Ann Coulter's Demonic:  Mega-Review and Discussion

“Conservatives write books and articles, make arguments, and seek debates.”
– Ann Coulter –

“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 -

You’re So Vain, I Bet You Think This Review Is About You

The timing of the book’s 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 party’s only signature piece of the previous year or two would be found in the Tea Party, standing proud as the nation’s 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 shouldn’t talk this way or talk host, Joyce Kaufman will fire off another email to my inbox, calling me an “elitist ass” again.

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 Left’s Librorum Prohibitorum Index … There I’d be … just me … and Ann Coulter:  #1 New York Times Best Selling Author; undisputed master of penmanship.

“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 didn’t 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 don’t 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 1998’s ‘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, I’m not the only one to offer this characterization – if in different words. Her own publisher, Crown Forum, does – describing (and promoting) ‘Demonic’ as “Ann Coulter’s ‘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 review copies …

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 publisher’s 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 Left’s 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 let’s not quibble over such minor details. After all, it wouldn’t be the first time that people in publishing houses demonstrated a need for an editor of their very own. They’re often much like Record Company executives who remain challenged by the dexterous fingering of ‘Heart & Soul’.

But the thing is …

Putting the book’s attention-getting title and global characterization of liberals aside, the included premise that many among The Left demonize conservatives … isn’t entirely without merit. And it isn’t the only area where ‘Demonic’ rings true – including the Democratic party’s rather unique and ‘as convenient’ relationship with minorities and civil rights … one that’s 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 you’ll come to find out why ...

In truth, the principle enemy of liberalism isn’t Ann Coulter. It’s 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 Ann’s songs are missing a couple of stanzas that could otherwise alter the tune somewhat. It may be her best book to date, I think – I’m fairly sure. There are, in fact, several portions of the book that are downright excellent. The fact that I come from a different place doesn’t 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 that’s contemplative – not by way of predetermination.

So, no … Don’t 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’. I’m simply engaging in recreational mockery and mirth – though it’s 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, let’s 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 let’s 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 …

‘Demonic’ opens in biblical terms – quite literally – providing the basis for the book’s principle title and, along with the comparative examination of Gustave Le Bon’s 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 don’t know – an Enemies List, say).

Ergo, the inspiration for the book’s 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 – weren’t 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 Ann’s 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 there’s 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 that’s been called into question in the first place … wouldn’t it?

‘Demonic’, instead, takes much of its cues from a work by French Social Psychologist, Gustave Le Bon’s, 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 Nisbet.

In fact, I venture the guess that Ann would offer an approving nod to Nisbet’s words …

“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 Ann’s book. Now go home.

……. okay. I jest. There’s 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 don’t do that. I have no deadline – and I’m 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. I’ll 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 … As written:

“All the characteristics of mob behavior set forth by Le Bon in 1895 are evident in modern liberalism – simplistic, extreme black -and- white thinking ……"

Right there. Hold the phone. Freeze motion …

The truth is, it is much of conservative thinking – often by the conservative’s 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.

I’ve 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 and Ones.

Ann would go on … “a crowd’s 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 …”

…… Let’s even put aside the Tea Party’s 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 Prisoner’).

Ann would further insist, “Conservatives don’t 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 Wasn’t 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 hadn’t grown up in the Great Gatsby area of Long Island’s 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 Canaan firehouse.

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 shouldn’t talk this way or talk host, Joyce Kaufman … oh, never mind …

That said, Ann’s 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, I’m 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. Let’s move on to one of the flesh and blood motifs of liberalism, as defined by the author …

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, let’s 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 doesn’t 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-Left’s 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 book’s 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. They’re the American terrorist version of ‘Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?’ …”

I’m 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, we’re 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 Demonic’s 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 don’t 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 Ann’s choice of words (ineptitude), the Weathermen, in fact, weren’t 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 I’ve 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 Ann’s high-points, laundry list of events wouldn’t 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, Custeristic Weathermen’ …”

Actually, for me – as it relates to simple literature – I don’t regard the statement to be all that … ‘beautiful-istic’, as Ann does.

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 of lemmings.

By Ann’s 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 Guthrie’s 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 …

… There’s 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 Ann’s 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 – wasn’t in black and white. It wasn’t a simple matter of zeros and ones …

I read, with interest, Ann’s 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 mother’s policy statement was reasonably clear: “I’ll kill you dead. And then I’ll 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 don’t know what was going on in New Canaan, Ann (wink, wink).

But before we leave Ann’s 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, I’m joking. Far more likely, it’s 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 else’s writing (as I’ll effectively do, I suppose – downstream, regarding another topic) ...

It would be unfair of me to comment on the work of James Rosen, as I haven’t 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 Nixon’s 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 Rick’s 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 wasn’t enough previously …

But it was what followed in Ann’s 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 jobs.”

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 wasn’t entirely true … and just didn’t happen.

In Ann’s words, there’s 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.

That’s 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 protestors.

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 didn’t 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 so …

For the college campus protests more than bled, but hemorrhaged into other ‘campuses’ – not simply down to the nation’s 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 Island’s 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, I’m 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 mom’s 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.

Alas …..

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, that’s ‘Mob Behavior’ …

Anyway … while I wouldn’t expect Ann to drill down to the anecdotal examples of one’s 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 shouldn’t 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 …

… and/or …

“Who is This Liberal Democrat and Why Is He Using Ann Coulter to Trash-Out His Own People?"

It’s complicated.

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 don’t. 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 I’ll be sharing from Ann’s ‘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 the caves.

That said …

What makes Ann’s ‘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 emasculation.

Ponder that for a moment.

But let me first clear the deck of a couple of perceived problems that – nevertheless – don’t 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, Ann’s 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” ...

Or not.

I’m 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 … I’ll be back to tell you ‘The Rest of The Story’ to liberalism’s … Rest of The Story …

I will now, momentarily, hand the Word for Mac program over to my evil twin, Joey …


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 doesn’t 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 Senate’s 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 wouldn’t 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.

Evil Twin Joey

… Okay, I’m 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 didn’t count) as fast as they can? Anyone? … Anyone?

That’s right … it’s 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 exclusively.

But “Nooooo”, says the fully Lobotomized Liberal of LaLa Land. “Those were the DIXIEcrats” – or that’s 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, “there’s a reason they weren’t called DixieCANs” …

Moreover, here’s the part that the sect of Liberalism 101 isn’t 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 wasn’t 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 that’s 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 who’s 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 …

… or …

2) They’re 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.

I’m sorry, but … It can only be one of the two.

And what of the southern states ‘Going Red’, you may ask? Let’s consider it …

First, let me be clear here: What follows is not to imply that there wasn’t 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 what’s 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”, as described).

Said another way, such a strategy would be inherently anemic, if not outright impotent … if a sizeable number of Democrats weren’t 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 Washington.

Ann’s 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 … “It’s 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 … that’s 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 I’ll 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 don’t require the convoluted contortions of excessive reverse-engineering, I’d 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 anti–poll 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 let’s 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 Stevenson’s ‘discomfort’ comes from Taylor Branch’s ‘Parting the Waters: America in The King Years’. I believe it’s 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 Stevenson’s 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 Court’s 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 state’s National Guard rather than allow nine black students to attend. In response, President Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard to take it out of Faubus’s hands.”

Completely true. Never heard of Orval Faubus, you say? His name never came up in our liberal coffee klatches? There’s a reason for that.

“President Eisenhower pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, written by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, guaranteeing black voting rights.”

True, and …

“During the endless deliberation on Eisenhower’s 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, ‘I’m on your side, not theirs,’ and advised them to face up to the fact that ‘we’ve got to give the goddamned niggers something.’ …”

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.”

Quite true.

“(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. military.”

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. I’ll leave it there.

“Lyndon Johnson voted against every civil rights bill during his tenure in the Senate.”

Oh, so very true – verifiably so (even if somewhat ‘cleaned up’ and remodeled in some TV movie I saw some years ago, and can’t 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 didn’t 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 party’s 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 … I’ll 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 there’s more to the story … and that story isn’t in the halls and cocktail lounges of Washington, D.C., or on the Congressional floors – it’s in the streets, often far away from the nation’s capital ...


Enter Bill Maher.

I like Bill Maher very much. I’m 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 Sunday’ …

"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 ‘Demonic’s 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 Maher’s assertion … I just couldn’t 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 don’t 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 … I’ve 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 America’.

In Boston’s 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 Obama’s 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 let’s 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. It’s 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 Boston’s 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).

In 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 wasn’t the South – and it wasn’t 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 Generation.

Don’t 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 people’s 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 shouldn’t 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 Review

No, not good in either event. But wouldn’t 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, in short.

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 bad.

Whenever I write about this topic – even briefly, as above, I always feel compelled to indicate that I’m not Jewish; I’m a Fallen Catholic.

But I digress. And, with that, I now recall a few reviews of Ann Coulter’s 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, let’s 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, I’ve 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’. I’ll 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 report …

Uh-huh … which would perhaps explain why Bill Maher’s non-border, home state of New Jersey would contribute 549 hate crimes in a year – among the nation’s 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 – 2009).

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 States.

Damn, that’s 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.

Meanwhile …

The irrational Leftist sits there … thinking … eyes darting, side to side …

And, with just a little bit of research – all that’s generally required for most of the fully Lobotomized Left – they come back and declare, “Ah, HA! … Each state has it’s own definition of what constitutes a hate crime!” …

……. That is true. There are those states, for example, that don’t include the matter of sexual orientation, say.

But you’re reaching. For this consideration, among others, couldn’t 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 couldn’t be true, the rabid Leftist argues. Because one is only looking at the raw numerical data, without adjusting for population, it’s argued ... Uh-huh, that’s why I included the population data in the examples listed above.

But in the event you think I was cherry-picking those examples, I’ll 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 that’s 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. That’s what you want to pay attention to.

Again ...
Blue/Cyan: I’m kind of cool, albeit not totally cool …
Yellow/Near Yellow: I’m 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 you’d 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 there’s 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 … “You’d 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, there’s 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 it.

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 trenches.

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. They’re seemingly far too busy with their day to day efforts to be fixated on Ann Coulter. Or much of anyone else.

This, in contrast to the multitudes on The Left who are still shadowboxing with the lifeless ghost of Ayn Rand as a woman who’s 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 it’s 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.

I can’t.

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 I’m 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 party’s own contribution to Civil Rights, the book isn’t about Republicans, after all. It’s about an element of The Left that Coulter, perhaps unfairly, uses to characterize all of liberalism. And one can’t expect her to offer a tit-for-tat comparison chart in a ‘point of view’ book that favors a side. That’s just not her gig.

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 doesn’t make the evaluation any less valid. Not that I’m 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 one’s own – made less dry and academic with an amusing mix of humor – I, without reservation, recommend ‘Demonic’ ... for all.

…..... Okay, I’m done. For those of you remaining, you can go home now. … Go … I want a quick moment alone with the author …


… Ann … listen to me, babe … I’ve got two tickets to Les Mis

Send an Email to JosephMind




 original contents copyright © joseph bambach