Our Mailbag

First, I admit to being a facist. I have a face. I believe other people have faces. And I don't care what some conservative says to the contrary.

As for the substance of this inane letter, I only posted it because it represents classic Coulter logic. It is an argument whose premise and conclusions are the same. Liberals are bad because liberals are bad. Once you accept the premise--liberals are bad--the conclusion--liberals are bad--follows, er, logically. Do you see my point Smslking? Is there hope for you? Do you get that this is about as stupid an argument as one can make?

Where have I--your sample liberal--ever advocated perversion, godlessness, avarice, greed, jealousy, hateful speech, or demagoguery. Where have I ever opposed self reliance, hard work, fairness, wholesomeness (except for the Osmonds, who make me queasy), family responsibility, honor, duty, or patriotism?

As for fascism (if you get nothing from this experience, at least you may learn to spell the word correctly); most fascist ideologies emphasized wholesomeness and family values--the Nazis, for example, made a cult of motherhood and condemned homosexuality (after the purge of 1934); as for perversion, the only things that were really dangerous to smuggle into Franco's fascist Spain were Communist propaganda and pornography.

Place of honor to a serious letter. The insane thing is that so many people seem to think the same way as Coulter on this subject. For my further response to her on this topic, scroll down to the letter from "Stu".

Yeah, Mike, I caught that in the Times also. I'm not sure what to say about this garbage. Do Coulter and her fans really think that liberals are as upset by Trent Lott as the 9/11 attacks? Is her argument, "it's ok Lott is a racist because liberals weren't upset enough at 9/11"? Strange logic.

Thanks! I'm not surprised by Coulter's reaction (and I'm still waiting for her latest column to be uploaded so I can ridicule it; I assume it'll be on the Lott mess). Her knee-jerk distortion of history is typical. The show itself was also rather bizarre (I just dug up the transcript). I mean, what can one make of this intro:

ALAN COLMES, HOST: Tonight on HANNITY & COLMES, more apologies from Trent Lott. Will he every be able to put it all behind him? We'll ask Al Sharpton, Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan.

Al Sharpton, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan? There's a trio of raving exploiters and rabble rousers. Of the three I actually prefer Buchanan, but only by a little bit. It's typical of FOX's slanted style that they put the corrupt Al Sharpton on as the voice of Black America; it helps to reinforce the racist preconceptions of their audience demographic.

One interesting quote from Coulter:

COULTER: That is the other thing I think is so frustrating about these gotcha moments, this idea of Marxist consciousness that you can read into a man's soul. I mean, really, do all of us on this panel want to go through things that we said in the last 15 years? I think not.

Never mind the bizarre Marxist consciousness line, the idea that we might worry about things we've said in the past seems oh-so appropriate coming out of Coulter's mouth.

But finally, here's the quote you were talking about:

COULTER: Absolutely. Everyone can see it's a one-way street. If Lott were to resign, I think it ought to be as part of a package where we get rid of the Fulbright scholarships and get rid of every building in West Virginia named after Bob Byrd. But I think it's worth making the point that the reason this is a one-way street is that the Democratic Party is the party of segregation and of racial discrimination. They have always been in favor of race discrimination. They just change which party they think should be discriminated against. But they are always for race discrimination. The Republican Party has always been against race discrimination.

Except for all those racist Democrats--like Strom, as you point out--who left the Democratic Party to join the not-racist Republicans.

Insignificant - adj - Lacking power, position, or value; worthy of little regard.

So Coulter is insignificant, which makes you who agree with her also worthy of little regard. More importantly, it means that I, the opposite of Coulter, by virtue of being the "anti" Coulter, am the opposite of insignificant; I have power, position, value, great regard. Wow. Give me a moment to bask in my wonderfulness.

Thank you. But please, don't hurt your TV. It's not responsible. Also there are good things on TV. Mmm. Maybe I'm wrong. Ok. Let that Coke bottle rip!

Let no vent go unanswered! I do think there is a bigger problem here and I've already reserved another domain name to address it. Stay tuned! I think your point re Chomsky/Zinn is particularly on target. If the media was really a lefty bastion we'd be watching the Chomsky Newshour every night at 7.

Stu, a few people have made similar defenses of Coulter's jogger essays but I'm printing yours because a) you're a regular and b) you don't call me a #@&!$. (What exactly is a #@&!$?)

Why would the New York Times try and slant the case to prove the juries wrong? What's their motivation? What Coulter (and you) forget is that the NYT is responding to events here, not driving them. It is the Manhattan DA's office which is, very red-facedly, owning up to having probably made a mistake. The NYT is just following up on these revelations. And trust me, New York DA's are not soft on crime. They are also not eager to admit making a mistake. And yet they are. Check out the DA's report on the case (if you go to this link after January 1, just click on December 2002 to get the report). It's a dull read but an eye-opener.

Basically the report says that:
a) Matias Reyes confessed to doing the crime alone. b) The DNA evidence confirms that Reyes raped the jogger. There is no DNA linkage to anyone else. c) Reyes has proven accurate in all his statements, including those confessing to a number of other crimes that, up until his confessions, the police had no idea he was linked to. d) The convicted men, on the other hand, gave contradictory confessions which were not accurate.
Oh yeah, one more point. In their confessions, none of the guys mentioned anyone looking like Reyes. They mentioned each other, but not him, the only one we know raped the woman. One obvious answer for why a man of Reyes' description was not mentioned is that the police interogators did not, at that time, know that Reyes existed.

Get it Stu? (and Ann?) It's the DA, not the New York Times, which says these guys probably didn't do it. And those juries who convicted them, would they have done so if Reyes, his confession, and his DNA evidence had been put before them? I doubt it. The only real evidence against the convicted men are the confessions. Confessions that were obtained after 20 to 30 hours of questioning and that are also inaccurate. Read the report, decide for yourself. Don't let Coulter do your thinking for you.

Oh lord, now you're going to make me read the damn thing again. Ok, here goes in short:
First, Coulter seems to be saying that the Augusta Golf Club's exclusion of women is no big deal, especially as women aren't being discriminated against in our society. She seems to prove this by dropping Phylis Schlafly's name and saying that nobody wants men and women to share bathrooms. I guess Coulter doesn't count being paid less for the same work and having fewer opportunities to advance (check out the female population of the House and the Senate) as examples of discrimination. I'll say that Coulter's evidence of the profound differences between men and women don't quite convince me; I have no objection to sharing bathrooms with women (it'd be much better than the current situation where I have to share public bathrooms with a bunch of unattractive looking oafs much like myself). Sure, there are sex differences--women can have babies, men can't ask for directions--but I don't think they justify Augusta style discrimination.

As for the Augusta Club's policies, the problem isn't so much their having a private little boys club, the problem is that their private little boys club makes gobs and gobs of money for televising their tournament. Similarly, if you want to just hang out with white people, fine; but if you want to make money from your all white organization, we got ourselves a problem. We are not Orwell's thought police. We can't stop people from being racist or sexist. But we should not help them make money from institutions based on racism or sexism.

Finally, she suggests it's ok for Augusta to exclude women because the news media has excluded Republicans. The logic here is completely nonsensical. It's ok for me to beat up Jews because you beat up Armenians? It's ok for little Billy to beat up little Jane because little Jane beats up little Dougie? Please. Even if Coulter were right about the media's anti-Republican bias (which explains why the New York Times endorsed Republican Pataki for governor), it cannot logically justify anyone else's biases. This is such a huge logical hole I'm surprised you missed it V. Vance.

Well argued. Even if you are a conservative!

Neither. Your email suggests you may be an idiot, but I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions from such a small sample of your thinking. Still, it is a tempting conclusion. After all, even if my web site proves me an idiot (and you provide no specific examples of factually incorrect statements on the site--no surprise, your kind of letter writer never does), my web site can in no way be held up as example of all liberalism. For you to do so is as foolish as it would be if I argued the reverse. I think Ann Coulter is a bigot and a liar but that doesn't mean all conservatives are bigots and liars. One bad apple does not make for a bad barrel. Only an idiot would make that kind of extrapolation.

I think you can see why I like Jon's letter. He's a poor "white male christian." The "real most discriminated [against] person in this country." How the poor fellow must suffer. Along with all those other discriminated against white Christian males. Like President Bush. And Vice President Cheney. And Speaker of the House Hastert. And House Minority Leader Gephardt. And out-going Senate Majority Leader Daschle. And incoming Senate Majority Leader Lott (who really is suffering these days). And Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist. And former President Clinton and former Vice President Gore. And most of the heads of the Fortune 500. And I could go on, but I won't bother.

This kind of whining from white males is bizarre. We white guys occupy most of the important jobs in this country, are the highest paid ethnic/gender category, and yet Jon and many like him complain about being discriminated against. Amazing. (And yes, I know, anyone can be discriminated against; but the evidence suggests that white Christian males ain't suffering too much from the tribulations of prejudice.)

After including a line like that, I find it hard to take seriously Jon's argument that conservatives base their ideas on logic and common sense while lefties base their ideas solely on feelings.

As for patience and tolerance, I can't speak for the whole left (which includes some pretty intolerant people) but for myself, I am only tolerant of well-meaning sensible people (and this includes many conservatives). Idiots and bigots (including those on the left) deserve all the contempt that I can heap on them.

I'm glad she makes you cringe (not that I'm happy you're cringing, but that I'm happy you are sane enough to recognize that Coulter can be insane).

As for your argument (if I understand it correctly) that Coulter is simply the evil reflection of liberals' own abuses, I think not.

First, this is a lame excuse for Coulterism. We both know that there are some people on BOTH sides of the political divide who use excessive language, but this does not justify abuses by anyone. As our mothers told us: two wrongs don't make a right. (And I really do mean it when I say that both sides do this sort of thing. Scroll down and you'll see me criticize prominent lefty, Noam Chomsky, for his linguistic excesses.)

As to the specifics or your accusations... Which liberals have called the right wing the devil? Search through my site and find one place where I do this. I praise many conservatives (admittedly, often when they agree with me; scroll down again and see me say nice things about Pat Buchanan) and I respect many others. I respect ordinary religious Americans, as do most liberals (did you notice the 99-0 vote in the Senate in favor of keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?). Sure, some ideas coming out of academe are pretty crazy (left and right). That's what academe is FOR (we let those crazy professors toss ideas back and forth until one of them comes up with a good one--like the theory of relativity or spam--and then we use it). But please don't pretend that academics are a) ALL crazy left-wingers (academe is dominated by Democrats, true, but trust me, I know these people, most of them are pretty middle of the road Democrats); or b) that wacky left-wing academe somehow represents the mainstream of liberalism or the Democratic Party. Those wacky left-wingers you seem to be thinking of all voted for Ralph Nader, and are therefore hated by real liberals.

Finally, where has your free speech been denied? Give me an example. I've heard some conservatives complain about the censorship of the PC police, but I've rarely seen it in action (rarely, not never, I do agree kinds of censorship do occur, but I'd also argue they occur on both left and right). I'm so tired of this bugaboo of PC censorship that's supposed to exist. It's largely a myth, Nancy, a myth. Yes, I know, things like campus speech codes exist, but they're mostly there just to keep discourse reasonably civil. At it's worst political correctness is just silly; at it's best, it's just politeness (you know, believing that it's not polite to call people "nigger" or "faggot"). And what is it that you (or others) want to say that you (they) aren't allowed to say? I'll publish it here on my site if you email it to me.

Geeze, Stu, alright already, I'll publish your letter. Even though you compare me to Coulter. Yech. Thanks for the praise of my sense of humor, though; I do try and keep it alive and sputtering. I don't know about your Al Gore idea; it seems like it must have already been done (this guy has an Anti Clinton site, for example, but he's got LOTS of anti Gore material).

I love these people, just love them! Coulter, finest legal mind in America? That is rich. Most of the law she's done has been as a talking pundit on the hairwaves. There are plenty of fine conservative lawyers; Coulter is not one of them. And I just love that socialist/Soviet crap that the lunatic fringe trot out every five minutes. I wonder how Mr. Smith knows how the Soviets "always referred" to the left as useful fools. Did he sit in on Politburo meetings? Was he a secret CP member? He must be something. He knows how I think. He knows how all liberals think. He knows the inner workings of the Soviet Union. My god, could it be Dick Cheney writing under a pseudonym?

What is the world coming to when Pat Buchanan starts to make sense? He may be an isolationist with racist tendencies, but at least he's an intellectually consistent isolationist with racist tendencies.

I may never get around to critiquing her whole annoying book (I've hit parts of it) but in short, I will say that rather than prove her points she makes selective use of quotes to try and make her case. By using different quotes, I could make a different case. For example, I did hear about Gore's academic record, as well as Bush's. I think Gore got more grief from the media for things that weren't true, like supposedly saying he invented the Internet (which he didn't say) or taking false credit for being the source of the movie Love Story (which actually wasn't false credit, as the author himself agreed). Remember how often Gore's "stiff' demeanor was compared to Bush's more "relaxed" and "charming" style? One could argue that media had a pro-Bush bias, not the other way around.

As for the "religious right", I would argue that the phrase is useful in the same general way that "liberal" is useful. It refers to generally conservative Christians who tend to vote Republican and have strong opinions on moral issues (anti-abortion, anti gay rights) and religion vs. state issues (prayer in schools, 10 commandments in the court house). These are not imaginary people (my father-in-law fits the profile perfectly), they exist and have a big effect on the American political scene, particularly during primaries (just ask John McCain, who has been quite vocal in his criticism of some Christian leaders). Obviously the phrase can be abused and misused. Obviously, again, not all members of the Christian right think or vote the same way. But the same might be said of the word "liberal." It's a useful word in that it generally describes a large group of vaguely like minded voters, but it can also be abused and distorted by critics and commentators who lack intellectual integrity (yes, I do mean Coulter). As with the Christian right, while liberals may share a general world view, they often disagree on specifics. It is not the label that is the problem, it is the abuse of the label.

Here are 2 paragraphs from the February 2002 issue of Campaigns and Elections that touch on the label issue:
"Assessing the relative strength of any constituency is a challenge, but it is especially difficult for one as controversial as conservative Christians. In fact, there is not even a generally accepted name for this loose collection of organizations, activists and voters. The label "religious right" was originally commonplace, but the antics of self-proclaimed leaders, intense criticism from opponents and unfavorable news coverage led many to reject the term. Soon participants and observers adopted the term "Christian right," but it has been stigmatized as well. "
"The labels "Christian conservative" and "conservative Christian" are now more popular, but if history is any guide, they will have a short shelf life as well. (Both friends and foes have their own special nomenclature, of course, such as "pro-family movement" and "radical right," respectively.) With this problem in mind, we asked a wide variety of well-placed political observers to assess the influence of the Christian right in the Republican state committee of their state. A total of 395 key informants from all 50 states and the District of Columbia shared their perceptions with us after the 2000 campaign, including Republican and Democratic state party officials, leaders of Christian conservative groups, political consultants, journalists and academics."

I have gotten a few pro-Chomsky notes taking me to task for critiquing Chomsky, so I'll take this moment to reply to them all.

I agree, Chomsky is on a different level than Coulter. He is smarter, better informed, and a much more civil debater.

However, I do have issues with Chomsky. I think his criticisms of America and American foreign policy are very useful, and often dead on, but I also feel that he too often slants his evidence and is too knee-jerk in his anti-Americanism.

Two examples:

During the 1999 bombing of Serbia in defense of Kosovo, Chomsky downplayed the evidence (including the past evidence of what they did in Bosnia) that the Serbs were planning another ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and that some military action was necessary to save the Kosovars from slaughter. He simply saw American bombers and therefore took the side of Slobodan Milosevic, a twisted way of looking at the situation. (One might as well defend Hitler on the grounds that Germany was being bombed by American B-29's.)

In the Chomsky movie "Manufacturing Consent", Chomsky subtly downplays the mass slaughter in Cambodia, suggesting that the numbers are exaggerated, as part of an argument suggesting that America ignored (and was partially complicit in) a much worse mass slaughter in East Timor. He's right that America was wrong to ignore East Timor (a crime which Henry Kissinger bears a big part of the responsibility for) but he's wrong to attempt to downplay the horror of the Cambodian killing fields.

These are just two examples. Again, I think Chomsky can say some very smart things, but I think he's also often blinded by his own agenda. I can't completely respect someone who distorts the truth, whatever their motivation.

But you never can get those 5 minutes back, and for that I rejoice!!! (This is how I shall triumph: wearing down the evil far right wing, 5 minutes at a time!!!)

Making this the Right-Wing Women Haters Network (an homage to the old Little Rascals show)? I don't think so; my focus is obsessive enough as it is (and I'd have to do that annoying Laura Ingraham woman as well). If I expand, I think I'll go broader than that. You know, the usual: general political commentary, philosophical insights, yogurt recipes. I've dipped into Brock's book. It's interesting, but I don't think he's a reliable reporter. He lied for the Right; who's to say he's not now lying for the Left. Still, some of the things he writes do ring true.

Good point, and I think you sum up her TV appeal well, but I'll try to justify this page:
1- If I convince only a handful of people to rethink their fondness for her, I'll have done good.
2- If I give those who loathe her a place to vent and feel a shared sense of comraderie, I may save these poor souls from working out their frustrations by repeatedly banging their heads against the wall. (Bad for heads, bad for walls, bad for neighbors.)
3- I think I/we gain some value in trying to figure out how the minds of Coulter and her fans work. It's bizarre but fascinating. (And I'm serious on this one.)
4- It's either this or going back to watching my collection of Sam Raimi DVDs. Over and over and over again.
5- Why do you waste your time writing to warped site editors like myself?
6- Finally, I keep on writing because it gets me funny letters like the one following yours.

On another note: Why is your letter addressed to ann at anncoulter.org? I assume you bcc'd me, hence my receipt of this email, but why did you send it "to:" Coulter?

Funny.

Although I gotta say, when the even the Weather Service goes right-wing, we really are screwed. Al Gore may have invented the Internet but now the Republicans control the weather. (Which may explain the past few weeks of New York rain.)

I might suggest a lawsuit but I don't think we should do anything to confuse the great and famous Tom Servo with the unknown Tom Scerbo. (Note: I believe that this is the 2nd MST3K reference on this site.)

Thank you for the kind words. My alleged stalkerdom continues.

Stalker? Moi? Peevish and grumpy guy wasting his time, sure, but hardly a stalker. I don't call Coulter, email her, follow her around, or even try to catch her latest ramblings on TV (the last time I saw her mug was during the Donahue interview). I just (sometimes) refute her words.

I do wonder why Tom runs the Coulter site. Is he a paid employee, or simply a dedicated fan? Color me curious.

Because I'm feeling blah, mail posting is sparse this week, but I felt I had to include at least one dumb letter from a typical Coulter fan.

I have to wonder, how old are these guys? They read like 17-year old high school idiots (I picture two beer guzzling surfer dudes, slamming their cans of Coors light together as they say in unison: "She's totally awesome dude! That AntiCoulter weenie is such a loser!"). Do they really think that simply saying Ann is great, I'm an idiot, gets them anywhere? Is this what passes for sophisticated argument among the Coulteratti?

It's a strange world. (And you would not believe some of the letters I receive and don't post. Amazingly weird.)

You're not the first person to make this kind of point on this site.

Is she worth a web site? I dunno. I honestly think she is bad people, and so deserves a little (ok, a lot) criticism. She fans the flames of hatred in this country and helps to inspire her extremist followers to do the same. More dangerously, elements of her views are swallowed by a larger chunk of the population who, while not believing everything she says, do absorb some of her nastiness into their world view.

Should I broaden this site? Obviously I'd have to change the name or start a new site. It's an idea I've thought about, but I'm also aware that there are zillion bloggish sites out there and I'm not sure what one more vaguely lefty commentary site will add to the equation. I'm not saying it's a bad idea (my ego tempts me) but I haven't been convinced.

(Although this weeks Coulter essay, particularly the last few paragraphs, again really has me wondering if I shouldn't move on to broader pastures.)

Honest, I really don't write these letters myself. Real people actually send this stuff to me.

One of the things I've learned doing this site is that a certain class of letter writers (almost always the pro-Coulter crew) don't actually respond to the things I've said or the points I've made, they respond to this image of me that they've created in their own minds. Larry didn't bother to try to understand anything on this site because he already knew that I (and all other liberals) was a socialist Commie-lover who has helped ruin this country and who thinks good is bad and right is wrong.

The sad part is that Larry's first sentence is very very wrong. He does live in the world I live in. Which is kinda depressing for me.

Been watching a little too much Star Trek Next Generation, have we?

(I think Leonard is joking. I hope Leonard is joking.)

I play poker, not the lottery. I don't believe in gambling.

As for my prediction...
First, there are many news stories she could have covered, for example a whole slew of election stories, including the Wellstone death, so my prediction wasn't that easy.
Second, my big point was not that the essay would be on the sniper, but "that next week's essay will be on the Washington sniper and how it was all caused by evil Islam." It was the evil Islam shtick that I knew she wouldn't be able to resist. And I was right. (Although even I was a bit surprised by her vitriol towards Islam.)

Thanks for the letter.
Here again we have an example of sane conservatism. Chris and I disagree on many things, but we don't have to descend to name calling.
I do agree that Coulter doesn't seem to be representative of Jesus' teachings, and I completely sympathize with your desire to have her struck from the ranks of Christians, but she does self-identify as a Christian and so I'll refer to her in that way from time to time. (Even if she seems to be about as filled with brotherly love as Osama bin Laden.)

This letter is from one of my students...

Where have I gone wrong? I tried so hard to lead my students to the truth. I have failed.

And it is the generalizations that get me about Coulter herself.

Just to show I'm a generous liberal academic, I won't fail you for being conservative. Well, probably not.

And seriously, what is loathsome about Coulter and her fans, which you make clear, is not their conservatism but their gross intolerance. Good conservatives (and there are many) do not behave in this way. (And bad liberals, and there are many, do exactly the same thing on the other end of the political spectrum). Let us all work towards peace and moderation!

P.S. And if your final exam is as clearly and intelligently written, you shouldn't have to worry about getting an 'A'.
P.P.S. But for an 'A+' you may want to consider becoming a liberal. Kidding, only kidding.

It's nice that I can entertain you.

Re the National Review Online firing..
The relevant quotes are: "As many of you may have heard, we've dropped Ann Coulter's column from NRO" and "We did not "fire" Ann for what she wrote, even though it was poorly written and sloppy. We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty."

That reads pretty clearly to me. "We ended the relationship." Read the whole letter and what comes across is that NRO fired Coulter because of her disloyal and unstable behavior. Writers, after all, do not tend to sever a relationship that makes them money. (Now technically, NRO did not "fire" Coulter--she was not a salaried employee--, they cut her from their magazine, but the result is about the same.)

Moreover, read the whole letter and you get a pretty clear idea that NRO thinks Coulter went around the deep end and deserved everything she got. Hardly a friendly letter. Try for a little more accuracy yourself next time you send a letter.

Many very good points. Clearly some people think this site is worth doing, and others have their doubts. I fall into the latter category. I started it in a fit of pique and I continue because it continues to entertain me (some of the time) but I definitely won't be doing it forever. As a career choice, running AntiCoulter seems rather limiting.

What a lovely story, thanks for providing it. The anti-liberal stuff and anti-Islam prejudice is pretty standard, but the anal-sex line takes the cake for crudity and irrelevance.

And glad you enjoyed the site. I do it all for the fans. [AntiCoulter takes a modest bow.]

Liberal best sellers? How about...
Stupid White Men - Michael Moore
Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot - Al Franken
The Bush Dyslexicon - Mark Miller
Is Our Children Learning - Paul Begalia

I am glad that just by being there I was able to bring a little joy into another human being's life.

Hi there Johan! Thanks for the kind words. It's true that, in general, Republicans in the US are to the right of most other conservative parties (actually, the supposedly liberal Democrats tend to be about as conservative as conservatives in places like Britain or France or Sweden). And, as you say, these lefty societies in Europe seem to do just fine (the food is better, the streets are cleaner, the murder rate is lower, etc.)

I do hope you're right about Coulter's media shelf-life. She is so tiresome. (Although if she drops off the radar and I drop this site, I'll miss all the kind letters from people like you.)

Let's talk about "distortion and dishonesty." You say you saw the "Headline" that "Anne" Coulter had been fired. What "headline"? On my navigation bar, I have "Coulter Gets Fired" link, but that's a link to the letter firing her from National Review Online, a fairly major web publication. On my links page I have a one line link clearly labelled as "A letter from the editor of the Centre Times telling Coulter she's fired." This is hardly a "headline." Moreover, where's the deception? In the link I deliberately named the paper. Have you ever heard of the Centre Times? Nope, me neither. You see, by naming this obscure paper, I was immediately alerting everyone who saw the link to the reality that this is not a paper they've heard of before, i.e.-it's probably a small little operation. This doesn't make its editor's thoughts less true, but it does certainly suggest that the actual firing is not incredibly significant. It's warping reality to suggest that I was trying to pass it off as a major event.

As for your statement that "I then tracked down the ownership of this newspaper and found that it is part of a chain that includes the sponsor (or supporter of your site).", all I can say is: Huh? This site has no sponsor or supporter. It's an independent freelance crazed obsessive operation. Where did you get the idea I have a sponsor? Who is this sponsor? Do you have a phone number? Will they send me money in packets of small unmarked bills? I am really completely bewildered by this assertion. Anyone out there have a clue why Jim thinks I have a sponsor?

So far as I know, there is no place where Coulter explicitly urges blind obedience to W. However, in her constant attacks on Democrats as traitors I think there is a strong and clear suggestion that anyone who disagrees with the president is anti-American, a traitor. Furthermore, I've never seen her do anything but praise Bush and his policies. The implied message seems clear: follow Bush or be a traitor.

This one is a doozy. I can't believe how long he goes, and how bizarre he gets.

You make the standard error--common on left and right--of condemning an entire group for the actions of a few. Sure, some people have called Colin Powell an Uncle Tom, but I'm not one of them, and neither are any of the people I know. This is certainly not the position of the liberal New York Times, which treats Powell with the greatest respect. I'm sure some radicals called welfare reform proponents "racist," but the vast majority did not (and remember that Democrat Bill Clinton was a backer of welfare reform). This paragraph, and the rest of your essay, makes huge generalizations based on the actions of a tiny minority (and who exactly blamed what minister for dragging a man to death?; this one I haven't even heard).

I would NEVER say that conservatives are "incapable of participating in the arena of ideas" and yet you suggest that liberals like ME are close minded? Look in the mirror Dan. (Just tonight in class, I quoted Republican Barry Goldwater favorably.)

Where do you get these myths? I don't defend Clinton; I voted against him in his second election (Nader voter). I call racists racists, not conservatives. (There exist both liberal and conservative racists.) And I've already said elsewhere on this site that I think Jackson is sad shadow of a leader. You attack liberals for name calling while in the same paragraph defend Coulter's name calling because "she can back it up with facts". How does one back up the accusation that Democrats are "traitors"? Where are the facts on that one?

There are days when I believe you might be right here, and that certainly does scare me.

Are you aware that some of the earliest and harshest critics of rap music came out of the liberal feminist left? And show me a specific place where Jennings, Couric or Gumbel dragged Reagan or Bennett through the mud? (It's possible that you might be able to find some below the belt attacks by these media bores on Schlafly or Bork, but even there I'm skeptical.) Christians do a lot of charity work, it's true. So do Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists. Do you have statistics showing that Christians do more? Did you know that one of the 5 required behaviors of a good Muslim is to give to charity? That Buddhist monestaries have an ancient tradition of helping the poor? I'm not suggesting that American Christians are bad, I'm simply pointing that there are other religious traditions (all of them actually) which also encourage charitable and good behavior (Buddhists, for example, would agree with you on Clinton, as sexual misbehavior is one of the things forbidden by the Eightfold Path).

All conservatives loathe liberals? Fortunately you are incorrect. Sadly you are obviously filled with an amazing amount of hate. Clearly you seemed to have missed some of the teachings of that very forgiving and loving early liberal, Jesus. Go back to the bible; there's some good stuff there if you're willing to be open minded.

I have lots of work, but I also have a lovely thing called "procrastination." It's not just a word, it's a way of life.

I see, when I say something it's "adolescent name calling"; when Coulter does it, it's a "rhetorical technique." If you object to name-calling, how do you feel about Coulter calling so very many of her opponents "stupid"? I, on the other hand, never call the Coulter stupid. When I call her Neanderthal I mean to say not that she is stupid (or hairy) but that her views are so reactionary they are beyond conservative, they belong in the stone age.

If that's what she meant, that's what she should have said. Read the rest of her oeuvre: the woman attacks Islam as a religion in column after column. I don't think she was practicing rhetorical excess; I think she meant it.

So now you're calling people stupid? How mature. As for Baldwin's reference, how could he possibly not make the connection? We grew all grew up in the same Christian country with an awareness of what happened to adulterers in biblical times. Heck, it's even a gag in silly movies (check out the stoning scene in Life of Brian). He's still a mediocre actor, but that's another issue.

Why, why, do all Coulterites think she is so desirable? For the record, I don't find overly thin pundits (or anorexic fashion models) attractive.

Jealous? Well, ok, maybe jealous. Bitter too. Did I mention envious? But that doesn't make my points any less valid.

As for the three black leaders you mentioned... Farakhan is a racist, but my time is limited. Sharpton is simply a crook and demagogue, but again, my time is limited. Jackson is a sad shadow of real Civil Rights leader, and my time is still limited. Let someone else start AntiFarakhan.com, I've got my own work cut out for me here in AntiCoulter-land.

Thanks dude!
(Isn't it odd that while I get many short hateful letters and long friendly letters, I usually only post the long hateful letters and the short friendly letters?)

Just to prove I post long friendly letters, I posted Jim's kind letter. (Also I think Jim makes sense--but then I would). I will say that not all Coulter supporters are name-spewing illiterates--note Gary, above, who can actually write--, it just seems that way sometimes.

Because she's blonde? Really, I'm stumped on this one. And I don't see why it gets brought up all the time. Gary (above) has a subject head calling Coulter "lovely". Why? Does it make her views better?

I dunno Craig. It's true that Slander has footnotes, but, as many web critics have shown, those footnotes are distorted and warped. Footnotes don't prove anything except that the author knows how to use superscript numbers. If you claim as evidence for liberal bias six footnotes leading to supposedly anti-conservative quotes, and four of them come from the same article, you haven't "proved" much. Coulter picks and chooses which articles to reference and how to interpret those references. And the vast majority of her supposedly anti-conservative references come from quoting liberal and radical pundits, not from journalists. Using the same technique one could "prove" that conservatives all hate liberals, which, as your letter shows, is not true.

A regular and avid reader from Brazil! I am touched, and impressed. My reach is global. I span continents.

Fabio, I can't promise anything but supportive letters like yours definitely help keep me interested. I'm glad that these pages can enlighten and amuse, and more than 50,000 hits since I started suggests that there's some point to it all. Vain person that I am, the way to keep me happy is through my ego, and kind letters go a long way.

As for monetary contributions, if I could figure out a way to do it, I would. I was actually thinking of hooking up as an Amazon.com Associate. They have some kind of scam whereby if you go to their site from a link on an Associate's site, the Associate gets a percentage of the sale. With any luck it might make me $6 or $7 a month. We'll see. (The link to the Racism book above is part of that Amazon Associate thing.)

Thank you Tom. As for the syndicated column, I haven't gotten any calls yet. Perhaps someone out there has some pull with the New York Times? The Washington Post? The Peoria Pennysaver?

Your logic is impeccable. But by that same logic, one could argue that if liberals were not so effective, there would be no need for Ann Coulter. So I'm left with the impression that in order to cope with their success, she has to attempt to mischaracterize everything they say with deceit and lies and exaggerations.

Really? Cool.

The memory of the book has faded--like my memory of that time I had food poisoning in Paris--so I can't say whether she said "evil" in it. She did say it in her one of her essays (see Evil or Just Stupid?). In Slander she does call liberals "savagely cruel bigots who hate ordinary Americans and lie for sport"(p205) as well as saying that "Liberals hate society and want to bring it down to reinforce their sense of invincibility"(p27). Close enough to evil, don't you think?

I've never seen her suggest that she is just referring to some liberals. Again and again she makes blanket condemnations of huge swathes of people (note her repeated accusation, for example, that all Democrats are traitors). Not to beat the Nazi reference to death, but people said the same thing about Hitler's speeches. "He doesn't really mean all those things he's saying; he's just exaggerating for effect." Uh huh.

Barbra "Only Two 'A's In Her Name" Streisand, Cher, and Julia Roberts are not talented. Tim Robbins is. (Ok, now I'm in trouble. Zillions and zillions of Streisand fans are going to have me lynched.)

Both sides have their wacky elements. But wackos on my side don't justify Coulter's excesses. (Just as Coulter is no justification for