
As I consciously avoid paying attention to Ann Coulter, I hadn't heard about her scrum with Ottawa University until attending a terrific panel discussion featuring Sheila Kennedy and Erin Rosenberg last Thursday at Butler University (GO BULLDOGS!) entitled "Rights and Wrongs: Achieving Civil Discourse."
Coulter was invited by a conservative student union to speak on campus, and a protest wave ensued. The Vice-President of the University even e-mailed Coulter to remind her, in the words of the Huffington Post, "to watch her mouth."
The short version is that Coulter was told that Canada lacks the same defamation protections as America, and further, has criminalized "hate speech."
Coulter spun the e-mail as Ottawa University creating a "climate of hate." (Kudos to Coulter for acknowledging for the first time that humans can adversely affect a climate!) Student protestors by the hundreds appeared and shouted Coulter down and, ultimately, the lecture did not go forward.
Coulter and Fox News made it sound like some liberal gestapo shut down the event, though the Vancouver Sun reports that the conservative organizers told campus security the event wouldn't go forward because of "safety concerns."
Ahh, to be young, idealistic, revved up, and so utterly stupid again!
Apparently, it's time for Professor iPOPA to teach the young whipper snappers a thing or two about public relations in politics.
First, the media loves controversy, and Ann Coulter IS media.
Second, controversy can't happen if only one side plays the game.
Third, somebody who does professional media for a living will almost always outspin you and make you look like a complete jackass.
Let's think this through.
Fifteen hundred kids spent who knows how many hours organizing protests, spreading "the word" to stop Coulter from speaking hers, and actually took their evening off to chant, "Ann, go home!" Why? Because they said you wanted to ensure their University was not a discriminatory place.
But you know what they actually did?
They made Ann Coulter a First Amendment hero, they proved everything she says about how "tolerance" toward other ideas is a one-way vehicle for "liberals," they gave their own University and country a huge black eye, and they deprived some independent-minded people who didn't know Coulter of the opportunity for her to say something insensitive that might prompt them to conclude on their own that she's a vapid, intellectual-bereft puff pastry.
Dr. Phil gets mocked, but he asks this great question: "Do you want to be right, or do you want to do what works?"
Here, some college students wanted so desperately to be part of some morally superior ("right") direct-action tactic, they got completely owned.
Any college kids thinking about leading a similar protest against a speaker, please remember that if you must make yourself part of the story (which you'll admit if you're objective is a bit self-indulgent because it's about you), make these your actions:
(1) don't protest the coming of the speaker;
(2) don't go;
(3) take your 1,500 people and on the same night and time, build houses for Habitat for Humanity or engage in some other philanthropic venture that supports multiculturalism; and
(4) issue a brief statement saying, "While Ann Coulter is tearing down our neighbors, we are building together."
Seriously, do you realize how many collective hours you wasted (that could have been spent constructively) just so Ann Coulter can tell this story of liberal persecution in her next book?
I don't want to be too hard on the students because they are not alone. Every time a klan or skinhead rally is announced, everybody wants to do a counter-protest. Do you know that nobody covers six klansmen walking down the street, except ironically? It's only when somebody plans a counter-protest that the media will cover the story because you've given it "balance." (I promise you there are news editors praying somebody will organize a counter-protest in every instance).
But try telling people who love to be in front of cameras and microphones and who covet having their followers see them as "action-oriented" that the best play is not to play at all. Some are so blinded by the spotlight, they don't realize that they put the klansmen in it with them.
In other words, to paraphrase that classic philosophical connundrum, "If an Ann Coulter appears in an auditorium but nobody is there to hear her fall, does it make a sound?"
Not a notable one, unless you foolishly amplify her.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Misguided Canadian Students and Their Foolish Fear of Ann Coulter
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Ellsworth has Hell's Worth of Nightmare Votes to Explain to Democratic Party
Bil Browning with The Bilerico Project has an excellent Huffington Post entry on 8th District Congressman Brad Ellsworth's less than stellar record on human rights.
But the GLBTG community probably isn't alone in experiencing that sinking feeling in their gut.
Ellsworth received 0 ratings from Planned Parenthood in 2008 and 0 from the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) in 2007. On his healthcare vote, Ellsworth issued the following statement:
"As I considered the proposal, I weighed it against my 6 key principles of reform: First, the bill must prevent federal tax dollars from funding abortions. Together with pro-life Reps. Bart Stupak (D-MI), Joseph Pitts (R-PA) and other pro-life members and organizations, I fought to ensure federal funds are not used to provide abortions. Our amendment has the support of the National Right to Life Committee, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and other pro-life organizations, and its passage ensures federal tax dollars will not be used to pay for abortions."
In 2007-2008, Ellsworth got "A" grades from English First and the Federation for American Immigration Reform. I doubt Indiana's newly-formed Latino Democratic Caucus can be too thrilled.
Brad Ellsworth seems tailor-made to placate ultra-conservative independents and soft Republicans in Southern Indiana. But he's got to get selected by his own party first.
Ellsworth has Hell's Worth of Nightmare Votes to Explain to Democratic Party
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Huffington Post and Daily Kos Misdiagnose Palin’s “City On a Hill”
American history buffs and theocracy fearers rejoice! Andrew Bacevich is talking to you on The Huffington Post, and Daily Kos (ironically) must need some “liberal” arts education.
Bacevich dissects the only philosophically meaningful comment Governor Sarah Palin made during the VP debate:
“And we are to be that shining city on a hill, as President Reagan so beautifully said, that we are a beacon of hope, and that we are unapologetic here.”
As Bacevich notes, the “city on a hill” idea came from Massachusetts Bay Colony Founder, John Winthrop, in 1630. Bacevich lays out the entire text and context for Winthrop’s remark and convincingly argues that unless America is God’s chosen people, a presumption which strikes him (and me) as arrogant, the "city on the hill" comment is inapplicable to the American experiment.
Daily Kos goes a step further and implies that Palin’s "city on a hill" remark is “code” for a fundamentalist conspiracy to create a Christian-based theocracy. D.K. says they (the religious right) have been “slipping this one by us.”
Daily Kos notes:
“The phrase was referenced several times during the 2008 Republican National Convention by Rudy Guiliani and several others, during the nomination of the Republican John McCain.”Here’s the idea By referring to an “obscure” 1630 sermon that was given at the initiation of a Puritan colony, Republicans are secretly signaling their intentions to other Christians to enforce Christian values in government.
With all due respect, this idea that Republicans are "signaling" through Winthrop is crazy talk. Sarah Palin (and the supermajority of Christians in this country) couldn’t even tell you who John Winthrop is, let alone what he said and why. Without knowing the context of Winthrop's remark, how can anyone draw an association from it?
The stronger "signaling" argument is the one both Bacevich and Daily Kos completely miss. The original source of Winthrop’s oratory is the Gospel of Matthew, verses 14-16 (NIV):
"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."
In other words, Christians should act Christ-like while letting people know they are Christians as a way of gaining more believers. This is an uncontroversial notion that can be summarized as "serve as an example." Winthrop mutilated the original meaning to induce his followers to create a completely Puritan-based government.
"City on a hill" might be a signal, but it's no more a secret to a cultural literate American than "an eye for an eye," "turn the other cheek," or "God Bless America." The fact that Daily Kos, a leader for my party on a lot of issues, has authors who don't know such an obvious reference in the Bible is concerning because I suspect they know Greek and Roman mythology.
Like it or not, the Bible is the best-selling book in the world. Whether you're Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddist, Wiccan, atheist, agnostic, transcendentalist, or accidental tourist, you have GOT to know the Bible as a matter of cultural literacy. Even if you cringe when you hear someone call America a "Christian nation," you cannot dispute that it's a pluralist nation with a supermajority of Christians. As a result, even if you read it as fiction, you HAVE to read it. It's sort of like the Da Vinci Code, except movie adaptions of the Bible are actually entertaining.
(Also, even the culturally illiterate might have driven by the staggering number of churches actually named "City on a Hill." They're in Atlanta, San Diego, Boston, Albuquerque, Torrance, and Knoxville, and that's just the first six Google pulled up among the thousands of links I got in response to my search).
Huffington Post and Daily Kos Misdiagnose Palin’s “City On a Hill”
