http://www.anncoulter.com/

COME BACK, LIBERALS!
March 9, 2005


Liberals have been completely intellectually vanquished. Actually, they lost the war of ideas long ago. It's just that now their defeat is so obvious, even they've noticed. As new DNC Chairman Howard Dean might say, it's all over but the screaming.

In an editorial last week, The New York Times gave President Bush credit for democracy sweeping through the Middle East or, as the Times put it, "a year of heartening surprises." Yes, the Middle East's current democratization would come as quite a surprise to anyone who puts his hands over his ears and hums during the president's speeches.

Rolling Stone magazine is making fun of "moveon.org" for having no contact with normal Americans. Their Bush-hating cause has become so hopeless that moveon.org is on the verge of actually moving on.

Marking the first time Walter Cronkite and I have agreed on anything, Cronkite is ridiculing Dan Rather, saying he should have retired a long time ago.

No one, not even Chris Matthews, is defending the Italian Communist who claims American forces intentionally shot at her in Iraq. (But to be fair, Keith Oberman has been on vacation this week.) She may have lost some credibility when she backed her claim that Americans were targeting her by quoting her kidnappers. She said her kidnappers had warned her to stay away from the Americans because they would only hurt her. And then my rapist said, "Whatever you do, don't cry out for the police! They won't help you!"

Consider that less than 20 years ago, ABC's Peter Jennings and CBS' Mike Wallace announced at an "Ethics in America" panel that they would not intervene to prevent the slaughter of American troops while on duty as journalists — especially during sweeps. As Wallace said: "You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!" It almost makes you wonder if U.S. troops have ever targeted American journalists in the field during wartime. Maybe Eason Jordan would know something about that.

Now liberal journalists are pretending to support the troops. They hardly ever call them "baby killers" anymore, at least to their faces.

Democrats are even pretending to believe in God — you know, as they understand Her.

The only people liberals can find to put up a fight these days are ex-Klanners and other assorted nuts.

There's former KKK "Kleagle" and Democratic Sen. Bob Byrd, who compared the Republicans to Hitler last week. Byrd having been a charter member of a fascist organization himself, no one was sure if this was intended as a critique or a compliment.

Aspiring first lady Teresa Heinz claims the election was stolen through the machinations of a vast conspiracy involving Republican polling machine manufacturers. We eagerly await a Michael Moore documentary to flesh out the details. It's only a matter of time before Heinz announces that anti-Bush insurgents control most of the Red States, and that the sooner the U.S. pulls out of those quagmires, the better.

Howard Dean — chairman of the party that supports murder, adultery, lying about adultery, coveting other people's money, stealing other people's money, mass-producing human embryos for spare parts like an automotive chop shop and banning God — has called the Republican Party "evil." One Democrat in the audience, a preschool teacher no less, complained that Dean was soft-pedaling his message.

Teddy Kennedy's big new idea is to wheel out his 18th proposal to raise the minimum wage. He's been doing this since wages were paid in Spanish doubloons (which coincidentally are now mostly found underwater). Kennedy refuses to countenance any risky schemes like trying to grow the economy so people making minimum wage get raises because they've been promoted. Kennedy's going down and he's taking the party with him! (Recognize the pattern?)

I keep expecting the real Democrats to appear and drag these nuts out of the room, saying, Oh sorry, he's escaped again — don't worry, he does this all the time, and then Howard Dean will stand up and have no pants on.

So now, the entire country is ignoring liberals. I'm the canary in the coal mine. Twenty-six congressmen have signed a letter denouncing me for a column I wrote two weeks ago; for the past two weeks, I've been attacked on MSNBC and CNN, in The Detroit Free-Press and on every known liberal blog and radio show. (I especially want to thank Pacifica Radio in this regard.) I personally have shouted their complaints from the rooftops. Liberals had fallen into my trap!

But there was no point in responding because no one had heard about the liberal denunciations in the first place. It was like explaining a joke: OK, and then they said, "Call me a cab," and then I said, "Okay! You're a cab! Are you following this? ... Sorry, let me start over again."

This is like beating Dennis Kucinich in an untelevised presidential debate. That and $8.50 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbuck's. I'm tired of helping liberals publicize their attacks on me. Liberals are going to have to do better than that if they want a response from me.

It's not just that we're a divided nation, with liberals watching only CNN and conservatives watching only Fox News. I'm pretty sure liberals are aware of me, and I haven't appeared on CNN for months. It's liberals the country is ignoring. No one knows or cares what they're carrying on about in their media outlets. Liberals can't get arrested. They're even letting Martin Sheen off with a warning now.

I hate to sound selfish at such a great moment for the country, but this is nothing short of calamitous for completely innocent right-wing polemicists. Liberals are too pathetic to write about. I have nothing to do; my life is over. Where have all the flowers gone?

I'm confident they'll stage a comeback someday. In lieu of common sense, liberals have boundless energy. But I'm getting bored waiting. In the interest of good sportsmanship, I have some proposals for liberals. I think Democrats might want to drop the contract all Democrats apparently have to sign pledging to pretend to believe insane things. Also, if you could just get the base of your party to not participate anymore and maybe be a little less crazy, people might listen to you. Barring that, you're just going to have to scream a little louder.

Wow, an entire article that makes no real point, and is only self-serving! Wouldn't expect that from Anne Coulter.

Wow, an entire article that makes no real point, and is only self-serving! Wouldn't expect that from Anne Coulter.
Heck no! We'd expect THAT from Bill Mahr and all the blind in "liberal" hollywood :D

Heck no! We'd expect THAT from Bill Mahr and all the blind in "liberal" hollywood :D


I don't care if you are conservative or not. Anyone who looks at that article and thinks it has a legit message and isn't just a rag of petty insults and accusations that allow the author to toot her own horn..well, is a hack. Just like her.

BoBo is back in a big way.
;D
Oh dearie dear dear, denial is not a river in Egypt!

If you wanted a diatribe of Ann Coulter lies, you'd do your own Google search.  Of course, I'm hip to the fact that nobody really believes what she says, it's just fun to watch her unload cheap shots on "liberal" guests on foxcnncnbcmsnbc.  Wait, you don't actually believe believe what she says, right?  I didn't think so.
:P
Oh, in her case Ann ought to be a four-letter word, but in her case Ann is just three.
I don't care if you are conservative or not. Anyone who looks at that article and thinks it has a legit message and isn't just a rag of petty insults and accusations that allow the author to toot her own horn..well, is a hack. Just like her
Ann Coulter's father is/was a lawyer concerning various petrochemical concerns (including vicious mine strike-breaking in West Virginia).
She went to some chic prep school and then Dirtmouth, excuse me, Dartmouth, hence her stint with the right-wing Dirtmouth Review, I mean Dartmouth review and the Buckley bratpack (Laura Ingraham, Dinesh D'Souza, Jonah Goldberg).  I mean what do these alleged middle-Americans want with a dame so obviously off her rocker? 
Truth is, the don't.  Not really.  However, that's what Roger Ailes puts up there so that's what the people consume.  This is what Noam Chomsky calls "manufactured consent."
Furthermore, I'll bet dollars to dognuts her book sales are hyper-inflated through the roof by her publicity stooges.

I don't care if you are conservative or not. Anyone who looks at that article and thinks it has a legit message and isn't just a rag of petty insults and accusations that allow the author to toot her own horn..well, is a hack. Just like her.


I concur. Everytime I read her garbage I don't feel enlightened, I feel insulted. You think if she was so brilliant, she would be able to string together a cogent article without consistently relying on hateful banter and sloganeering. Is this the best the Wrong has to offer? This woman does nothing but play to the lowest common denominator. I'd like to see her perform a real debate with our best... say, Noam Chomsky. I think he would effectively spank the sh*t out of her and dent her career for life.

I knew by the title of this thread it would just be more of the same. Why do I even bother?  ::)






Cat

I knew by the title of this thread it would just be more of the same. Why do I even bother?  ::)






Cat


You're absolutely right.  Maybe I'll write a book titles "How to Talk to a Conservative, If You Really Must".  The first chapter would be title "If its Ann Coulter, in Very Simple words.  She is a complete idiot.  And as to "speaking the truth, she wouldn't know if she fell over it (or used it as a vi... I guess I shouldn't say that).

I concur. Everytime I read her garbage I don't feel enlightened, I feel insulted. You think if she was so brilliant, she would be able to string together a cogent article without consistently relying on hateful banter and sloganeering. Is this the best the Wrong has to offer? This woman does nothing but play to the lowest common denominator. I'd like to see her perform a real debate with our best... say, Noam Chomsky. I think he would effectively spank the sh*t out of her and dent her career for life.

Well, that's the funny thing.  You never really see these rightie pundits DEBATE anyone, least of all Rush the flush.
That squawking banter on FOX doesn't count as debate.

People who speak the truth, don't work for the man, don't give a cr*p about what anybody thinks, and don't get flustered on camera are dangerous to the propaganda machine.  Noam Chomsky is about their worst nightmare. 
You don't have kill him or exhile him, just ignore him and the masses will too.
Chomsky particularly has a lot of enemies.  He's long-accused of anti-semetism.  But, I mean, if FOX had a steady stream of quote-unquote liberals such as Amy Goodman, Greg Palast, Jim Hightower, David Cay Johnston, Joe Conason, Helen Caldicott, and Angela Davis on the air, the other desperate cable networks would follow suit, and slowly the national dialogue would shift out of favor with gun-toting rapture-capitalists!
:P

Alan Colmes is to liberal
what mac-and-cheese
is to Italian cuisine!

Well, that's the funny thing.  You never really see these rightie pundits DEBATE anyone, least of all Rush the flush.
That squawking banter on FOX doesn't count as debate.


the funy thing is, I have seen some instances where Coulter has tried to "debate" with someone.  She was on a Canadian news program, and was bashing the Canadians involvement in one of the wars the conservatives are behind, and the Canadian slammed her pretty hard for not knowing a single thing about the point she was making.

There's a reason they're "commentators."  They have no practical use otherwise.  Left or right, doesn't matter, they're all useless.

There's a reason they're "commentators."  They have no practical use otherwise.  Left or right, doesn't matter, they're all useless.


Can't quite agree on this one Chucky.  It may be my left/liberal bias, but it does seem to me that real "left" commontators have a better grasp of the facts and a more sophisticated analysis than those on the right.  There is no comparison between Ann and Noam.

Can't quite agree on this one Chucky.  It may be my left/liberal bias, but it does seem to me that real "left" commontators have a better grasp of the facts and a more sophisticated analysis than those on the right.  There is no comparison between Ann and Noam.

Chomsky is far more than a commentator.  He is also a world-renouned linguist tenured at MIT(not suggesting you didn't know this, DC).  He's also an avid researcher, scholar, historian, and analyst of current events.
The liberal establishment hates Chomsky as well because Chomsky doesn't cut them any breaks.  He calls 'em like he sees 'em.  Like I said, that is an approach to politics the corporate media hates.  Conservatives would not be the only ones distressed of Chomsky got to be a cable news pundit.
The corporate media loves to put on "radicals" as long as they are radicals from PETA or some such half-baked group the other panelists can ridicule.

Ann Coulter's new column is out, and as usual, it's right on the money.

Freeze! I just had my nails done!

How many people have to die before the country stops humoring feminists? Last week, a defendant in a rape case, Brian Nichols, wrested a gun from a female deputy in an Atlanta courthouse and went on a murderous rampage. Liberals have proffered every possible explanation for this breakdown in security except the giant elephant in the room who undoubtedly has an eating disorder and would appreciate a little support vis-à­¶is her negative body image.

The New York Times said the problem was not enough government spending on courthouse security ("Budgets Can Affect Safety Inside Many Courthouses"). Yes, it was tax-cuts-for-the-rich that somehow enabled a 200-pound former linebacker to take a gun from a 5-foot-tall grandmother.

Atlanta court officials dispensed with any spending issues the next time Nichols entered the courtroom when he was escorted by 17 guards and two police helicopters. He looked like P. Diddy showing up for a casual dinner party.

I think I have an idea that would save money and lives: Have large men escort violent criminals. Admittedly, this approach would risk another wave of nausea and vomiting by female professors at Harvard. But there are also advantages to not pretending women are as strong as men, such as fewer dead people. Even a female math professor at Harvard should be able to run the numbers on this one.

Of course, it's suspiciously difficult to find any hard data about the performance of female cops. Not as hard as finding the study showing New Jersey state troopers aren't racist, but still pretty hard to find.

Mostly what you find on Lexis-Nexis are news stories quoting police chiefs who have been browbeaten into submission, all uttering the identical mantra after every public-safety disaster involving a girl cop. It seems that female officers compensate for a lack of strength with "other" abilities, such as cooperation, empathy and intuition.

There are lots of passing references to "studies" of uncertain provenance, but which always sound uncannily like a press release from the Feminist Majority Foundation. (Or maybe it was The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which recently released a study claiming that despite Memogate, "Fahrenheit 9/11," the Richard Clarke show and the jihad against the Swift Boat Veterans, the press is being soft on Bush.)

The anonymous "studies" about female officers invariably demonstrate that women make excellent cops even better cops than men! One such study cited an episode of "She's the Sheriff," starring Suzanne Somers.

A 1993 news article in the Los Angeles Times, for example, referred to a "study" cited by an ACLU attorney allegedly proving that "female officers are more effective at making arrests without employing force because they are better at de-escalating confrontations with suspects." No, you can't see the study or have the name of the organization that performed it, and why would you ask?

There are roughly 118 million men in this country who would take exception to that notion. I wonder if women officers "de-escalate" by mentioning how much more money their last suspect made.

These aren't unascertainable facts, like Pinch Sulzberger's SAT scores. The U.S. Department of Justice regularly performs comprehensive surveys of state and local law enforcement agencies, collected in volumes called "Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics."

The inestimable economist John Lott has looked at the actual data. (And I'll give you the citation! John R. Lott Jr., "Does a Helping Hand Put Others at Risk? Affirmative Action, Police Departments and Crime," Economic Inquiry, April 1, 2000.)

It turns out that, far from "de-escalating force" through their superior listening skills, female law enforcement officers vastly are more likely to shoot civilians than their male counterparts. (Especially when perps won't reveal where they bought a particularly darling pair of shoes.)

Unable to use intermediate force, like a bop on the nose, female officers quickly go to fatal force. According to Lott's analysis, each 1 percent increase in the number of white female officers in a police force increases the number of shootings of civilians by 2.7 percent.

Adding males to a police force decreases the number of civilians accidentally shot by police. Adding black males decreases civilian shootings by police even more. By contrast, adding white female officers increases accidental shootings. (And for my Handgun Control Inc. readers: Private citizens are much less likely to accidentally shoot someone than are the police, presumably because they do not have to approach the suspect and make an arrest.)

In addition to accidentally shooting people, female law enforcement officers are also more likely to be assaulted than male officers as the whole country saw in Atlanta last week. Lott says: "Increasing the number of female officers by 1 percentage point appears to increase the number of assaults on police by 15 percent to 19 percent."

In addition to the obvious explanations for why female cops are more likely to be assaulted and to accidentally shoot people such as that our society encourages girls to play with dolls there is also the fact that women are smaller and weaker than men.

In a study of public-safety officers not even the general population female officers were found to have 32 percent to 56 percent less upper body strength and 18 percent to 45 percent less lower body strength than male officers although their outfits were 43 percent more coordinated. (Here's the cite! Frank J. Landy, "Alternatives to Chronological Age in Determining Standards of Suitability for Public Safety Jobs," Technical Report, Vol. 1, Jan. 31, 1992.)

Another study I've devised involves asking a woman to open a jar of pickles.

There is also the telling fact that feminists demand that strength tests be watered down so that women can pass them. Feminists simultaneously demand that no one suggest women are not as strong as men and then turn around and demand that all the strength tests be changed. It's one thing to waste everyone's time by allowing women to try out for police and fire departments under the same tests given to men. It's quite another to demand that the tests be brawned-down so no one ever has to tell female Harvard professors that women aren't as strong as men.

Acknowledging reality wouldn't be all bad for women. For one thing, they won't have to confront violent felons on methamphetamine. So that's good. Also, while a sane world would not employ 5-foot-tall grandmothers as law enforcement officers, a sane world would also not give full body-cavity searches to 5-foot-tall grandmothers at airports.

I just find it appalling that Ann Coulter actually draws a pay cheque from somebody for spouting her garbage. Can you believe she's able to make a living for what she does? The work she produces doesn't contain any trace of discernible quality at all.

It's truly depressing that a hack who doesn't posess a single bit of talent or ability gets paid to be a pundit. It makes me think I oughta become a pundit! I mean, if she can do it, anyone can!

I really believe that Ann Coulter is part of a secret conspiracy by the left to discredit conservatives by making them look stupid. Just one look at her, and anyone'd come to the conclusion that all conservatives are a bunch of clowns and idiots!

I just find it appalling that Ann Coulter actually draws a pay cheque from somebody for spouting her garbage. Can you believe she's able to make a living for what she does? The work she produces doesn't contain any trace of discernible quality at all.

It's truly depressing that a hack who doesn't posess a single bit of talent or ability gets paid to be a pundit. It makes me think I oughta become a pundit! I mean, if she can do it, anyone can!

I really believe that Ann Coulter is part of a secret conspiracy by the left to discredit conservatives by making them look stupid. Just one look at her, and anyone'd come to the conclusion that all conservatives are a bunch of clowns and idiots!

Well, I'm afraid Clown Syndrome is rampant among conservatives, and idiocy is a genetic predispostion.  Go down to the elite neighborhoods of Georgetown and see how many of the denizens are mildly retarded and wear the same clothes!  OK, it's not usually idiocy proper, but you do get your occasional bona-fide Dan Quayle, and that makes it all worthwhile!
:D

BTW, if you go to Ann Coulter's Connecticut hide-outs (if they even let your car through), if you manage to get invited to one of those chic cocktail parties of New Canaan, or Darien, or Greenwich---
you will encounter many skinny blondes in slinky black evening dresses who are as dumb as a bag of doorknobs (forgive the plural disagreement) and as mean-mouthed as Don Rickles!
  :P

... But maybe that's just where America is at. Most Americans don't want to see Noam Chomsky debate George F. Will, they'd rather see Ann Coulter and Al Franken go at it. It does sort of irritate me, but I guess thats just some sort of intellectual snobbiness, so I don't know...



I don't think it's intellectual snobbishness.  It's not like it takes some superior level of intellect or education to discuss issues intelligently.  I think people just aren't used to doing it.  Let's face it, we all love mouthing off and feeling morally superior to people who disagree with us instead of listening to where they're coming from and discussing things rationally and respectfully.  It's a nice little superficial ego stroke to mouth off with righteous indignation.  Geez, it's at least 50% 75% 90% of my own online persona. 

I think it's largely a matter of people collectively getting to the point where resolving the issues is more important than the ego-stroke.  I guess we're just not there yet.  If we ever will be.

Ann Coulter's new column is out, and as usual, it's right on the money.

Freeze! I just had my nails done!

How many people have to die before the country stops humoring feminists? Last week, a defendant in a rape case, Brian Nichols, wrested a gun from a female deputy in an Atlanta courthouse and went on a murderous rampage. Liberals have proffered every possible explanation for this breakdown in security except the giant elephant in the room who undoubtedly has an eating disorder and would appreciate a little support vis-à­¶is her negative body image.

...



Now correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't this take place in Atlanta GEORGIA, one of those "law and order" states?  And not the personal attack on the deputy.  Why was she assigned to this case if this guy was so violent?  Did she ask for that assignment?  Was she informed that he might be violent?  Why was she alone with this guy?  The Atlanta authorities have admitted that there was a breakdown in security (ah duh), but to blame the deputy, and to go from there to condeming women's right to equality is just so much sheer BS as to defy the imagination.  And the reference to her "body image" (she gave him the gun because she is fat?) is such a dispicably low blow, and so patently irrelevant that I am surprised GWB didn't edit it out.  But than, I guess to some people, anything Ann says must be right - so far right as to be facist paronoia.

Ann Coulter's new column is out, and as usual, it's right on the money.

Freeze! I just had my nails done!

How many people have to die before the country stops humoring feminists? Last week, a defendant in a rape case, Brian Nichols, wrested a gun from a female deputy in an Atlanta courthouse and went on a murderous rampage. Liberals have proffered every possible explanation for this breakdown in security except the giant elephant in the room who undoubtedly has an eating disorder and would appreciate a little support vis-à­¶is her negative body image.


if by saying "right on the money" you mean insane, then yes, yes it is.

if this had been a scrawny 120 lb man who was overpowered, would Ann be shrieking just as loudly?  Here's a thought, maybe if the deputy wasn't armed, and the guns were in a secure location for only guards, the situation would have never occured?  If the prisioners aren't armed, why are the deputys carrying weapons while they escort them?  Ever been to a jail? The wardens don't walk around with side arms, because they know the guns can be taken from them and used on them.  The guns are secured and only taken out when they're needed.  Hence the purpose of a secured area (such as those metal detectors you pass through on the way into the courthouse, to make sure you're not bringing outside weapons in). 

This is just one of many possible ways this could have been prevented. Increased restraints on prisoners would work too.  That would of course require a moment of thought, and that's something someone like Coulter is not capable of.  This is just another opportunity for her to disgrace her gender and claim that a woman shouldn't hold this position, when the real argument is quite different.

if by saying "right on the money" you mean insane, then yes, yes it is.

if this had been a scrawny 120 lb man who was overpowered, would Ann be shrieking just as loudly?  Here's a thought, maybe if the deputy wasn't armed, and the guns were in a secure location for only guards, the situation would have never occured?  If the prisioners aren't armed, why are the deputys carrying weapons while they escort them?  Ever been to a jail? The wardens don't walk around with side arms, because they know the guns can be taken from them and used on them.  The guns are secured and only taken out when they're needed.  Hence the purpose of a secured area (such as those metal detectors you pass through on the way into the courthouse, to make sure you're not bringing outside weapons in). 

This is just one of many possible ways this could have been prevented. Increased restraints on prisoners would work too.  That would of course require a moment of thought, and that's something someone like Coulter is not capable of.  This is just another opportunity for her to disgrace her gender and claim that a woman shouldn't hold this position, when the real argument is quite different.


Well of course Chucky, everything you say makes perfect sense, but since when has that stood in the way of Coulter and the rest of that a..whole crew, not to mention our own GWB from ranting on with their neoconb nonsense?  Facts, reason, logic?  These words are unknown to the "true believers".

Unfortunately, a lot of us on the left are falling for it.  We lose credability when we start in with the same name-calling some of them dish out.  But maybe that's just where America is at.  Most Americans don't want to see Noam Chomsky debate George F. Will, they'd rather see Ann Coulter and Al Franken go at it.  It does sort of irritate me, but I guess thats just some sort of intellectual snobbiness, so I don't know... maybe I should just stop caring so much.

I would love to see Ann Coulter debate Al Franken, but it will never happen.  Franken is persona non grata at FOX because he's a smart liberal who takes no sh*t.
Ann Coulter loves to go on Hannity & Colmes because she and Hannity can just shout insults while the "liberal" panelist is trying to speak, and within six minutes the segment is over.
If AC had to do a half-hour debate in which the moderator allotted the premise-and-rebuttal time and brooked no filibustering or overtalking, AC would be toast in under ten minutes.  I could flatten her in a REAL debate.  She's just a blethering bimbo with a giant mean streak.  You can't throw a brick from a Rolls in Greenwich without hitting one!
;D
Similarly, if George Will had to face Chomsky in a REAL debate, Will would get steamrolled.  However, Will would never agree to debate Chomsky, and Coulter would never agree to debate Franken.  Bullies don't like fights unless they know they can win.

Interesting thread, Bodacious.

For me, I've read all of Ann Coulter's books for the last 3 or 4 years years; bought none, just read them at the bookstore. I like reading her articles and books. I just find her informative and funny, but then at times I think she can be a little too cruel (but so can Al Franken).

Others may not like her, but for someone like me who likes reading all the popular "political" books (Coulter,Franken,Moore,Hitchens,O'Reilly,Friedman,Elder and all the rest), she's one of the best.

If you like Ann Coulter you may want to check out Tammy Bruce.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=TAMMY%20BRUCE/103-6213719-6297468

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Ann%20Coulter/103-6213719-6297468

;)

If you like Ann Coulter you may want to check out Tammy Bruce.

;)


I prefer Lenny Bruce

Another great Ann Coulter column.

Remove Dennis Kucinich's feeding tube!
By: Ann Coulter

In the current battle over whether to remove the feeding tube from Florida woman Terri Schiavo, the basic positions are:

* She is in a permanent vegetative state; no she's not.
* She is unconscious and does not react to stimuli; yes she does.
* She will never get any better; yes she will.
* She would not have wanted to be kept on a feeding tube; you don't know that.

The only thing everyone seems to agree on is that the husband is creepy. Terri's parents are fighting like mad to keep Terri alive. The husband, Michael Schiavo, is living with another woman with whom he has one child and is expecting another. Yet he has mounted a monumental crusade to have Terri's feeding tube removed.

Terri is not brain-dead and requires no extraordinary means to be kept alive. She is breathing, her heart is pumping, her organs are functioning. All she needs is food and water. (Of course, all three are technically true of Kate Moss, too.) But her husband wants to starve her to death. As Larry King asked him, why not "walk away"?

That is the eternal mystery of this case. Assuming everything Michael says about Terri is true she has no consciousness, she will never recover, and she would not want to live with feeding tubes well, then, she's not in pain, bored, angry or upset. Dennis Kucinich has been in a persistent vegetative state for 20 years how about not feeding him? Why is Michael Schiavo so obsessed with pulling Terri's feeding tube? Why can't he just walk away?

Michael's answer to Larry King was this: "Why should I, Larry? This is Terri's wish. This is Terri's choice." As King pointed out, Terri's alleged "wish" was not memorialized anywhere in writing, only in Michael's memory. Michael responded to this point by invoking the courts: "It's been decided for six years of litigation that this was Terri's wish."

I note that "six years of litigation" is not enough to end the lives of child-molesting serial killers on death row. The same people who want to kill Terri believe that death-row cases are never final, no matter how many courts and juries have spoken over how many decades.

Moreover, it's not as if court after court has heard testimony on Terri's wishes and have all unanimously agreed that Terri would have chosen death. One lone Florida circuit court judge, George Greer, credited Michael's testimony, finding "clear and convincing" evidence that Terri said she would not want to be kept alive on feeding tubes. Because Judge Greer was acting as the finder of fact, his finding is essentially unreviewable by any other court. Even the notorious Florida Supreme Court which has a history of jumping in to try to save a dead man refused to review the case.

Judge Greer's finding on Terri's wishes may be immune from legal review, but it's not immune from criticism. He's a finder of fact he's not God. A few years ago, Judge Greer found that Helene Ball McGee did not have reasonable cause to believe domestic violence was imminent and denied her an order of protection. Two weeks later, Mrs. McGee was stabbed to death by her husband. So judges can make mistakes.

Judge Greer's pivotal "finding of fact" in the Schiavo case determining a life-or-death issue is based on something Terri allegedly said after watching a TV show. Michael didn't know his wife was bulimic, but he distinctly remembered Terri's remarks about a TV show. (It was an episode of "Melrose Place," during which she said that Heather Locklear's shoes were "to die for.")

After watching "Bambi," I'm against deer hunting. Then I go out the next day and order venison. Maybe we could have a higher standard of proof before the government orders a woman to die.

Despite Michael's insistence that he has a vivid memory of Terri expressing her wishes regarding death, note this exchange on "Larry King Live":

KING: I have a 35-year-old daughter. I've never asked her this question. I don't know if she has a living will. I hope she does. But if she doesn't, I don't know the answer to the question. Because most 35-year-olds, I guess, don't talk about it.

SCHIAVO: Nobody talks about death, Larry.

Michael apparently forgot to add except for that one night I remember so clearly, Larry, when my wife, Terri, talked to me about death and expressed her firmly held desire not to be kept alive on a feeding tube.

If you start making damning admissions on "Larry King Live" with your lawyer sitting next to you, no less you have a problem. Larry King can interview Louis Farrakhan and make him look like a charmer.

As even the New York Times admits, Michael did not recall Terri's clearly stated desire to be taken off life support until after the million-dollar settlement was paid, most of it going for Terri's medical costs and the remainder to her husband.

What offhand comments might Terri have made if she had read in the Baltimore Sun about Rod Brandner, who indicated that he was coming out of a coma by squeezing his son's hand in response to questions less than two hours before his life support system was to be turned off?

Or what if she had read the Associated Press news story on Chris Trickle, who lost 5 percent of his brain when he was shot in the head, but later came out of a nine-month coma to breathe on his own, eat three meals a day, and tell his girlfriend he loved her?

What would Terri have said after hearing that Gregory Dygas' mother refused to believe the doctors' assurances that Gregory was brain-dead and should be taken off life support, and six months later watched as Gregory sat up, talked and watched television?

What offhand remarks might Terri have made after reading about Terry Wallis, the Canadian man who just last summer awoke from a 19-year coma?

Or how about that case in Minnesota last year where the guy who'd been in a coma for decades suddenly reappeared and ran for Senate? What was his name? Walter Mondale?

(Note for the record: I want heroic measures taken to keep me alive, and I demand the immediate arrest of anyone trying to remove my life support.)

In the absence of a living will, I would think the courts ought to be erring on the side of life. But short of that, couldn't we at least all agree that the courts should not defer to the pull-the-plug demands from anyone who:

1. expresses an unseemly enthusiasm for another person's death;
2. was the only person present when the incident leading to the persistent vegetative state occurred;
3. stands to make money off the person's death; or
4. is wearing a "W.W.C.V.B.D.?" (what would Claus von Bulow do?) bracelet?

Links: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter111403.asp, http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com

Mein gott. Is this woman for real? Is she actually a politician? If she is, she wouldn't get away with using that sort of language for very long in any sane country! I'm quite shocked; I didn't realise Bush had loads of other chromosome-deficient on his books- is there some sort of factory manufacturing offensive idiots in the Whitheouse?

Another great Ann Coulter column.

Remove Dennis Kucinich's feeding tube!
By: Ann Coulter

In the current battle over whether to remove the feeding tube from Florida woman Terri Schiavo, the basic positions are:

* She is in a permanent vegetative state; no she's not.
* She is unconscious and does not react to stimuli; yes she does.
* She will never get any better; yes she will.
* She would not have wanted to be kept on a feeding tube; you don't know that.



Well, Ann has said it, it MUST be true -

NOT

So once again, Ann, open mouth, insert foot, gag.

OK, maybe Schiavo isn't brain dead compared to Ann Coulter, but if you are going to awaken from a comatose state, you have to have something to awaken with.  Time and again the experts prove the disintegration of Schiavo's cerebral cortex, and yet the debate rages on.
Sure the family has a couple of doctors who say otherwise, and I think one of them docs was named "Frankenstein."
;D

OK, maybe Schiavo isn't brain dead compared to Ann Coulter, but if you are going to awaken from a comatose state, you have to have something to awaken with.  Time and again the experts prove the disintegration of Schiavo's cerebral cortex, and yet the debate rages on.
Sure the family has a couple of doctors who say otherwise, and I think one of them docs was named "Frankenstein."
;D


Compared to Ann Couter, the string beans in my fridg aren't brain dead. Lets put them on life support (at Ranndel Terry's expense) and see if they develope brain waives.

Compared to Ann Couter, the string beans in my fridg aren't brain dead. Lets put them on life support (at Ranndel Terry's expense) and see if they develope brain waives.

If you can measure the brain waves of string beans, can I lock Randall Terry and Ann Coulter in your fridge?