Blatherskite

I was up in the lunchroom today reading the May 16th edition of Time Magazine. I didn’t get any further than the letters to the Editor, which were devoted to the dichotomy between those against the Coulter cover story and those who loved it. The letters were arranged so that every other one would be a “for” and the next one would be an “against”, etc. I was kind of amused by the difference between the two kinds of people. I will just post a couple here so you can see what I was amused by:

While I respect Ann Coulter’s intellect, I feel that the offensive comments she has made over the years have hurt her [April 25]. Diverse points of view should, of course, be brought to the table, but how does wishing, as Coulter did in 2002, that Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh had blown up the New York Times building contribute to the political dialogue? Coulter could use her fame to promote valuable intellectual debate. Instead, she wastes it on personal attacks that do nothing to advance discussion of real issues.

STEVEN M. CLAYTON Ocean, N.J.

Okay..that was a good, objective, letter, I think. No name calling. Just telling the truth. Don’t you think? All of the letters against the Coulter cover story had a similar tone and level of intellect, with varying degrees of anger.

Okay, here are a couple of letters from those who liked the article:

Thank you for the story on Coulter. She’s a gutsy woman who tells it like it is. We need more of that these days!

KATIE GRAHAM Grand Blanc, Mich.

Here is another one:

Coulters’s quick wit is the slap in the face that awakens us from the stupor of liberalism. Go girl, go! TIME’S story focused on her throwaway statements and missteps to the exclusion of her brilliant recovery in debate and the dazzling and unflinching acumen she displays as a guest television commentator.

LINDA GRACE STONE Palo Alto, Calif.

Ugh! oh, I just have to post one more:

Instead of calling someone a big fat idiot or a lying liar, Coulter has elevated the put-down to an art form. Watching liberals squirm when she launches her attacks is a real pleasure.

BRIAN GREENE Decatur, Ga. (my emphasis)

Aren’t the responses of the neocons hella annoying? The most annoying thing about it is that they are getting pleasure by my getting annoyed. It’s this terrible recursive loop.

The last one is the one that really bothers me. The problem, as I see it, is that fans of Coulter are, for lack of a better term, retarded (no offense to the mentally challenged). They are intellectually retarded (and now thier point is made because I’m now an elitist. Ugh! This conversation is so frustrating!). You can plainly see that those against Coulter, the progressives, are ready to move the dialouge forward. I think that all of those people would love to engage in meaningful political discourse that moves this country forward. But the Coulter lovers are stuck in this stage, this school yard attitude, where they enjoy watching thier “enemies” squirm. They don’t care about the discourse at all. They don’t want it. They just want to see us squirm. They think it’s funny. They get pleasure from it. It’s a retarded, immature attitude. And it’s doing nothing to bridge the divide.

Frankly, I don’t feel I can talk to these people. I had a conversation with one of my co-workers about this after I read these letters. She reminded me of Zell Miller’s infamous duel challenge last summer after the GOP convention. How do to talk to somebody like that? You don’t. You back slowly away from them toward the door.