Everyone on the left, including Women 's groups as well as the GLBT community, had no problem recognizing the ample use of the literary techniques of Irony and Satire in the article. The article deviated from my normal tone and style and was crafted in the style of a left leaning mirror image of Ann. Coulter routinely attacks members of the GLBT community, I said that there are persistent rumors in the left wing blogosphere that she is in fact a member of that community. Marc Williams of Opinion Editorials http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/msheppard_20060614.html said that this was vile, evidence of Liberal non-tolerance and showed that I am 'confused ' about my political identity. I think this is evidence that Mr. Williams and others are ignorant of the history and techniques of their chosen professions. In fact, Stephen Colbert is the modern champion of the use of satire and irony, pretending to be just like George W. Bush and saying things that Bush would say with just a bit of a twist to show how foolish they are. Does that mean that he agrees with Bush or is confused about his political identity? Of course, it does not. Anyone who says so, particularly someone who professes to be a journalist, like Marc Williams, is either a complete fool or a liar.
Where sadness and pity turn to anger and spite is when one considers that ignorant fools like Coulter and Williams have no problem viciously attacking their enemies on the left by any means available including those most despicable, and then have the temerity to act wounded and as if they deserve pity when they are on the receiving end. As far as I am concerned, after attacking the 9/11 widows, Coulter deserves no respect or consideration and is fair game for what I would normally consider over the top criticism, vile or otherwise and Williams has no business writing articles or being considered a serious journalist. They are nothing more then sensationalists profiteering on sensationalism spewing whatever bilge they feel will get the most people to read them out of either amusement or anger. Perhaps the best evaluation of Coulter is that of Jonah Goldberg at the National Review Online, http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment100301.shtml , where he discussed the article that got her canned from NRO, a RIGHT WING periodical. Jonah 's choice quotes:
In the wake of her invade-and-Christianize-them column, Coulter wrote a long, rambling rant of a response to her critics that was barely coherent ...this was Ann at her worst -- emoting rather than thinking, and badly needing editing and some self-censorship, or what is commonly referred to as "judgment."
[Ann] apparently proceeded to run around town bad-mouthing NR and its employees. Then she showed up on TV and, in an attempt to ingratiate herself with fellow martyr Bill Maher, said we were "censoring" her.
So let me be clear: We did not "fire" Ann for what she wrote, even though it was poorly written and sloppy. We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty. What's Ann's take on all this? Well, she told the Washington Post yesterday that she loves it, because she's gotten lots of great publicity. That pretty much sums Ann up.
Jonah 's last line above is spot on. The pursuit of publicity at any cost pretty much sums Ann up and is yet another reason why anyone (Marc Williams) who feels the need to rise to her defense is a fool. In Ann 's world, anything positive or negative about her that generates publicity increases her readership, which increases the fees she can charge for appearances and syndication of her column and is thus a victory.