March 05, 2006
I know, I know, what else is new? But seriously, why does this woman still have a national forum? She has a right to say whatever she wants, but does it have to be in places that are within my regular purview of reading?
Her most recent column has her applying her special brand of humor (that brand being "offensive" and "unfunny") to the Oscars. In a nutshell, she (after saying she's uniquely qualified in not having seen any of the films, since, you know, she's above the rabble) summarizes each of the best picture nominees by their "political correctness." It's mostly what you'd expect (Brokeback Mountain - "gay"; Crash - "racism") but then things get sticky, because see, Munich is a best picture nominee.
So what's a good End-of-Days-Conservative-Christian-identifying right-wing nut to do? You want to show your support for the state of Israel to help fulfill the Christian prophecy of Armageddon, but you still need to lampoon Hollywood liberals, and Munich is a film that, though flawed, doesn't draw clear lines in the Israel/Palestine debate. And it's directed by Steven Spielberg, he of Schindler's List. So, how do you sum up the film to show that it's the product of Hollywood's skewed vision, which is necessarily 180 degrees from the Right's?
Apparently, you do it with this line: "Jew athletes at Munich had it coming."
Yes, that's apparently the clear message of Munich. While the film may question whether Israel's extermination of the architects of Munich was the correct thing to do, it apparently leaves no question on whether or not the athletes deserved it. WTF?
I know the Rude Pundit gave up on complaining about Ann Coulter after a recent column in which she alternately referred to Muslims as "jihad monkeys," "camel jockeys," and "tent merchants." Why pay attention to the raving racist in the corner? It's a fine attitude to have when the raving racist is in the corner, but in this case, she's in newspapers nation-wide and talking on nationally broadcast programs.
Posted by starlen at March 5, 2006 03:50 PM
Comments
As retarded as she is, I'm impressed with how accurate her predictions were. Perhaps she's on to something...
Posted by: Matt at March 5, 2006 10:22 PM
She may have guessed correctly but whew is her "reasoning" insane. I hate to say it but when I read her I really can't put myself into the perspective of someone who would agree with anything she says.
Posted by: Sam Felder at March 6, 2006 02:31 PM
Her guesses weren't that good - she guessed what just about everyone else was guessing on the three she got right (Hoffman, Weisz, Witherspoon).
Also, I'm afraid I can put myself in the perspective of someone who agrees with her. It's not pleasant, but it seems that when you consume enough of this sort of right-wing media (O'Reilly, Savage, et al), you start to get the hang of it - a complete and utter belief in myths and straw men built up for black and white pseudo-morality tales. And it seems to effect every level of discourse - if it's not something as important as "Vince Foster was murdered by Clinton!," it's "They won't release the Brokeback Mountain grosses to make it seem more popular than it is!"
As if you couldn't pick up an issue of People magazine or Entertainment Weekly to find out how well it's doing.
Posted by: star at March 6, 2006 09:30 PM
Your point is fair. What I meant, more specifically, is that I can't get next to the supporters of Coulter in particular. She is just all over the map and obviously insane. Though I suppose people (sometimes me) see Michael Moore or Al Franken in the same category. Part of the problem seems to be that the pundits have no credentials to back up the drivel they are spouting.
And that's why I love Paul Krugman. The end.
Posted by: Sam Felder at March 7, 2006 08:44 AM
"Al-Jazeera gave it 4 1/2 pipe bombs"...classic. I missed that the first time. Why wouldn't radical organizations love this glowing portrayal of suicide bombers? But I guess if I'm Ann Coulter and I hear "Palestinian film about suicide bombing," I can connect the dots well enough. I love this story about the film impacting the Oscars' security, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1580171/posts
Oh, the Free Republic.
Posted by: Matt Smith at March 8, 2006 12:50 PM
