would then asked the impure spirit what his name was.
He replied, My name is Legion, for we are many .. Legion
would then go on to declare, your mother sucks cocks in Hell,
or some such thing
With this, Ann would postulate, The demon is a mob, and the mob is
demonic. (Ann 1:4-1) And that demonic mob, as suggested, would be comprised
of liberals (not to be, in any way, confused with syndicate-type mobs
possessing oh, I dont know an Enemies List, say).
Ergo, the inspiration for the books title. Indeed, Ann had briefly
entertained the title of Legion, but she reasoned that only
Christians would get it and, in her broad-stroke appraisal, liberals
to a greater extent werent Christians. While it was rather
charitable of Ann to consider her liberal readership, the truth is, most
people who cite themselves as Christians would have likely found a title
of Legion relatively obscure until they, themselves, saw it
referenced in the book just as any liberal would. In any event,
Demonic was surely the better choice particularly given
that it would better serve to get her ardent fan base ginned up,
as one of Anns more current and seemingly favorite terms.
"... Ann .... listen to me, babe ... I know that with you calling
liberals demonic and everything ... you can't sport your usual satanic black
attire, and all ... but ........ that dress makes you look fat."
Blonde on Barstool
Let it be said, however, that Demonic is not chock-full with
Biblical references. Yes, there is the aforementioned and a passing mention
of Pontius Pilate rendering his most renowned decision on the basis of
mob insistence (I suppose making Liberals, by retroactive
association, the new Christ Killers). And good thing that Ann keeps such
references to a minimum, too. After all as I have often spoken of
previously, Christianity is referred to as a faith and a
belief even by Christians for a for a reason. Both
faith and belief are words used when theres
the absence of tangible evidence, true and actual. And it would be rather
silly to advance any general premise or support any particular set
of facts on the basis of a source thats been called into question
in the first place wouldnt it?
Demonic, instead, takes much of its cues from a work by French
Social Psychologist, Gustave Le Bons, specifically The Crowd:
A Study of The Popular Mind as I briefly alluded to earlier, originally
published in 1895. While this, too, might be regarded as another example
of a source that might be called into question, it nevertheless advances
a theory based on observation and analysis, rather than folklore legends.
It is also a highly regarded publication by most in the field
of behavioral psychology.
And, with this, Ann suggests that contemporary liberalism would find its
home in some sense, its genesis in the rather messy French
Revolution, having other motives and manifestations relative to, say, The
American Revolution, by comparison. It is here that one might be reminded
of the more compact, Conservatism: Dream and Reality by Robert
In fact, I venture the guess that Ann would offer an approving nod to
The American Revolution had sought freedom for actual, living human
beings But the French Revolution was far less interested in the actual
and the living the peasants, bourgeoisie, clergy, nobility, etc.
than in the kind of human beings the Revolutionary leaders believed they
could manufacture through education, persuasion, and when necessary
force and terror.
There. You just read Anns book. Now go home.
. okay. I jest. Theres certainly more to Demonic
But in any event, let me get a few things out of the way first They
pretty much involve the relatively benign and incidental and, as advanced
my Ann, are so silly, I somehow feel all the more silly for responding
to them. But collectively, I think they speak to a larger point, where
as a matter of form, the Far Right often has so much in common with the
Ultra-Left, they should get a room. And I mean aside from both engaging
in an endless loop of the call-and-response patterns of a negro spiritual.
But this aside, I need to clear some of the deck first, before I set sail
In addition, let it be noted that while several paid reviews of many
books are seemingly forged on the basis of Chapter Ones,
and a quick perusal of the dust jacket flaps (along with publisher press
releases, it also seems), I dont do that. I have no deadline
and Im not one to be instantly dismissive, out of the gate. Rather,
some of what follows addresses the first chapter of Demonic simply
because this is where Ann supplies the initial setup, as would
be assumed. Ill be covering other areas ahead Most notably,
Chapter 10, covering civil rights and related fare that which, despite
minor flaws, I regard as a most important chapter ... for all. Perhaps for
my fellow liberals, most of all.
I sent the first draft out to friends I knew had read the book
in that first week or so two liberals and one conservative who got
their copies early on, in part because they knew I was about to write about
it. Then another would quickly run out to get her copy so she could be on
my casual and impromptu editorial board, of sorts.
Everyone pretty much agreed that Chapter 10 was an important one
to cover, but after that, each would have traded my Chapter 9 close-up for
their own personal favorite, whether positive or negative in their response.
There was a fair amount of back and forth on that in the final week while
the images and videos were being created. But I think they ultimately realized
that I was using the Coulter book as a springboard to talk about certain
things that had been in my head for quite some time.
In any event, in what commonly commences with a perusal, prior to
my full and detailed read, I would find pause in one particular set of words
All the characteristics of mob behavior set forth by Le Bon in 1895
are evident in modern liberalism simplistic, extreme black -and- white
Right there. Hold the phone. Freeze motion
The truth is, it is much of conservative thinking often by
the conservatives own, oddly proud admission that boasts the
nuance of a Spaghetti Western, as produced by Quinn Martin Good, Evil
... Black, White ... Right, Wrong ... Heaven, Hell Cowboys, Indians
Pinstriped gangster, Efrem Zimbalist Jr. Zeros and Ones ...
Binary thinking that has long been the bumptious hallmark of conservative
thinking. It is ideology, after all not subtlety that defines
the conservative mindset.
Ive had too many (friendly) debates, for too many years with
too many conservative friends who have often cited intrinsic fault
with my over-thought, shades of gray (as their own, oft-used
words). They all have over time promoted the merits of
quick-think, common sense, binary thinking. Black, White. Zero
Ann would go on a crowds ability to grasp only the simplest
ideas is reflected in the interminable slogans. Liberals have boatloads of
them (providing a number of examples in the text) ... What is the Tea
Party slogan?, Ann asks, then answers: There is none
Lets even put aside the Tea Partys class
project, poster board placards, fashioned at home with a bottle of rubber
cement, a vessel of glitter, and a pair of rounded safety scissors
even as they would often use the same words, in repetition, wherever
The Party gathered, nationally. More formally, as it relates
to the professional print jobs of bumper stickers, tee shirts, and coffee
mugs, the Tea Party would promote itself, as one example, with
2009 Tea Party: The Second American Revolution sometimes
custom printed to match a particular state (Iowa Tea Party: Second
American Revolution), but all sharing the identical background graphic,
state by state, nationally.
And then there would be the acronymistic, T.E.A. : Taxed Enough
Already that turned up at any Tea Party rally wherever cameras were
present ... nationally. And this, coming from a home-grown, non-franchised,
grassroots non-organization claiming to have no centralized core
(Who is Number One?, asked Patrick McGoohan in The
Ann would further insist, Conservatives dont cotton to
slogans, and further, Conservatives write books and articles,
make arguments, and seek debates, but are perplexed by slogans ...
.. yeah. Perhaps this is why so many conservatives are
so commonly perplexed.
Christ, even as a recollection of my own childhood, I can recall the classic,
The West Wasnt Won With A Registered Gun. I mean, it rhymed
and everything or what the more contemporary Tea Party calls
Shakespearian. This, along with another popular offering that
featured the well-known peace symbol accompanied by the words,
Footprint of an American Chicken.
Ann and I each had a childhood separated only by The Long Island Sound
and yet our formative years would seemingly be oceans apart as it
related to our experiences and what we saw pass before us, with our
own eyes. Yeeessss, I know Ann hadnt grown up
in the Great Gatsby area of Long Islands north shore as I had, poor
dear but so much more to the point Surely, she must have heard
at least some of the pre-canned Republican mutterings at those July
4th barbecues while grabbing a piece of blackened chicken, outside the New
Still, in her defense, I fully realize that in more recent years
Ann has likely grown far more accustomed to seeing her peeps in primer-grey
automobiles sporting the corporate logos of STP, Valvoline, Fram, Pennzoil
or whatever other peel n strip freebie they managed to pick
up at the local NASCAR event.
I really shouldnt talk this way or talk host, Joyce Kaufman
oh, never mind
That said, Anns mini-rant on bumper stickers and slogans did
yield a simply wonderful, choice line
There are only three memorable Republican slogans in the past half
century unless you count what Dick Cheney said to Pat Leahy on the
Senate floor in 2004, in which case there have been four.
Oh, I do like that. Moreover, Im sure there are many who would
entirely agree that Go Fuck Yourself would be an absolutely excellent
and fitting Republican credo as Ann inadvertently suggests. The only
question is, in the interest of intellectual property protection as
it relates to the Republicans would that be a Trademark or
a Service Mark?
But enough about low-end, Madison Avenue politics, already. Lets move
on to one of the flesh and blood motifs of liberalism, as defined by the
Ann speaks of those who idolize their leaders to the extent that they are
held up as virtual Messiahs, becoming objects of worship. And if the cherished
political icons are dead, so much more the sweet ...
Okay, lets give her this one. I think we all know
the type Ann is speaking of those who, in a state of near-orgasmic
rapture, embark on pilgrimages to the very gravesites of their political
idols, and shit
Indeed, point taken.
But truly, if Ann wishes to characterize all of liberalism by way of the
Ultra-Left, as she tends to do, the Pathological Progressive movement
doesnt generally idolize any politician, finding them wholly
unworthy and bitterly disappointing, at least since 1972. Instead,
their Messiahs come in the form of fringe authors such as Cornel West, Noam
Chomsky, et al More accurately, the Ultra-Lefts Nazareth is
Anarchist Academia that which, if ironically, is the very thing that
often makes the Pathological Progressives so factually incomplete and profoundly
ill-read, even as they regard themselves to be quite the opposite.
And yet Ann, at best if at all, faintly eludes to this in Chapter
9, The Sixties: The Mob Goes to College. In fact, her high
points examination on this subject seems to suggest that it was the
collective wave of trendy student protesters who, if anything, had a greater
influence on academia than the other way around. Indeed, as written, the
students, themselves, were the ones more likely to be held up as Messiahs
at that time by the press, by Hollywood. But half of the chapter
ultimately shifts away from the actual campuses and the SDS, say, instead
concentrating more on the street action of The Weathermen.
Still, the chapter did yield one of the books great lines in
consideration of the Where Are They Now? tradition
(Bernadine) Dohrn and her husband (Bill) Ayers have dined out for half
a century on the glory of their days as Weathermen. Theyre the American
terrorist version of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?
Im sorry, people, but I think that shit is funny and it is,
to some extent, the kind of thing I read Coulter for
... Let's Take a Break ...
Okay, were back. And might I say how much I enjoyed speaking to many
of you out in the lobby over cocktails at the bar
But while I was out there, twirling my paper umbrella, I decided that I wanted
to talk just a little more about The Mob Goes to College as the
title of Demonics Chapter 9 a chapter that, despite some of
my reservations, I thought was a truly interesting read and would
be even more so for those who had little of no familiarity with its subject
As I suggested earlier, while the chapter would cover the student protests,
inclusive of Kent State, much of its relatively compact 15 pages would be
devoted to the chronicling of violence at the hands of The Left and
its often celebratory responses, including the creation and resultant idolization
of its folklore heroes. Chapter 9, indeed, would seemingly have the mission
of countering the characterization that The Right holds the exclusive
distribution rights to violent action, inclusive of domestic terrorism.
As written, as just one example, on page 163
Usually the aging radicals cite their ineptitude at setting bombs to
brag about how few humans they murdered. But these bombs were made with nails,
and nails dont destroy property, they maim and kill people. The three
Weatherman who accidentally dynamited themselves were completely dismembered,
their body parts splattered all over the walls and ceiling.
But despite Anns choice of words (ineptitude), the Weathermen, in fact,
werent entirely inept as it related to acts of domestic terrorism.
In truth, they had something of a somewhat successful resume certainly
enough for one to notice though Ive encountered more than one
of my fellow liberals more, the children of the 80s who were
somehow wholly unaware of The Weathermen at all, no less their list of
achievements. And Anns high-points, laundry list of events wouldnt
be exhaustive as it related to radical acts of violence or barely
concealed, implied threats of the same. Or the outright calls to violence
Still, it was an account in the chapter, on the facing page, that had me
looking up from the book for a moment As Ann would write:
The Weathermen were too psychotic even for the Black Panthers who denounced
the Days of Rage in a beautiful statement from Fred Hampton saying, We
oppose the anarchists, adventuristic, chauvinistic, individualistic, masochistic,
Actually, for me as it relates to simple literature I dont
regard the statement to be all that beautiful-istic, as
But what gave me pause was that her cited quotation, if anything, would run
somewhat counter to her more global premise of the book that
The (liberal) Mob were as one, much like a mass migration
By Anns reference the one of her own choosing a larger
truth may be told
If Ann, indeed, has the insight into the liberalism of the day that she claims,
she would surely know that The Mob as her own description
was comprised of innumerable Mob-ettes. And within
each Mobette, there were in turn factions within factions.
In truth, The Mob was more generally fragmented, splintered,
and often shattered with what were often passionate disagreements within
a broad array of ranks, with regard to approach.
Christ, this disarray often even extended into the comparatively benign folk
music movement, with many of its icons having different and individualized
takes on the song. And, as a related aside, that folk movement
was where a different kind of cut-throat politics sometimes played out, behind
the scenes, among some of the players each vying for their
own supremacy within. In the early years, this even extended to the
seating plan in Woody Guthries hospital room whereby those
allowed to sit right next to the senior Guthrie were regarded as the reigning
kings if for that moment. Still, the movement would remain somewhat
unified in some respects
Theres a book there, somewhere
Still, there were some areas of Demonic where raw, analytical
research, and the chronicling of events, nevertheless missed the
feel and, in that omission, the full reality of a given moment. Yet,
in should be noted that Anns approach is somewhat more akin to that
of a courtroom, laying out a case, rather than one that lays out the scenery.
But even as it relates to raw analysis, the 60s particularly the late
60s and early 70s wasnt in black and white. It wasnt a
simple matter of zeros and ones
I read, with interest, Anns fleeting references to the Columbia University
student takeover of 1968, for I had something of a two-degree-of-separation
connection to it. Even as a small child, I do recall my liberal and generally
open-minded mother herself, a Columbia University graduate
voicing strong objection and disappointment with regard to the student uprising
then occurring at what was her Alma Mater. My mother would additionally reflect
upon it a few times in later years and remained displeased.
Moreover, as an open-minded liberal who was none too keen on
Vietnam, she also was not particularly enamored of the protest movement,
more generally, in many respects along with the fully emerged drug
culture that often accompanied it. In fact, as it related to the possibility
of my own prospective drug use at some future date, my mothers policy
statement was reasonably clear: Ill kill you dead. And then
Ill call the police to arrest your corpse.
And, in a related aside, in consideration of the Coulter Broad Brush
that sometimes misses the canvas, among those who resided within the Republican
stronghold on Long Island in which I grew up, many Republicans had
begun to grow rather weary of Vietnam by the late 60s and early 1970s
if only as it related to their own, personal interests which may have
been true to Republican form. In fact, some years later I would refer to
that upscale, Republican dominated, North Shore strip of terra firma as
The Land of The Academic Deferment.
Surely, I dont know what was going on in New Canaan, Ann (wink,
But before we leave Anns 60s Chapter Number 9, Number 9, Number
9 I believe it would be negligent of me not to, in some way, address
her brief overview of the psychedelic, Kent State, Die-In Happening
Ann, who I believe would look just so hot in an Indian beadwork headband
with hair parted in the center, would in this swatch of writing
seemingly go into her Dead Head mode, perhaps enjoying
a hallucinogenic, Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test of her very own
Naturally, Im joking. Far more likely, its reflective of some
Habitrol tabs gone bad Batch No. 042711, Lot 341-N
For it is here that Ann points to new evidence indicating that
it was the National Guard who was fired upon first (particularly
for those living in the Flintstone era as several on The Right are
who would regard rocks as ballistic, firearm weaponry) Though,
in her defense, Ann fully supports the theory by asking one to read
someone elses writing (as Ill effectively do, I suppose
downstream, regarding another topic) ...
It would be unfair of me to comment on the work of James Rosen, as I
havent read it as of yet (but will make the effort to do so). But what
I do know as of this day is that such assertions would
not only run counter to President Nixons own Commission on Campus Unrest
the Scranton Commission but would also be in defiance of filmed
interviews with the Guardsmen, themselves, who cited the tragedy as one of
chaos, of complete pandemonium, of misheard and misunderstood communication,
combined with a panicked National Guard force who had inadvertently backed
themselves into corner quite literally, in the physical sense
with many being of the same inexperienced age as the campus protestors.
A recipe for disaster, in short.
Still, I fully recognize that many conservatives have enviously longed for
a Grassy Knoll they could call their very own.
But Christ even my regrettably departed, conservative talk host friend,
Rick Seiderman, cited the Kent State shootings as being justifiable on its
own terms without feeling the compulsive need to enhance and
supplement the script. This, to Ricks credit, in some sense. After
all, when one specifically endeavors to find justification some 40
years later in new evidence, it inadvertently suggests
that there wasnt enough previously
But it was what followed in Anns writing that, again, gave me pause
the shooting at Kent State soon put an end to the student riots.
Student radicals had never imagined anyone would fail to praise them, no
less shoot at them ... most of them headed off to law school and university
While, at a first glance, it might seem like a reasonable assessment
particularly with the inclusion of the word, riots (as opposed
to protests) the statement might suggest something that
wasnt entirely true and just didnt happen.
In Anns words, theres an oblique implication perhaps
inadvertent that with the final shots fired at Kent State, there was
a shut-down of sorts. That the students nationwide experienced
something of an epiphany. They had their, as implied, Holy shit, we
can get fucking killed here moment, now running with their tails between
their legs. And, with that, the door was shut on campus unrest.
Thats not really what happened
While curiously not receiving the same press coverage (that was supportive
and complimentary to student protesters, as Ann would tell you), it would
only be a matter of days before eleven would meet the plunging bayonets of
the National Guard at the University of New Mexico in a contest with student
A week after this, two more students would be killed with a dozen
more wounded at Jackson State University.
But if Ann had been thinking and had followed through
her general thesis of a Group-Think, Mob Mentality could have been
better supported as one considered the response to that end
of story, closed door
Even putting aside the 100,000 people who demonstrated in Washington,
D.C five days after Kent State, the campus event would usher the very first
nationwide student strike, causing over 450 campus closures
initially only to soon rise to the over 900 mark. Moreover,
not all of these were peaceful demonstrations. There were many
riotous acts of violence to be found there, as well
So, no Kent State didnt bring an end to campus unrest
or even, yes, campus riots. It inspired more of them.
And if Ann really wanted to underscore her Liberal Lemming Theory,
she could have drilled down even further, but missed the opportunity to do
For the college campus protests more than bled, but hemorrhaged into other
campuses not simply down to the nations High Schools,
mind you, but also to the Junior High Schools (the Middle
Schools of the 60s and early 70s) Do you want to talk
Group-Think, Mob-Mentality here?
Enter Port Washington, New York May of 1970. It would be a quaint
little town on Long Islands north shore truly a village within
the Town of North Hempstead, sharing many of its services schools,
fire department, post office with the neighboring village of Sands
Point. Now simply referred to as affluent by the New York Times,
Port Washington of the 1970s was mild, well behaved and yes
skewed more towards Republican control, to the greater extent.
And yet ..
It would be here among other town-controlled school districts in the
area that The Great Student Walk-Out of 1970 would be
staged (but after lunch, around one-ish, say???)
At the strike of ONE (bongggg), Carrie Palmer Weber Junior High School would
have several of its kids you know, 12 and 13 year olds exit
out the side doors of the building to meet up with the older students at
the neighboring, Paul D. Schreiber High School, just a short walk up Campus
Drive ... Alas, the elementary grades from Salem School and Guggenheim would
not be participating on this festive occasion.
But it would be here, at Paul D. Schreiber, that as told
one of the older high school students had taken charge of the festivities,
to keep things organized. And he was rather easy to spot as told
because he was the one wearing an olive green military shirt and a
black beret. No, Im not making this shit up.
And, with this, would be the makings of a slightly updated, more contemporary,
60s-Pop rendering of what could be a classic Jean Shepherd story
Sure, it was the social-consciousness equivalent of pilfering a cigarette
from moms pack in an effort to mimic those more grownup only
to, upon its smoking make one look all the more juvenile, but still
The PLAN was to commence with a walk (a march, rather) southbound
along Port Washington Blvd. and ultimately meet up with the other child
protestors in Manhasset where a rally of some sort would be held in protest
of the Kent State shooting.
As the march made its bend at Northern Boulevard, the compulsive pull of
Miracle Mile (Manhasset-based, shopping mecca) proved too much for close
to half of the protestor-ettes, where they disembarked, pulling away from
the line. I mean, fuck there were albums to be bought at Floyd-Bennetts.
Now, thats Mob Behavior
Anyway while I wouldnt expect Ann to drill down to the anecdotal
examples of ones childhood even her own there were a
few areas of Demonic where I believe the author did something
of a disservice to her own arguments and more general premise, falling
just shy of hitting a point fully home. Chapter 9 could have been more complete
more expansive where her general position could have been better
served. That said, many of the chapters in Demonic perhaps
most of them could be the basis for entire, stand-alone books. And
I really shouldnt expect any chapter to be a stand-in replacement for
a dedicated tome.
And so it would be with the most controversial Chapter 10
In Discussion: CIVIL RIGHTS & THE MOB: George Wallace, Bull Connor.
Orval Faubis, and Other Democrats
Who is This Liberal Democrat and Why Is He Using Ann Coulter to
Trash-Out His Own People?"
And the issues of race, civil rights, and bigotry become all the more complex
as one truly examines the inner details. The thing is most dont.
And as each side Left and Right endeavors to assign associative
blame, even more of the intricacies are often lost in the balance.
While much of what Ill be sharing from Anns Demonic
as well as beyond, with my additional thoughts might be something
of a disappointment to my fellow liberals, my Democratic brethren, I still
hold true to a more basic belief:
Racism and bigotry have no political allegiances. They are innate to man
and to all men, having existed long before the emergence of formal
political parties any party, of any time. The roots are of
What makes Anns Chapter 10, in my view, the most controversial
of her Demonic chapters is this: If the author can
successfully demonstrate that those of the Democratic Party have long had
a rather dismal civil rights record running counter to common folklore
then the Crown Jewel Centerpiece of liberalism has been taken away
from them. And, with this, in some sense the ushering of their
Ponder that for a moment.
But let me first clear the deck of a couple of perceived problems that
nevertheless dont diminish an otherwise excellent chapter
Putting aside the accurate portrayal and general assessment of Barry Goldwater
and his true relationship with the landmark piece of legislation, Anns
nationwide percentage breakdown of the votes associated with the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 might present the argument that is the most vulnerable
in the chapter one that some might say uses a factual sleight
of hand ...
Im going to give you the age-old counter argument offered by more of
my fellow liberals than I can begin to calculate, just to clear the air of
it. But hold on, you Ann Fans, with middle-management haircuts
modeled after cheap toupees Ill be back to tell you The
Rest of The Story to liberalisms Rest of The Story
I will now, momentarily, hand the Word for Mac program over to my evil twin,
EVIL TWIN JOEY SAYS:
Ann Coulter, that stupid bitch
Suggesting, as so many conservatives have before, that it was the Republicans
who more significantly voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in both
The House and The Senate is an old Republican Song of The
South that eliminates some significant stanzas, with verses more telling.
As has been countered by most any 14 year old with even a passing interest
in Social Studies since eh, 1965 or so that the votes associated
with the Civil Rights Act of 64 were far more reflective of region
(North and West vs. Southern Confederate) than of party. In what would be
delineated as The Confederate States region, the Republican portion
of The Senate served up a yea vote of zero.
And what Ann doesnt tell you is that the Democrats had a decidedly
top-heavy representation in what was the Good Old Boy, Southern Confederate
States on the order of 9:1 as it related to The House, and a staggering
20:1 with regard to The Senates southern representation.
It was in the north and the west where the action actually played out. And,
adjusted for the respective party percentages, northern (and western) Democrats
voted 98% in favor, with 84% of northern (and western) Republicans voting
for the Senate version. Similar percentage breakdowns of the north and western
votes could be seen in the House version, as well. The most casual of internet
perusals, even at Wikipedia, would tell one this. And that wouldnt
even go into the back-stories of who came along kicking and screaming, and
who voted yea for advantageous reasons of their own.
Ann Coulter should be schmacked around and I do mean in a Sean Connery
sort of way.
Signed, Evil Twin Joey
Okay, Im back. Evil Twin Joey has now been dismissed.
Now why do you think that so many of my liberal brothers and sisters
want to draw your attention to the northern votes in The House and The Senate,
quickly dismissing the southern votes (as if they didnt count)
as fast as they can? Anyone? Anyone?
Thats right its because despite the not-so-clever,
Liberalism 101, regionally-selective, reverse engineering of the votes
an inescapable fact still remains: That the racist, Good Old Boy South
was comprised of and represented by Democrats. As in, almost
But Nooooo, says the fully Lobotomized Liberal of LaLa
Land. Those were the DIXIEcrats or thats what they
often obliquely imply
The followers of the hopelessly repetitive Mantra Guide to Liberalism
101 absolutely love to reference the DixieCrats,
as the informal name for the short-lived, States Rights Democratic
Party. It allows them to displace blame on some other entity,
independent of the more formal Democratic party.
But as Ann Coulter points out, quite correctly in her book, theres
a reason they werent called DixieCANs
Moreover, heres the part that the sect of Liberalism 101 isnt
telling you ... The DixieCrats with a profoundly short
shelf-life, in any event had effectively disbanded by 1950
close to some 15 years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, where
there wasnt a single DixieCrat vote yea
or nay to be found. They were over
but still not gone. And where did they go? They returned to the Democratic
party, en masse, as the birthplace of their original home and yes,
that would initially include Senator Strom Thurmond at the time
Yeah Strom Thurmond as a man who would oddly become far more
the darling of liberalism, than that of its conservative opposition
perhaps Trent Lott, aside.
Thurmond as a single, one-off example would switch
to the Republican Party after 1964. But it was this switch that, in
more contemporary times, made him that darling of liberalism. And
why? Because Thurmond could then be used to dishonestly demonstrate that
the old guard DixieCrats and, by extension the whole of the dominantly
Democratic racist elements in the south were truly wanna-be,
closeted conservative Republicans in waiting.
And thats why Strom Thurmond is so frequently held up, time and time
again, as an example of a dishonestly implied trend a mass migration,
of sorts that never actually happened. The Dixie-Crats
along with the more formal racist Democrats would
remain Democrats until the end of their respective political lives
(as Ann would correctly point out in the book).
So whos playing sleight of hand with the facts, people? Ann
Coulter or a tragically embarrassing, counterproductive element of
The Left? Because, in consideration of their storytelling acumen, there are
only two possibilities:
1) Despite what may be the best of intentions, they have a fundamentally
ill-read and feather-light read on history, likely influenced and duped by
their predecessors, further blinded by allegiance
2) Theyre innately dishonest, out of the gate, desperate to
be correct in all instances so much so, they end up duping themselves
as part and parcel of a pathological hatred for conservatives.
Im sorry, but It can only be one of the two.
And what of the southern states Going Red, you may ask? Lets
First, let me be clear here: What follows is not to imply that there wasnt
a Southern Strategy many would regard as politically sinister
forged on paper in 1968, and put into action by Republican
strategists in subsequent years (Coulter, I believe, is overly dismissive
of its significance though see further down the page in a moment).
But whats telling and often not considered, oddly
is that this strategy, as loosely defined, was specifically designed
custom-tailored to exploit the innate anti-African
American sentiments of Democrats (southern white voters,
Said another way, such a strategy would be inherently anemic, if not outright
impotent if a sizeable number of Democrats werent
innately primed and vulnerable to the strategy in the
first place. That is, the Southern Strategy may well have spoken more to
the southern Democrats than it did to the Republican strategists in
Anns alternative take?:
If Nixon had planned to appeal to white racists, speeding up desegregation
was not an effective strategy.
Point taken. But another side could argue that it was those following
Nixon who more aggressively implemented a plan that might have only been
sketched out on a cocktail napkin in 1968.
But all of the above said, as it related to it relative success in
real terms, there may have been more to the story. There often is
And some of that story may be well told in the book, The End of Southern
Exceptionalism (Johnston & Shafer) as featured in the (liberal)
New York Times and without a voice of objection in its piece
as named, The Myth of The Southern Strategy:
the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was
overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar
era, (the authors) note, the South transformed itself from a backward region
to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy
suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party
that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P.
Now, argue as you might, that this only underscores the notion that the
Republicans are the party of the wealthy suburban class, as I
know my fellow liberals likely need something to latch on to at this
point But to see such a political shift as one founded exclusively
in racism, with southern voters (read: Democrats) wooed towards a party that
embraced such well as the New York Times, themselves, put it
Its an easy story to believe.
The NY Times would also accurately point out that, in the 1990s, the nation
as a whole turned rightward in its congressional voting
patterns (presumably making those of the North and the Midwest Temporary,
Honorary Racists my words, not those of The Times). There were,
in fact, several reasons for The Red State Tide over the
years. But for some of my liberals who wish to attribute such shifts to the
unbridled success of The Southern Strategy in its highly effective ability
to appeal to Democratic racism thats entirely up to you.
Take a Break with The 7th Inning Stretch
... And we're back ...
It would be inappropriate to reprint long passages from the book, but let
me give you some significant highlights, as presented in Demonic,
whereby Ill briefly comment on each one before I get back to
other considerations more expansive
Given that I know there will be so many of an ilk reading this very
page who shall refuse to purchase Demonic or
any Ann Coulter work, let me reward you with the following freebie
clips as a public service to my liberal brethren for having made it this
far in the discussion:
Every segregationist who ever served in the Senate was a Democrat
and remained a Democrat except one.
True. That one and only one was Strom Thurmond,
as I indicated earlier to be used by the Ultra-Left as an example
of a trend that never was.
... it was Republicans who passed the Thirteenth Amendment, granting
slaves their freedom; the Fourteenth Amendment, granting them citizenship;
and Fifteenth Amendment, giving them the right to vote. It was Republicans
who sent federal troops to the Democratic South to enforce the hard-won rights
of the freed slaves.
All true. If there are nuanced back stories that significantly alter
the above ones that dont require the convoluted contortions
of excessive reverse-engineering, Id like to hear them.
The Ku Klux Klan was originally formed as a terrorist group to attack
Republicans who had come to the Democratic South after the Civil War to help
enforce legal equality for freed slaves.
It was again Republicans who passed the Civil Rights
Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867, both signed into law by
Republican president Ulysses S. Grant.
"Republicans kept introducing federal civil rights bills and Democrats
kept blocking them a bill to protect black voters in the South in
1890; anti-lynching bills in 1922, 1935, and 1938; and antipoll tax
bills in 1942, 1944, and 1946.
Democratic politicians won elections and promptly resegregated the
entire South with Jim Crow laws.
In 1913, Progressive Democrat president Woodrow Wilson instituted
segregation in Washington, D.C., bringing Jim Crow to the federal workforce.
Wilson summarily dismissed black officials from their federal jobs in the
South and in D.C.
Progressive, technically, is a subjective term, but otherwise
true in content.
But History, you say, I know So lets advance the
tape a bit in the timeline
Democrat Adlai Stevenson, known to experience personal discomfort
in the presence of Negroes, chose as his running mate John Sparkman
of Alabama, a Democrat segregationist.
The quote regarding Stevensons discomfort comes from Taylor
Branchs Parting the Waters: America in The King Years.
I believe its a second-hand account, subjective in its nature, that
may or may not have been true in an era where many people experienced such
discomforts. But as it relates to Stevensons pick for his
running mate true if as a matter of strategy, naturally (which
would speak to the Coulter thesis, in some sense).
in 1956, the Republican Party platform endorsed the Supreme
Courts 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education that desegregated
public schools; the Democratic platform did not.
Governor Orval Faubus, progressive New Deal Democrat, blocked the
schoolhouse door to the Little Rock Central High School with the states
National Guard rather than allow nine black students to attend. In response,
President Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard to take it out
of Faubuss hands.
Completely true. Never heard of Orval Faubus, you say? His name never came
up in our liberal coffee klatches? Theres a reason for that.
President Eisenhower pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, written
by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, guaranteeing black voting
During the endless deliberation on Eisenhowers civil rights
bill, Senator Lyndon Johnson warned his fellow segregationist Democrats,
Be ready to take up the goddamned nigra bill again.
Likely true, as there have since been a few accounts of this by now, all
in general agreement.
Senator Sam Ervin told his fellow segregationists,
Im on your side, not theirs, and advised them to face up
to the fact that weve got to give the goddamned niggers
Apparently true, by more than one account.
Goldwater actually opposed only two of the seven major provisions
of the (64 Civil Rights) bill those regulating privately owned
housing and public accommodations.
True and he did so as a strict Constitutionalist for better
or worse. For those who see such as a blind for his plausible
deniability racism you never much investigated Barry Goldwater
there were other provisions (Barry Goldwater) would have
made tougher. For example, Goldwater wanted to make it mandatory that federal
funds be withheld from programs practicing discrimination, rather than
discretionary, as President Kennedy had requested.
(Barry Goldwater) was a founder of the NAACP in Arizona ... (and)
When he was head of the Arizona National Guard, he had integrated
the state Guard before Harry Truman announced he was integrating the U.S.
True, true and beyond. Goldwater, on his own time and dime
would do much to help many non-whites and he did
so without fanfare, not carrying the press in tow. Say what you will about
his political ideology in the general sense if you like, but Goldwater
in many respects was a most fascinating and interesting man. While
being of constitutional simplicity on the surface, he was also
one of great complexity and nuance. Ill leave it there.
Lyndon Johnson voted against every civil rights bill during his
tenure in the Senate.
so very true verifiably so (even if somewhat cleaned
up and remodeled in some TV movie I saw some years ago, and cant
recall the name of). But to suggest that Johnson, who ultimately signed the
64 Civil Rights into law, was truly a racist at heart, is an argument
that Coulter does not make, perhaps to her credit. Rather,
it would be more suggested that Johnson just didnt care quite
enough for the negro in principle when such
considerations were in conflict with the political air required to breathe.
And it is here, among other notable Democrats named, that Coulter supports
her broader claim of the Democratic partys desire to attract and maintain
Mob-Appeal even if it meant throwing blacks under the
bus in addition to making them sit in the back, as convenient.
But for those who wish to investigate further though few likely will
one may wish to pay attention to who authored, introduced, and brought
a series of bills to the floor. That is, who showed the initiative in
the first place? It is in this research that surprises may be found.
Still, Ann elected to pretty much stop with the end of the 1960s likely
because that was seen as the apex of the Civil Rights era. Some might view
the cutoff point with suspicion, wondering what happened thereafter. But
Ann would argue as Demonic, itself, does that the
Democrats would change their tune once it became increasingly advantageous
for them to do so. This aside, I ask you to hold on Ill be taking
you to a few places more current, but from an entirely different angle
Moreover, I realize that many readers particularly young, college
age readers might suggest that the contemporary Republican party is
no more the party of 1890 than the Democratic party is currently reflected
in the days of 1957, say. And, in some sense, they might be right. That could
certainly be argued in the academic, at the least.
But theres more to the story and that story isnt in the
halls and cocktail lounges of Washington, D.C., or on the Congressional floors
its in the streets, often far away from the nations
THE MICRO-MINI SUPPLEMENT to DEMONICS CHAPTER 10
Enter Bill Maher.
I like Bill Maher very much. Im often on his page, and his program,
Real Time along with the eventual return of Boardwalk
Empire are the two principle reasons I have HBO piped in.
In this past year, Maher would voice one of his more controversial comments
not on his own show, but rather on the news discussion program, ABC
"I would never say and I have never said, because it's not true that Republicans,
all Republicans are racists. That would be silly and wrong. But nowadays,
if you are racist, you're probably a Republican.
As I read Demonics Chapter 10, I would only be left to wonder
if Ann wrote it, in part, as a response to the proposition advanced by Bill
Maher as a man she has in her personal address book.
As for me, relating to Mahers assertion I just couldnt
sign on to it.
A mistake is often made on both The Left and The Right in defining
a given reality on the basis of The Headliners the names
we know, the ones we recognize. The Thurmonds. The Byrds and I dont
mean the musical group. And yet other names and other groups
of which all are familiar. The ones who hit the papers. The ones splashed
across a screen.
Me, in addition to being an observer of the media and its coverage of events
Ive kept an eye on the streets ... And it is here,
where people actually live and breathe, that a disturbing
and verifiable trend might be seen
If the truth be known, beginning with the 1970s, as the South became ever
so slowly more enlightened bit by bit, piece by piece
the new Racist South would increasingly find its home in the
Blue State North, where far too much of it still lives today.
Enter Boston as among the most liberal and
Democratic of cities in the America 1974, two years after
its mother state of Massachusetts would be the only one to give George McGovern
a presidential nod in 1972 It was a time when a resigning and resigned
Richard Nixon, along with many of the remnants of the 1960s were on their
way out as much of the country entered its somewhat more light-hearted,
Mary Tyler Moore era And a time when the most liberal of Democratic
cities would also be headlined as The Most Racist City in
In Bostons defense if one can consider it as such subsequent
to 1974, many cities would be cited as The Most Racist City
in America as most commonly denoted by the Liberal
Press, by the way. They would include anywhere from Philadelphia
to President Obamas adopted city of Chicago. But in all instances
after 1974, the press-specified racist cities were Blue
cities, often in the Bluest of States. (*for my UK readers who are
likely familiar in any event, Blue specifies an area that votes
Democratic, whether by a slight margin or by one far more delineated).
But lets take that school bus back to the Boston of 1974 where its
response to court ordered busing was far less enthusiastic than even that
in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg area, previously In fact, at the time,
liberal and Democratic Boston offered the greatest resistance to desegregation
in the country. Its credo, as part of a mass movement: Restore
Our Alienated Rights (sounding much like a credo the Tea Party might
have forged after you know putting their little heads together).
No matter what side of the busing issue one might be on for a
variety of possible reasons, from mere inconvenience to that relating
to the constitutional the source of Bostons rejection was rather
clear, without any effort made towards concealment. A Federal court had declared
Boston as a city that had deliberately constructed schools and drawn
district lines to racially segregate its schools. And, as it related to the
orders of that Federal court, the Boston School Committee continued to defy
the orders ones which were subsequently held up in a United States
Court of Appeals principally by conservative judges, it might be noted.
With the 1974 enrollment within the Boston school district being at just
around the 100,000 mark, the attendance would soon drop to 50,000 students
in very short order one half, said another way. Private schools
principally Catholic would be overrun with panicked parents
... more than could be accommodated. The stay-at-homes were far
too high in number for the State to even contemplate any sort of punishable
action (which may explain the intellectual prowess of many Bostonian today).
fact, on the first day of the court-imposed plan, South Boston High
would have a sparse 100 students show up in a 1,300 desktop school
one that, among others, required the protection of the Massachusetts State
Troopers for the next three consecutive years This
again in one of the most liberal, Democratic strongholds in the country.
No, this wasnt the South and it wasnt the
DixieCrat days of 1949. At this point in the timeline, you would be less
than a year away from the newly emerging, Anne Beatts, Saturday Night Live
Dont be fooled by an African-American more recently being voted in
as Governor of Massachusetts. For in that state, there is often a
disconnect between the peoples voting habits and their actual,
day to day actions in the streets. And there are a number of complex reasons
that the people of that state vote as they do inclusive of a need
to feel good about themselves, tied to their own counterfeited illusions
of themselves, based on a bleeding heart legend ... the basis of which never
truly existed in the first place. And perhaps, as I surmise with just a mild
dose of sarcasm, what some Democrats do in that Boston voting booth is little
more than a simple act of contrition, forged in Catholic guilt.
There are those who would argue that the busing issue was a one-off situation
in Boston as if that would, in some way, matter. But no Those
years in the 1970s merely brought to the fore what had long existed
in that liberal city and that which is still in evidence today
only more muted, more restrained.
Additionally, this would all run in tandem with a Liberal Boston
that essentially blockbusted the Jews out of town, forcing them to find new
settlements in Brookline and Newton. But I really shouldnt
focus too much on Boston, should I?
Fast-wind the tape to June of 2009 when, as a portion of a larger nationwide
study conducted by Stanford University, a rather unique and bold question
would be asked concerning the current down-economy, among two groups: The
Democrats and the Republicans. And, with a direct and straight-up
question posed, the following would be revealed
32% of Democrats, on some level blamed the Jews for the
current financial crisis. The Republicans would pull up the distant-second
rear at 18%.
Stanford University / Boston
No, not good in either event. But wouldnt one (read: liberal)
expect these numbers to be reversed, relative to party response?
Perhaps not. Rather significantly, many Democrats have abandoned much of
their support for Israel and, by extension, the Jews. The Palestinians would,
in time, become the new victim class darling of The Left. After all, having
six million of your people slaughtered along with scores more in previous
centuries only buys you so much goodwill. The people of Palestine,
regarded as the more downtrodden, would be made to order for those who favor
underdogs by simple default Made to order for our own Liberal Clan,
This would be a far cry from a post-1967 era when, many have reasonably
argued, that Robert Kennedy would lose his life over his support for Israel
inclusive of its newly secured borders.
Not a liberal enough example for you? It would be George McGovern who, in
1972, declared that his support of Israel was more profound than that of
Mr. Nixon (as McGovern would more commonly refer to the President).
No something happened. And I may end up writing about that Democratic
metamorphosis at some future date ... as a phenomenon sometimes finding
its simple origin in: Republicans and Evangelicals now like Jews. Ergo, Jews
Whenever I write about this topic even briefly, as above, I always
feel compelled to indicate that Im not Jewish; Im a Fallen Catholic.
But I digress. And, with that, I now recall a few reviews of Ann Coulters
previous books where the reviewers would proclaim, She often seems
to go off on uncontrollable rants. I suppose, in that regard,
Ann and I have a similar affliction.
With that, lets get back to some regional breakdowns, vis a vis the
FBI Hate Crime Statistics
Now, most liberals are wholly unaware of these or their specifics,
rather. But when those specifics are revealed to them, their dismissal is
nanosecond-instantaneous. I mean, right out of the gate. And
yes, Ive already test marketed their response. Their only
pause comes as they sit upon their respective thrones and grimace
as they attempt to squeeze one out an explainable rationale, that
is. With this, they twist and turn in all sorts of cerebral distortions to
explain-away the data with some rather convoluted reverse
engineering. Ill be getting in to a few of them
But, if for just the moment, consider that the most liberal state in The
States Massachusetts more significantly contributes to the
FBI Hate Crime database (322 incidents, based on last available information)
than the currently controversial Red State of Arizona (219 incidents). Each
state, by the way, has a virtual identical head count as it relates to population
6,500,000 vs. 6,400,000, respectively.
But clearly, there are states where incidents are under-reported,
as argued most notably where illegal immigrants reside, fearing to
Uh-huh which would perhaps explain why Bill Mahers
non-border, home state of New Jersey would contribute 549 hate crimes
in a year among the nations highest, with a population of 8,700,000
as opposed to Georgia (population 9,700,000) serving up a hate crime
total of 11 (using the very same year in all instances provided
I suppose it also would explain yet another entire swatch of non-border states
... After all, the southernmost Dixie States now commonly
Red, and representing an entire one-third of the national population
continues to serve up just about 5% of all hate crimes in the United
Damn, thats a whole lot of under-reporting.
Then the argument is advanced that the urban North, filled with minorities,
offers more opportunity for hate .. as if that should
matter among liberal Democrats. I mean, what the minorities
were there, after all, so I just had to go for it? ... But
yes, indeed, South Carolina and Georgia are just so lily white
in their population breakdown, after all.
The irrational Leftist sits there thinking eyes darting,
side to side
And, with just a little bit of research all thats generally
required for most of the fully Lobotomized Left they come back and
declare, Ah, HA! Each state has its own definition
of what constitutes a hate crime!
. That is true. There are those states, for example, that
dont include the matter of sexual orientation, say.
But youre reaching. For this consideration, among others, couldnt
possibly make up for the massive chasm between the Red State South
as now defined and the Blue State North along with the
West Coast, by the way.
Yet, still it just couldnt be true, the rabid Leftist
argues. Because one is only looking at the raw numerical data, without adjusting
for population, its argued ... Uh-huh, thats why I included the
population data in the examples listed above.
But in the event you think I was cherry-picking those examples, Ill
provide a National Hate Crime Map as compiled and constructed by
Esquire magazine from yet a another recent year one calibrated
to population, on a per-capita basis thats been color-coded.
The areas of least hate perhaps confusingly, relative
to political voting maps is denoted by the color blue (more cyan,
really) while the regions of most hate are designated
in yellow and near-yellow. Keep in mind that the numbers on the map are more
reflective of the raw numerical data, while the color-coding calibrates the
data to population density. Thats what you want to pay attention to.
Again ... Blue/Cyan: Im kind of cool, albeit not totally cool Yellow/Near Yellow: Im not nearly as cool as I pretend to be
And, in that map are the streets the very ones I spoke of.
The place where the people, themselves again actually live
and breathe, independent of Southern Strategies ...
independent of any strategy, for that matter.
Now, I suppose one might try to argue out of desperation that
these hate-filled incidents were primarily executed by Republicans living
in these liberal regions (such as Boston, say?), but you know youd
look silly .. right?
So no, Bill Maher. I like your work very much. I do. But to suggest that
Republicans hold something just shy of an exclusive rights deal to racism
and all of its holdings that is the silly and
wrong part. Yes, I know that theres selective evidence
one that has been focused upon to suggest that many have simply lost
their fucking minds with the election of a black President Surely,
that exists. But pull that camera back for the wide-shot and a more revealing
look and a more detailed story may be found.
And while the focus above has been on the Democrats and the Blue States in
this discussion, I still firmly believe just as I wrote at the head
of this section, Racism and bigotry have no political allegiances.
They are innate to man and to all men.
Or, as you used as a rejoinder for a New Rules segment regarding
another issue, Mr. Maher Youd think most
people would know that just by being alive.
.. I have long advised my liberal brothers and sisters that
long term it might be more beneficial to engage in some sobering
introspection rather than unrelenting denial, fueled by a blinding
intoxication that has netted a bunch of angry drunks.
Because just as genuine conservatism has, in my view, been diminished by
the Tea Party, theres a genre of The Left that continues to erode a
liberalism more noble. And both sides on these extremes has done little more
than turn out, as a matter of metaphorical form, two opposing groups
of angry drunks.
I have also previously cautioned my liberal brethren, as it related
to their own set of vulnerabilities, that it would only take one
conservative, just a little bit smarter just a little better
researched, to lay them flat. And just as I had suggested in this regard,
there are areas of Demonic where Ann Coulter simply
walks all over you.
Not that many of you will ever know it, mind you no less admit to
Understand, there are liberals out there several, friends of
mine doing some very fine and noble work, most often within
the confines of their own community certainly far more that I have
in more recent times. Hell, I just write words ... or write checks,
as the easy way out. I can only salute those who continue to work the actual
But I did come to realize, over time, that these liberal friends or whom
I speak had one particular thing in common aside from their individual
efforts to make a better world, as they perceive it to be Not one
of them is consumed by hatred. Truly. Theyre seemingly far too busy
with their day to day efforts to be fixated on Ann Coulter. Or much of anyone
This, in contrast to the multitudes on The Left who are still shadowboxing
with the lifeless ghost of Ayn Rand as a woman whos been in the ground
for the past 30 years ... (Joseph slaps open palm to forehead)
But let it also be said, in addition, that among my conservative friends
there are those who are also doing their very good work
and its sometimes to the benefit of the very same people my liberal
friends are assisting each in their own way. Yes, these Republican
friends have been pre-sifted, as friends commonly are. But while
I may make fun of them in instances, I will not demonize them.
Again, look at the streets.
Yes, there are some very weird, indeed disturbing things happening
over on The Right during this time, this point in history. And, naturally,
there are entire swatches of conservative ideology Im not on board
with. But to go tit-for-tat with Ann Coulter as I opened this piece
with what was only recreational fun would be to miss the point of
Demonic. For while Ann offers a laundry list of the Republican
partys own contribution to Civil Rights, the book isnt
about Republicans, after all. Its about an element of The Left
that Coulter, perhaps unfairly, uses to characterize all of liberalism. And
one cant expect her to offer a tit-for-tat comparison chart in a
point of view book that favors a side. Thats just not her
And while there are those who have often said that Ann Coulter speaks in
selective half-truths, it still might behoove some on The Left
to pay a little more attention to the half that may be
true. For in any tit-for-tat, call-the-kettle-black contest of any
kind Charles Manson citing Ted Bundy as a serial killer doesnt
make the evaluation any less valid. Not that Im equating Ann Coulter
with Charlie Manson, mind you. I see her more as a Manson girl
inscribing Demonic Piggies on a refrigerator door in blood
.. I grew up in a time when conservatism was far better served by the
likes of Bill Buckley than it is now, by Billy Bob. And when I currently
look at the new representatives of what is truly a seized
conservatism, such as that presented by the Tea Party, I actually
grieve for conservatives. Truly. With that said
Ann Coulter is no Billy Bob.
As lengthy as this piece has been, I believe I've done 'Demonic' something
of a diservice as there are several excellent chapters not discussed and
it's all a very good read. Really. And it is with this consideration that,
for one at least willing to entertain intellectual arguments that
might be different than ones own made less dry and academic
with an amusing mix of humor I, without reservation, recommend
Demonic ... for all.
..... Okay, Im done. For those of you remaining, you can go home
now. Go I want a quick moment alone with the author