Today, my in-box was graced by a link to this, a column by Cliff Kincaid joining in the savaging of Ann Coulter. In it, he notes that Accuracy in Media "has announced that it will be discontinuing sales of books by or merchandise promoting Ann Coulter. We hope that other conservative groups follow our lead." Kincaid is "Editor of Accuracy in Media."
Puh-lease! Ann Coulter made a bad joke. It wasn't funny, and it was misdirected. To be sure, John Edwards is a vacuous, eminently contemptible candidate. And he's just so darn pretty! But making reference to him as a "faggot" simply isn't funny. Whatever his other flaws, he appears to be a dutiful husband who didn't trade in a wife who was his elder for a trophy wife once he made his millions (I truly resent that Ann has forced me to say something nice about Edwards). Suggesting that he's a faggot is no more appropriate than those poor, pathetic souls who question the sexual preference of anyone who dares to oppose the radical homosexual agenda. Now, maybe if she'd said something about his faggoty hair .... well, never mind.
But to make Ann persona non grata because she dared to use the word "faggot" is conceding the moral high ground against the radical homosexual agenda. The struggle against institutional racial bigotry was rightly and effectively won not by legislation, but when it became considered rude and unfashionable to use disparaging terms against people for no other reason than the unmalleable color of their skin. So, too, it will be with perversion if "Conservatives" or sometimes-allies concede the moral high ground, and suggest that it is unacceptable to call perverse sexual behavior "perverse," and its practitioners "perverts." And make no mistake about it: people aren't complaining because Ann Coulter disparaged John Edwards as something he is not. The complaints are coming from those who want to mainstream perversion. Or those who wrongly confuse speaking of perversion disparagingly and with contempt with bad "manners" and incivility.
Sexual behavior is exactly that --- behavior --- and therefore subject to human choice and free will. It is rightly subject to judgment and, where appropriate, contempt, such as that reflected by use of the word "faggot." Or "child molester."
But use of the term is both derogatory and an accusation, just as calling someone a "drunkard" is. And there is, therefore, nothing wrong with its use, so long as it is directed at, well, faggots. Edwards clearly is not one.
But misdirected attempts at humor hardly justify the treatment that Coulter is getting. She has long been an effective warrior against the excesses of the far Left. She deserves better treatment from her own.
"Ill-advised"? Perhaps. Misdirected? Certainly. But only those faint of heart would suggest the kind of treatment endorsed by Kincaid as the price for making a bad joke.
What is even worse, though, is Kincaid's conclusion. At the end of his piece, he says this:
Ironically, Coulter's "joke" about Edwards was presented in the context of saying that if she used the word "faggot" to describe him, she would have to go into rehab. The idea of getting Coulter some professional help doesn't sound so funny to me.Cliff, here's a little news flash: there was once a place that used psychiatry to "treat" errant political opinions.
It was called the Soviet Union.