Make Liberals Safe, Legal And Rare

Again a service for our readers in a hurry, Speed Coulter...

Title: Make Liberals Safe, Legal and Rare
Liberals lie.
Liberals support bad behavior.
Liberals love Castro.
Bad liberals.
Liberals support drug use.
Bad liberals.
Gratuitous "scented candle" mention.
Liberals support Iraq, love terrorism.
Bad, bad, lying liberals.

Now if you still feel the need to read more, here it is:

Make Liberals Safe, Legal and Rare
by Ann Coulter
August 14 , 2002

WHENEVER A LIBERAL begins a peevish complaint with "of course, we all agree ..." your antennae should go up. This is how liberals couch statements they assume all Americans would demand they make, but which they secretly chafe at.

We begin with the usual assumption that liberals are liars who hide their true opinions. If already you believe liberals are all liars, you will love this paragraph. If you don't, you won't. The paragraph itself, like so many of Coulter's "arguments," does nothing to prove the point it is supposedly making.

Liberal sophistry requires pretending they support, for example, sexual abstinence (for teenagers) and marriage (between heterosexuals); making abortion and drug use "rare"; America's winning the war on terrorism -- and before that, winning the Cold War. Fascinatingly, their proposals for achieving these goals are invariably the opposite of what any normal person might think would work.

Liberals actually wanted to lose the Cold War and currently want to lose the war on terrorism? Who knew? Again, this paragraph will convince those who already believe liberals are bad people but does nothing to prove its points.

Instead of punishing bad behavior and rewarding good behavior, liberals often feel it is the better part of valor to reward bad behavior and punish good behavior. Of course, we all agree that Fidel Castro is a bad man. That's why we need to lift travel restrictions and trade with Cuba! Of course, we all agree that abortion should be "rare." That's why all reasonable regulations of abortion must be fought against like wild banshees! (One proven method of making something "rare" is to make it illegal.

Let's just take the Cuba question.

Easing restrictions on Cuba is not a liberals-only question, as Coulter, consummate Washington insider, should know. Here's a quote from a Daily Oklahoman editorial (a pro-Republican newspaper that endorsed Bush for president) favoring lifting travel and trade restrictions...

"It's a legitimate question these days. Rumblings in Congress over U.S. policy toward Cuba have heightened between a White House intent on the status quo and others, notably farm-state Republicans, who badly want to ease travel restrictions to Cuba that they hope will prompt a cascade of other freedoms rushing Castro's way--particularly freer trade."

"Two weeks ago the House, by a 75-vote margin, voted to stop the travel ban and limits on cash payments to Cuba. Seventy-three Republicans helped provide the margin, over White House objections."

Republicans. Farm state Republicans. Hello?!? Ann?!? Are you listening?!?

Now, I was tired (reading Coulter is very tiring) so I wasn't going to touch on the illegal=rare argument, but Phil N. was more alert (less worn down by her) and sent me an email bringing up the issue, so I will paraphrase him in this update:

"(One proven method of making something "rare" is to make it illegal.)"
Proven? Rare? Prohibition, Drugs, Speeding, Jaywalking (in New York you can tell the tourists because they are the ones obeying the traffic lights).

I think the list is probably endless of illegal things that are anything but rare.

Not really a critique of the article in general, but just a mention of the idiocy of the statement made in regard to her desire to outlaw abortion.

Yah. Certainly making something illegal can make it less common, but it is no guarantee, human nature being what it is. I wonder, given other comments in this article, does Coulter wish to make teenage sex illegal?

Their comically counterintuitive positions are inevitably backed up with long, complicated explanations about the dire risk of encouraging "hard-liners," the enemy's "paranoia," or clever points such as "teenagers will have sex anyway." The arguments not only make no sense ab initio, but openly contradict one another.

Why the obsession with teenage sex? Is it sweeps month again?

While pretending to oppose drug use, The New York Times has supported programs to give addicts needles, referring in a 1998 editorial to "some interesting new ideas" such as "needle exchanges." In the case of cigarettes, however, liberals enthusiastically embrace the otherwise mystifying concept of punishing bad behavior.

Thus, the Times has cheered on Mayor Michael Bloomberg's obsessive desire to outlaw smoking, referring to his proposed ban on smoking in bars as an attempt to close "a major loophole in the city's anti-smoking law." Aren't people going to smoke anyway? Why not make smoking "safe, legal and rare" -- just like abortion?

So Coulter castigates the Times for being too soft on drugs but too hard on smoking? Isn't the policy the same? Discourage drug use and discourage smoking? I honestly, not sarcastically, don't get her logic here.

The liberal clergy at the Times has criticized sex education programs that purport to discourage sexual activity among teenagers, while unaccountably neglecting to hand out condoms and scented candles.

"Scented candles"? Another attempt at juvenile sarcasm gone awry.

Times theater critic Frank Rich has rhapsodically supported Joycelyn Elders' genius idea of teaching children to masturbate: "The more people talk about masturbation, the more fears can be dispelled among those young people." (Thirteen-year-old boys could probably teach him a few tricks.)

This is a cheap reference to the Elders brouhaha. If you remember, which few do, Elders did not make a speech saying we should teach kids to masturbate. Rather, after a speech on AIDS, she was asked by a questioner (who clearly had an agenda) whether or not she thought masturbation should be part of a school's sex education curriculum.

She replied, "As per your specific question in regard to masturbation, I think that is something that is a part of human sexuality, and it's a part of something that perhaps should be taught." For that fairly obvious and bland reply, she got fired. Mostly, because we got all blushy and nervous whenever the word MASTURBATION is mentioned. As Coulter knows. And so she uses a gradeschool giggles approach to a 8-year dead issue to score points against liberals.

So it was striking that a recent op-ed piece in the Times opposed a Bush administration's plan to encourage marriage. Needless to say, it included the ritualistic disclaimer: "Of course, none of this is to say that marriage is not a wonderful institution." It seems that, in this one case, "we don't need government programs to convince people... that marriage is good for them."

Again, Coulter lies and distorts. If you read the actual article, you would find that it did not "oppose" the Bush plan, but, rather, it argued that the plan was insufficient. It proposed that counseling (the backbone of the Bush plan) be backed up by financial supports to help poor couples stay married. You might not agree with the author's points, but they can hardly be interpreted as being somehow anti-marriage. Here's the concluding paragraph of that Frank Furstenberg piece:

"Most social scientists believe that counseling can be helpful and even necessary, but it is hardly sufficient. If the Bush administration truly wants to promote marriage, it should start by providing tangible financial assistance to families that need it."

We do, however, urgently need government programs to teach them that dying of AIDS is bad for them. (At least we finally have the left on record opposing some federal government program other than national defense and an independent counsel investigating a Democrat.)

Currently, liberals pretend to be rooting for America in the war on terrorism. To show their support, they oppose America doing anything. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said: "We are all prepared to give the men and women in law enforcement the latitude necessary to protect our nation." Despite what "we all" support, Durbin said using appearance to sort potential terrorists from non-terrorists "reflects not only poor judgment, but poor law enforcement."

Really? Which law enforcement experts concluded that surveilling angry Middle Eastern men with smoke pouring out of their trousers would be "poor law enforcement"? Seems unlikely. For some reason, liberals think it's fun to give Arab terrorists a chance.

Yes, liberals support terrorism, it's true. We just love those bastards bombing our buildings. This line of argument is so sick it's beyond twisted.

Democrats claim to support invading Iraq -- just not yet! As the AP recently reported, "the Democrats always preface comments on Iraq with a general statement that Saddam must go." Of course we all agree that Saddam must go. But first -- there are many worthless objections to be raised.

And top Republicans are saying similar things, as this Times article points out. "These senior Republicans include former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft, the first President Bush's national security adviser. All say they favor the eventual removal of Saddam Hussein, but some say they are concerned that Mr. Bush is proceeding in a way that risks alienating allies, creating greater instability in the Middle East, and harming long-term American interests. They add that the administration has not shown that Iraq poses an urgent threat to the United States." In other words, these boys are saying the same things that Coulter accuses those nasty liberal Democrats of saying. Go figure.

Sore loser Al Gore has said that before invading Iraq we need to establish peace in the Mideast, create a perfect Jeffersonian democracy in Afghanistan, and get the American-hating French and Germans on board. Also invent cold fusion and put a man on Mars. Then will the time be ripe for a pre-emptive attack!

Again, Democrats are not alone in questioning the president's decision to invade Iraq (if such a decision has indeed been made).

Liberals also carped pointlessly about the war in Afghanistan last fall. Their principal complaint was that we were going to lose. Among many, many other liberals, columnist Maureen Dowd raised the specter of Vietnam and called Afghanistan "another quagmire." She said that Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem "may be the last to know that Afghanistan is a stubborn and durable place."

After we routed the Taliban approximately five minutes later, Dowd said, "The liberation of Afghanistan is a wonderful thing, of course." Of course. And something you said we couldn't do.

Yes, Dowd is a bit of an idiot. Although to call her a liberal is a stretch. As for her point, however, it remains valid. Defeating Afghanistan was and is not easy. We have failed to destroy al Qaeda and continue to fight guerilla actions in which American soldiers continue to die (the latest, last Wednesday, being Sergeant Christopher James Speer, 28, of Albuquerque, N.M.).

"Of course we all agree" always means liberals don't agree, but are under no illusions about the popularity of what they really believe.

©2002 Carl Skutsch. All rights reserved.
All opinions expressed herein are those of the author unless otherwise noted
(and it goes without saying that they make more sense than Coulter's opinions.)

graphics & design by pixelforge