Now suppose I were to stand up here and call Coulter a \[expletive]. (Interestingly, unlike "faggot," American newspapers won't print this word, although it's no more offensive). That would, I believe, be a highly inappropriate thing to do. Even though it's my personal opinion that, if anyone deserves to be called a \[expletive], Coulter does, it's still the sort of thing any decent person will avoid doing.What the hell is he talking about?
Yet if I were to point out that Coulter is, by any reasonable standard of evaluation, a \[expletive], I suspect much outrage would ensue. After all, Nancy Pelosi is giving a speech later tonight inside this same hotel, in which - in this hypothetical scenario - someone Pelosi doesn't know (i.e., me) would have called Coulter a \[expletive].
If such a thing were to happen, the entire right-wing noise machine would leap into action. Ann Althouse would probably write a column in The New York Times about how, if Pelosi were really a feminist, she would unequivocally condemn some guy Pelosi has never heard of, who called Coulter a \[expletive] in front of 75 people in a hotel room in Denver.
For reference, here's my post about the Coulter/"faggot" thing. My point was that I'm under no obligation to disassociate myself from someone I've never allied with. So this hypothetical column writing he's imagining... it doesn't fit me at all.
Thanks for keeping my name in the press, Paul. But that was just weird.
IN THE COMMENTS: Go in there and read Daryl Herbert's 11:08 comment. I'd reprint it on the front page here -- it's one of the best comments ever -- but it's kind of long, and it's got that word. You know, the word.
পোস্টগুলি
৫৪টি মন্তব্য:
"Why is lawprof Paul Campos invoking my name?"
Because.... he's trying to get you to write about him? I suspect he's decided sensationalistic ranting is the best way to keep his column in print.
Actually, my guess is he's trying to bait you into a "I am so not a part of the right-wing noise machine!" statement.
It's ... the vortex!
You know, I consider Paul Campos to be a personal friend. I visited at the University of Colorado Law School in Spring 1991 and had what I considered to be a great relationship with him. So it's especially disconcerting to read him taking personal shots a me. I'm not just a name from a generic category for him but a real person. The guy knows me!
"...and had what I considered to be a great relationship with him."
Maybe that's the problem.
Maybe he thought he was doing you a favor and it just came out really wrong? If he's a friend, you should ask him directly.
I do like eric's answer too: He's been swept into the Althouse Vortex.
"right-wing noise machine"
This is what the left calls media that's no longer on their plantation.
I think he's trying to say that you're a hypocrite for your Coulter post because if it were some lefty calling Coulter nasty things you would write a post demanding that other prominent lefties denounce the name-calling. That was my impression; I just don't know where he's gotten that idea.
The only conclusion to be drawn, then, is that he liked the publicity from the Insty-bomb.
I do think that Campos is trying to play on a bigger playing field than Boulder, or with his News editorials, Colorado. The Reynolds escapade made him look pretty closed minded, but got him national notoriety.
How can wacko right wing law professors do so well in the blogosphere, and how does a wacko left wing law professor break into this? Obviously, by attacking wacko right wing law profs. Probably figures to take Ann out ot dinner to make up for it.
I don't know Campos the way Ann does, just by his columns, and I have thought him a wacko left wing law prof for a long time now. He would be an embarassment to any school in Colorado EXCEPT for CU Boulder where he teaches.
Althouse would probably write a column in The New York Times about how, if Pelosi were really a feminist, she would unequivocally condemn some guy Pelosi has never heard of, who called Coulter a \[expletive] in front of 75 people in a hotel room in Denver.
Does he even read your blog? I hope not, because the sentence above reveals a total lack of comprehension on his part. Sounds like he's basing his attack on gossip he's heard from the Left. Probrably thinks the whole Feministing drama was about you mocking her breasts.
Stay cool and don't burn any bridges. If anything, this "friend" of yours needs your sympathy and understanding. He's got issues.
Wow! Campos does exactly what he accuses Coulter of doing. He says he won't call Coulter a [?] because that would be bad. Coulter did the same thing with regard to Edwards. She said she would NOT speak anymore about Edwards because in doing so she might get into trouble for using the word faggot. So, just like Campos, Coulter refused to call Edwards a bad name, but made it clear she thought the name applied to him. If anything, Campos was even MORE clear he thought the term [?] applied to Coulter -- he repeated the term several times whereas Coulter only used faggot once.
Then, to top it all off, Campos noted that if he had called Coulter a [?], the media would demand that Pelosi denounce him. Does anyone recall the media making such a demand of Pelosi? Yet, if we are going to say Coulter called Edwards a faggot, we are obligated to say Campos called Coulter a [?]. So, Campos' column is a self-disproving thesis. He said if he did X, Y would happen. Y would then prove that there is no liberal bias in the media. He did X, why is there no Y? On the other hand, there have been plenty of calls in the media for Republican officials to denounce Coulter. Didn't he just prove (by his own terms) a liberal bias in the media?
You know, I consider Paul Campos to be a personal friend. I visited at the University of Colorado Law School in Spring 1991 and had what I considered to be a great relationship with him. So it's especially disconcerting to read him taking personal shots a me. I'm not just a name from a generic category for him but a real person. The guy knows me!
Ann, Campos may have considered you a friend, too, until you did the unthinkable -- you supported a Republican President in time of war. In Campos' world, it's not possible to have as friends people who do such things.
Nice summary Dave. You're right. He said that if anyone on the Left did what Coulter did [which he proceeds to do] there would be a firestorm.
[yawn]
Looks pretty quiet on this front. Except for the spectacle of Paul Campos impaling himself with his own sword.
I found Campos' article interesting in that it attempts to debunk the meme on the right that the MSM is in the tank for the left by suggesting that they were giving Coulter a pass on her faggot comment. And that if a Democrat politician ever called Coulter a name, they would be instantly destroyed.
Of course, Campos is off the deep end here. The Revs. Jackson and Sharpton have been known to say quite anti-Semitic things, and are still quite active in politics. And a lot of prominent Democrats have said quite unkind things about the President, VP, etc. But Campos probably doesn't see anything wrong with them because he probably agrees with them.
But calling Edwards a faggot is apparently beyond the pale because, well, that is an insult to a strong Democratic constituancy.
The mention of Ann can really only be seen as gratutitious. It really didn't help his argument, and from my point of view, just made him look silly.
But what must be remembered is that this comes from his speech to the Young Democrats, and to them, Althouse is now probably red meat, as was Glenn. And definately is Coulter. I am just surprised that he failed to mention Michelle Malkin and her defense of Japanese internment in his article.
call Coulter a \[expletive].
An expletive that describes a person who is being obnoxious and gasping for attention... it's like mad-libs, but for those current on idiotic things said by uninsightful pundits.
He may not be talking about Coulter as much as your penchant for telling politicians and Pelosi in particular exactly how they should react and what they need to be doing.
You are upset to be associated by name with the right wing noise machine. You try to keep your affiliation with them on the DL.
What an amazing character I am! Part of a noise machine, but on the DL. Fear my noisy quiet! My loud silence! My tiny hugeness!
Plus, I'm red meat. If you'd have told me back in 1991, when I knew Paul Campos, when I turned 40, that 16 years from now, you will be red meat, I'd have been marveling at what an amazing character I'm somehow going to turn out to be.
Come on now, everybody into the vortex!
LOL. On the down-low.
But I still can't get you the Rovian Secret Decoder Ring untill you come out of the closet.
reality check: You are upset to be associated by name with the right wing noise machine
I think its more likely that you're the one on the DL. You posts discredit the Left more than I ever could. I'll see if Rove will cut you a check, or at least pass your name along to the DLC.
Egads, you have your own opinion!!!!1one.
It's just another toqueque(sp?) arguement from the left. One that sounds bat sh*t crazy, but thats to be expected.
Get over yourself. He could have just as easily chosen some other ostensibly centrist writer with right wing sympathies.
Ann:
What an honor- Campos has promoted to you to a top position in the vaunted Right-Wing Noise Machine.
Let me guess is that a cover band? And are you the hot chick who stands in the front of the stage, sings a bit and holds a tamborine?
I hope Campos' abysmally poor writing and thinking skills on display in that quote are not typical of law professors as a whole.
I thought it was a good op-ed. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
Btw do you google yourself daily, looking for all those who would dare invoke your name, or did someone send this to you?
The guy knows me!
Then he's probably followed your descent into right wing hackery.
As I've said before, I have a Google alert set up for my name. Doesn't everyone?
LOL. No, not everyone does.
I can just imagine you sitting at home, polishing the guns, waiting for someone to make some oblique reference to you in an op-ed.
I guess days like today make it all worth it :-)
David's post makes an excellent observation -- Campos just did *exactly* what Coulter did (the "I won't call him an X" stunt), and his predicted right-wing outcry is nowhere to be seen.
Of course, this isn't necessarily proof of MSM liberal bias (as if more proof was needed at this point) so much as proof that pretty much everybody already knows that Coulter is a [expletive]. Even people who like her.
I don't have a google alert for your name. I do have a google alert for Jessica Alba girl girl.
You are not tiny hugeness, more like hugely tiny.
Just another cog in the Mighty Wurlitzer. Sadly for you, it appears you don't even have enough self-awareness to understand that.
You are a sunflower in the middle of a field thinking you are the lead sunflower and responsible for all sunflowers orienting your face in the same direction. It's the sun dearie.
It's the self-assembling behavior of DNA from C, G, T, and A.
You are a bee following a rightwing pheromone.
Hugely tiny, but part of the mighty wurlitzer and marveling at your awesomeness.
What's the stink about? Look up "faggot or faggots" in the dictionary. Faggots are bundles of sticks generally used as fire starters. So Coulter is being roasted for calling Edwards a stick. Let's move on. Let's call people cocksuckers, rug eaters, and things we can actually put our (hetero) arms around. Face it, Coulter jumped the shark, and jumped it big time. She may have well wanted all this ink she's getting.
IN THE COMMENTS: Go in there and read Daryl Herbert's 11:08 comment. I'd reprint it on the front page here -- it's one of the best comments ever -- but it's kind of long, and it's got that word. You know, the word.
Ann, you didn't say we were being graded on our comments! If I'd known, I would have tried harder. Or not posted at all. I'm feeling very inadequate here. The performance anxiety is feeling very stifiling.
I had no idea Campos meant THAT word. I thought he meant "bitch". Wow! The big "C" word. That must have been some pep talk he gave the Colorado Young Democrats! His mum (and his high school English teacher) must be proud.
reality check: You are a sunflower in the middle of a field thinking you are the lead sunflower and responsible for all sunflowers orienting your face in the same direction. It's the sun dearie
If Ann or her blog was insignificant, you wouldn't be here every day trying to spike it.
the implication bleed over
Ew.
daryl herbert's world-renowned comment may have been a hell of a lot more effective if I didn't overlook the sarcasm in it and completely agree that both Anns in question are indeed cunts
Oh Cedarford and your "gay agenda." I do hope none of your children grow and declare their homosexuality to you; they'll probably be shot in the face.
Campos clearly said that even if he wanted to use this word, it would "be a highly inappropriate thing to do.
What Coulter said:
I'd say something about John Edwards, but if you use the word 'faggot', you have to go to rehab.
What Campos said:
Now suppose I were to stand up here and call Coulter a cunt. (Interestingly, unlike "faggot," American newspapers won't print this word, although it's no more offensive). That would, I believe, be a highly inappropriate thing to do. Even though it's my personal opinion that, if anyone deserves to be called a cunt, Coulter does, it's still the sort of thing any decent person will avoid doing. Yet if I were to point out that Coulter is, by any reasonable standard of evaluation, a cunt, I suspect much outrage would ensue.
Campos states that Coulter is a cunt and richly deserves to be called a cunt, but that decent people don't use words like that. Coulter states that she'd get in trouble if she called Edwards a faggot. How are the two things different? Both indirectly use a nasty term to refer to someone while acknowledging you aren't allowed to use it publicly.
Here's a better question. Suppose that, say, Michelle Malkin said the following:
Now suppose I were to stand up here and call Al Sharpton a nigger. That would, I believe, be a highly inappropriate thing to do. Even though it's my personal opinion that, if anyone deserves to be called a nigger, Sharpton does, it's still the sort of thing any decent person will avoid doing. Yet if I were to point out that Sharpton is, by any reasonable standard of evaluation, a nigger, I suspect much outrage would ensue.
Would anyone seriously try to deny she was calling Sharpton a nigger? Would anyone seriously deny that that speech ITSELF is every bit as offensive as simply saying "Al Sharpton's a nigger" would be?
Oh my. This is all so incestuous it's a bit sickening. Why would one professor mention what another law professor might write in a theoretical column? What would Althouse say if X called Y a "Z?" What about the "F" word? What about the "C" word. Who cares?!
To someone who has only been following this scandal tenuously, it's hopelessly silly and almost impossible to follow. (Perhaps if there were a modicum of reason to follow it, I might be better motivated)
The only people paying any attention to Ann Coulter are the people who pay far too much attention to all this filth in the first place.
Start ignorning her, people. Igore the name callers like Coulter and Pat Robertson, Kos, Maher, etc.. and your life will be happier. Just do it.
Politics is interesting when it's all about ideas and events.
Sooner or later it all changes into a debate about individuals - who says what, who did what to whom, and so on. At this point it becomes very tedious.
Of course, I'm not saying that Ms. Althouse should not defend herself. Certainly she should.
Campos is making the same mistake that Coulter did.
Comrades! Companeros! I am very disappointed in all of you. Everyone knows that when positing a theoretical unsupportable argument by your opponents you must reference the worldwide struggle of the workers against the parasitic class of pseudo-intellegencia known as "pundits". Let us not be forced to send you to re-education camps, for your own good, naturally. Back to the BS - Onward!
Perhaps Professor Campos was just following the lead of former Colorado University President Elizabeth Hoffman who testified in court that the word c*nt was "a term of endearment" when defending members of the CU football team from harrassment. You see, Professor Campos really likes you and was channeling Geoffrey Chaucer, just those Colorado football players really liked Katie Hnida. Yeah, that's gotta be it.
You got a column printed in the New York Times. A law professor who has to settle for the Rocky Mountain News is bound to be jealous. The fact that he knows you just makes the jealousy worse.
I used to be jealous of Ann Coulter for writing best-selling books and appearing on TV. After all, I was a columnist too, but not that successful. But she's made such an ass of herself that she's no longer worthy of my envy.
Here is my take. In summary:
Now as for Paul Campos, why I'd say he has beclowned himself, but ...
I'm sure the 75 people in Campos' hotel room know what The New York Times is.
I want to know where he found a hotel room that would hold 75 people.
Bos0x:
Oh David Walser, congratulations for being the umpteenth Althouse commenter that is unable to differentiate fantasy from reality.
Well, at least I'm in good company.
Campos's argument was that, IF he were to give a speech in which he called Coulter a cunt (apparently), and if Pelosi were scheduled to give a speech later at that same event, conservatives would claim to be appalled if Pelosi had neglected to denounce Campos. Note that this is a hypothetical event, and Campos did not actually make that speech.
Which was hypothetical, that he did not make a speech to the Colorado Young Democrats or that he did not call Coulter a cunt? Here's the beginning of Campos' column:
This weekend, I was asked to address the annual Colorado Young Democrats convention, regarding how the media frame political stories. Here is an edited version of what I said: (Emphasis added.)
That sure scans like he's writing about a speech he just gave. I'm open to your alternative reading, if you'd be so kind as to point out how what Campos wrote could in anyway mean "Campos did not actually make that speech."
Skipping over the next few paragraphs of what Campos says is an edited version of the text of his speech, we get to where Campos does NOT call Coulter a cunt:
Now suppose I were to stand up here and call Coulter a \[expletive]. ...That would, I believe, be a highly inappropriate thing to do. Even though it's my personal opinion that, if anyone deserves to be called a \[expletive], Coulter does, it's still the sort of thing any decent person will avoid doing. (Emphasis added.)
While Campos did not call Coulter a cunt, he also leaves no room for doubt that he thinks she is a cunt. Note that Campos is doing exactly what Coulter did to Edwards. She said she would not discuss Edwards because using the word "faggot" would get her in trouble. She did not call him a faggot, she just made it clear that she did not think it possible to discuss him without using that term. Campos did not call Coulter a cunt, he just made it clear that his reluctance in using the term in connection with Coulter was a concern for decorum, not accuracy. How else are we supposed to read, "it's my personal opinion that, if anyone deserves to be called a \[expletive], Coulter does, it's still the sort of thing any decent person will avoid doing"?
Bos0x, You said that Campos was dealing in hypotheticals. If that's true, so was Coulter. Both, despite the use of the subjunctive form, made their meaning very clear. Campos thinks Coulter is a cunt, but won't say so because it would be rude. You said he didn't make the speech. He claims he did. Where, exactly, did I misread what Campos wrote (as opposed to what you claim he wrote)?
Before you suggest another has completely misread something, perhaps you ought to make sure your reading is even plausible. Else, you risk beclowning yourself. By the way, those big floppy shoes look good on you. You ought to stay with that look. It'll save time, if nothing else.
Althouse comments: now cuntier than ever!
Or is it
Althouse comments: they're cuntastic!
How many times do I have to tell you that "pussy" used the way I did to refer to Joseph Epstein just means sissy and relates directly back to the kitty cat meaning (as in scaredy cat)? The definition does not trace back to the vulva. Stop thinking about the vulva. Joseph Epstein is nothing like a vulva for being afraid of death. Vulvas laugh at death.
And I didn't write that last comment to fulfill Uncle Mikey's prediction, which I hadn't read yet... and LOL. He's detected my real mission.
After reading this this morning, and then Campos' article as a result, imagine my surprise reading the Denver papers yesterday at lunch and finding, guess who with an article there?
Yes, our esteemed hostess, on the very day that Campos called her out.
I can't find the article right now, but think that it was in the RMN on the page right after Campos' article. It was rather cute in a way, Campos yelling for censorship and slamming Ann, and Ann on (I believe) the next page calmly attacking overly sensitive law students.
Finaly someone stood up and said something in plain language.I thought it was funny myself.I think Edwards anit-christian bloggers were worse.
But thats ok because christians are todays evil empire and deserve whatever derogatory remarks are made,right.
People like Edwards and liberals should not throw stones in glass houses.
Please you people need to get over yourselves,your not that important.
Oh I was on vacation so I missed this whole story. Too bad.
But I agree - I don't see why Ann even needs to comment on this story. The people that need to comment are the thousand or so conservatives in the room who were cheering and laughing at her comments. And the conservatives who use language like this on a daily basis (although not publicly)
But it's just exposing how conservatives really feel. Most conservatives hate the "faggots", which is why they are so obsessed with making us second class citizens.
The conservatives who are condemning her comments are just pissed that Ann has exposed them for the bigots they really are. Does anyone really think Michelle Malkin is concerned with gay people who are called faggots every single day. Puhleeeease.
Most conservatives hate the "faggots", which is why they are so obsessed with making us second class citizens.
Um, sure, if you say so. What else do "most conservatives" believe and obsess over, Karnac?
Downtownlad said, "And the conservatives who use language like this on a daily basis (although not publicly)"
If they are not using this language publicly then how do you know they use it?
If they are not using this language publicly then how do you know they use it?
Because I was in the closet for 30 years. And I heard this language all the time. And from conservatives (often Catholic) the hate really came spewing out. They essentially thought that gays were evil and should be eliminated from society through whatever means.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন