How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must)

It was with a deep sense of shame that I recently trudged through the library with my reserved copy of Ann Coulter’s How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must) clutched under my arm, wedged in between two DVDs, fearing that someone might mistake me for the sort of person who watches right-wing staples like The O’Reilly Factor and Triumph of the Will at home. I mean, what attitude should I have going into the book when the front cover flap reads;

“I am often asked if I still believe we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. The answer is: Now more than ever!”

Finally! The perfect book for anyone who thought that Joe McCarthy was “too moderate.” This book proved that my hatred for Coulter has been justified all along. I really felt like throwing up as I read this book. It would have been less painful if each of the 353 pages had nothing but a close-up image of Rosie O’Donnell bent over displaying her anus between her two outstretched butt cheeks while spanked by a midget. It’s not a book per se but a collection of articles Coulter has written in recent years, and it’s not so much a collection of articles as it is a $27 stack of ass wipes available at Barnes and Noble. It’s a steaming hot, nutty, moist pile of right-wing bullshit of the likes that would make Joseph Goebbels cream in his pants.

One thing I realized about Coulter: She likes to invoke men like John Stuart Mill, Edmund Burke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau to provide the illusion that her audience is reading political philosophy. I have studied actual political philosophers -- Hobbes, Plato, Rousseau, Locke -- and their works are not wrought with logical fallacies, nor written on a third grade level, nor are caustic insults substituted for legitimate arguments. In 2001, federal judge Richard Posner (a Reagan appointee) named her one of our top public intellectuals. Yet she is the complete opposite of an intellectual. Rather than engaging in the honest pursuit of debate and truth, she writes for those staunch readers who have already made up their minds to be religious nuts and right-wing fascists as they sit at home nodding their vacuous heads in agreement while she attacks such evils as civil liberties and defends, among other things, detaining Middle Eastern immigrants (see pg 57).

The result is a barrage of logical fallacies, lies, and non sequiturs like “liberals are terrorists.” The book is replete with examples of stereotypes, vitriolic language, and cheap shots at celebrities and politicians, all rolled into short, easily digestible nuggets of propaganda for the mental midgets that make up her fan base. But the poor quality of her arguments should surprise no one who realizes that they were written by someone who thinks the earth is 6000 years old despite Satan’s attempt to fool us with the fossil record. Here are some highlights from the book:

This is War (pg 22). This is the notorious article where Ann made her infamous statement about invading the Muslim world and converting it to Christianity, an assertion so nutty that it even led to her being booted from ultra-conservative National Review magazine. How typical of a conservative; she has no problem sending others to fight in a holy war, yet has no desire whatsoever to dodge bullets and land mines herself. Besides, it requires pure stupidity for one to make such an argument. Only a complete retard would come to the conclusion that conversion to Christianity will pacify anyone, lest she forget the inquisition, witch burnings, the crusades, and centuries of church-backed corruption, persecution and tyranny in Europe.

Attack France (pg 27) Ann begins this article by noting that given the principles of the Bush Doctrine, one must logically conclude that the US should invade France. Most people -- normal people -- would see that as an indication of a serious flaw in the Bush Doctrine. Not Ann. She adamantly concludes that it is America’s imperative to invade France. She then proceeds to build her case for an attack on France. Kidding aside, she lists argument after argument in defense of her position (e.g., “they harbor terrorists“), and I repeat, she is not kidding.

Capitol Punishment (pg 313), is where Ann gives us guys some dating advice from her years of experience in Washington, at least since her sex change operation in the late 80s. Her years of experience, that is, if you believe there were actually guys who wanted to date her scarecrow-like physique, chicken legs, shapeless hips, her raspy, banshee-like voice, ratty hair, and malnourished, unshapely stick body (unless there is such a thing as an anorexia fetish). I do know several College Republicans who claim that they find her attractive, and I’m pretty sure they all masturbate to her photos online, but I guess that is to be expected when your political party has slightly more ovaries in it than the cast of Queer Eye.

The Plan (pg 62). There may be too many stupid Ann arguments in this article to refute them all, but goddamn it, I have to try. This article, believe it or not, is founded on the proposition that anyone who insisted that we have a plan for Iraq was misguided. Coulter quotes Senator Edward Kennedy on his concerns about the lack of a plan, and responds with an argumentum ad hominem without addressing his point. She then quotes Tim Russert of Meet the Press in an interview with Dick Cheney, and responds with an argumentum ad hominem without addressing his point. Then she goes on to claim that “plans are useless” (what the fuck!?) and continues laboriously with a series of arguments that make about as much sense as a James Joyce novel.

Drug Shills (pg 310). Coulter begins this article by admitting that the issue of drug legalization never interested her because, “It’s not going to happen” (see above: Coulter is no intellectual). That statement sums up the political ideology of a cankerous cunt with no concern for justice or truth. Of course, a little thing like ignorance doesn't prevent a pundit like Coulter from forming an opinion, and despite her alleged apathy towards the issue, she goes on to list what she sees as “6 stupid arguments” in favor of drug legalization. Included is a defense of prohibition (yeah, what a success story that was). Read it for a good sample of what a bitchy slut-bag she really is.

Chicks with Dicks (pg 142). Well, she writes “Chicks with D****,“ but I guess censorship comes naturally to fascists. I’m not sure what this one’s about, but I’m pretty sure it’s her autobiography.

Her last chapter, What You Could Have Read if You Lived in a Free Country, is a whiny, sniveling account of how the entire world is against her. In it, she includes four articles that she laments were never published by a host of editors more sensible than herself. Their refusal to print them is evidence, she says, that we don’t live in a free country, even though her ideas were rejected on the free market and in the absence of government intervention, as is required by the 1st Amendment. Ironically, it is exactly ideas like hers that you would be most likely to find in a country that wasn‘t free; drug criminalization, gay marriages bans, Christian theocracy, sodomy laws, etc.

You won’t even know how much this book sucks until you pick it up. Let's just say it's no coincidence that Ann Coulter is an anagram for "A Cunt Loner." For whatever reason, Coulter has a hard-on about Maureen Dowd, who is mentioned countless times as a victim of Ann’s standard pattern of ad hominem attacks, but Dowd isn’t Coulter’s only target. In addition to affirming the superiority of Christians multiple times, Ann attacks Islam throughout the book with labels like “Islamic lunatics” and jokes like “A Muslim by any other name blows up just the same” (remember kids, suicide bombing is funny!). These attacks finally managed to make me smile, though, when I realized that when Coulter dies, a very pissed-off Allah is going to lock her in a cell with 72 horny gorillas to anally rape her for eternity. But other than that, reading this book was the worst several hours of my life.