Ann Coulter vs. One Billion ArabsWritten by Scott C. Smith
In a recent column, Ann Coulter expressed indignation regarding an apparent Federal Aviation Administration policy not to perform searches on more than two Arabs at a time. I was not aware of this policy, but not surprisingly, Coulter would like all Arabs stopped and searched. You know, because they’re Arab. I think Coulter is applying some sort of twisted logic to this subject. Something along lines of, “The terrorists that attacked United States on 9-11 were Arabs. Therefore, all Arabs are terrorists.” In essence, Coulter is advocating racial profiling. Which is an odd position for an attorney with a background in constitutional law to take. Innocent until proven guilty? Not if you look like you are an Arab. It was John Lehman, a member of 9-11 Commission, that had brought attention to policy that prohibits airlines from searching more than two Arabs at a time. To this, Coulter writes, “In a sane world, Lehman’s statement would have made headlines across country…that it is official government policy to prohibit searching more than two Arabs per flight.” African-Americans have dealt with this kind of injustice for years. And while Coulter thinks racial profiling is sound law enforcement policy, I have another word for it: racism. But that’s just me. And when you apply Coulter’s logic to other scenarios, logic stops making sense. For instance, The FBI has profiled serial killers and what has emerged is that majority of serial killers are white males. Does that mean FBI should stop every white male in a particular city or region where a serial killer has struck? Of course not. That would be stupid. So, even though she supports a racist method of law enforcement, it would not be fair for me to say Coulter was a racist. I don’t know Ann Coulter, so I can’t say she’s a racist. That would be wrong. Maybe we can find some answers in her columns! Here’s a good one. September 25, 2002. Why We Hate Them. Coulter writes, Americans don't want to make Islamic fanatics love us. We want to make them die. There's nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell angry fanatics. So sorry they're angry – wait until they see American anger. Japanese kamikaze pilots hated us once too. A couple of well-aimed nuclear weapons, and now they are gentle little lambs. That got their attention. No love lost there, eh Ann? Maybe we should emulate policies of Hitler-era German government. They didn’t like Jews very much, so they rounded them up and killed millions of them. Conservatives do a lot of whining about how liberals are always quick to label conservatives as “racists” or “homophones” or “stupid.” These assessments, at least for me, are based on what I hear coming out of a conservative’s mouth, or what they write. Actually, conservative hate-speak is very easy to pick up on. Take Sean Hannity. He likes to begin sentences with statements like “You liberals…” or he’ll say “You and your liberal friends…” The key is to take word liberal and replace it with a minority. Give it a try next time you hear Hannity, or some other right-winger, on television or read it in print. If you can stomach hearing Hannity. Maybe you’ll need to find someone less annoying. Speaking of annoying, let’s get back to Coulter. In her Sept. 4, 2002 column, titled Murder for Fun and Prophet (get it? Prophet refers to Prophet Muhammad. Hilarious!), at end of column, Coulter dismisses Muslim faith as irrelevant. “Muhammad makes L. Ron Hubbard look like Jesus Christ. Most people think nothing of assuming every Scientologist is a crackpot. Why should Islam be subject to presumption of respect because it's a religion?” That’s right, Ann! Over one billion people around world are crackpots because they are Muslims. Idiots! As a comparison, there are only a few million members of Church of Scientology, according to Religious Tolerance web site.
| | The Politics of TortureWritten by Scott C. Smith
When now-infamous photographs of Iraqi prisoners being sexually humiliated at hands of U.S. military police were made public, reaction was nearly unanimous: disgust and outrage that U.S. military were abusing prisoners at same prison Saddam Hussein used to torture Iraqis. President George W. Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and others in Bush administration quickly condemned photographs, with Bush promising an investigation. In his May 15 radio address, Bush said, “My administration and our military are determined that such abuses never happen again.” Curiously, right-wing pundits took a different view of photographs. Rush Limbaugh proclaimed abuse was nothing more than troops “blowing some steam off.” Limbaugh also compared abuse to fraternity hazing rituals, and finally, in what must be most tenuous leap of logic in radio history, blamed whole abuse scandal on Bill Clinton. On May 14, Limbaugh said, “So while all this is going on, Democrats are claiming this is a chain-of-command thing, and they're trying to get this linked all way to Bush, this is happening because of Bush's example, this is happening because Bush doesn't care, this is happening because Bush doesn't use any discipline, this is because it comes from top. I would believe that if Bill Clinton were still in office. If Bill Clinton were still in office, I could accept notion this might come from top and, in fact, depending on age of these soldiers over there they may in fact be. How many stories have we had lately, oral sex is a great way to stop teen pregnancy? That oral sex is a great way to have safe sex, just had one this week. Who popularized oral sex for nation? And who was defended day in and day out royally for doing so? Bill Clinton. And who defended him? The Democrats who now find all kinds of atrocities in these photos coming out of Abu Ghraib prison.” Brilliant! The real reason prisoner abuse occurred had nothing to do with a breakdown in chain of command. It was because of Bill Clinton’s sexual activities! Other conservatives pointed out that Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib were not “boy scouts” and, apparently, deserved to be sexually humiliated. As conservative position on Abu Ghraib abuse scandal shifted away from reality, I’m sure some began to see that their audience was not agreeing with their positions, which were pretty much out of step from reaction of most Americans. Conservative pundits, I believe, have a need to protect George W. Bush. They know deep down that Dubya isn’t greatest president in world, but since he’s Republican, they will do whatever they can to deflect attention away from Bush and his administration.
|
