I know I shouldn't, but I can't help it:
December 10, 2002 6:43 AM   Subscribe

I know I shouldn't, but I can't help it: If Ann Coulter published children's literature. There's nothing to discuss here, but the article (from Salon, please don't hate me) provided a good laugh.
posted by aladfar (20 comments total)
 
They need books that show them the value of being white, Christian and middle-class

I think the Heartland would agree, divorced and out of work though they may be.
posted by four panels at 7:08 AM on December 10, 2002


But "I Know You Are but What Am I?" has something the others don't -- a photo of the author wearing a low-cut, black vinyl minidress. Coulter denies that this photo might be inappropriate for a children's book.

Hee hee... ah, to be a hallmark in your field because you look pretty and the bare minimum of prowess in your alleged profession. All hail Ann Coulter, the Anna Kournikova of American political discourse.

Granted I openly hate Coulter, but I can pick and choose too- this one was a lot funnier that other Coulter parodies I've read. Good link.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:10 AM on December 10, 2002


Yeah, pretty funny stuff. Sadly, our Ann Thrax is so good at being ridiculous that satire is not even necessary in her case
posted by matteo at 7:22 AM on December 10, 2002


Don't hate her because she's beautiful. Hate her because she's stupid and evil.

(Tangentially thread-related joke: You know how to tell which rich widows are Republicans? They're the ones in the black tennis dresses.....)
posted by BitterOldPunk at 7:34 AM on December 10, 2002


Wow, it actually had me believing it was a real review (yeah yeah, stop laughing), until I read this little gem:

"That's why the characters in my book are strong, self-sufficient 6-year-olds who live in the real world, where they work, pay taxes and invade Iraq"

Nice.
posted by sebas at 7:40 AM on December 10, 2002


Can stupid be evil?
posted by four panels at 8:10 AM on December 10, 2002



I want that book.

posted by goethean at 8:14 AM on December 10, 2002


It could be a series. First there's the "I Know You Are But What Am I", then the follow-up, "I'm Telling", followed by "I Didn't Hit You That Hard, Cry-Baby", and "I Don't Have to Behave, I'm Special", and "I Don't Care if You Are Right, You're Not the Boss of Me", and so on.
posted by orange swan at 8:32 AM on December 10, 2002


...followed by "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is that he didn't stop at Sesame Street."
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:34 AM on December 10, 2002


others in the same series:
"Don't Talk That Way About my Dad" by George W. Bush
"Let's Not Tell Mommy What We Just Did" by Bill Clinton
"I'm a Seven Year Old Nimrod" by Dick Cheney
"Sticks and Stones Will Break My Bones but Words Can Still Make Me Very Upset" by Tom Daschle
posted by Ty Webb at 8:44 AM on December 10, 2002


Don't hate her because she's beautiful. Hate her because she's stupid and evil.

Oh, you shouldn't hate her. Ignorance should not be hated. Cute blonde ignorance has its moments. Cute blonde evil ignorance has an almost unbearable sexual appeal. Cute blonde evil spoiled ignorance makes one fantasize how long one's bank account would last... I think the best way to deal with Princess Ann is to admire her legs every time she makes a political statement.

But I agree with others, if the linked text was published as a review without a disclaimer I bet the "publisher" would immediately start receiving orders...
posted by nkyad at 8:51 AM on December 10, 2002


From what little I've seen of her, Coulter isn't so much evil as banal.
posted by bonehead at 9:08 AM on December 10, 2002


this thread was worth it just for ty webb's post.
posted by donkeyschlong at 9:38 AM on December 10, 2002


Or:

"It's My Water Fountain, You Can't Use It!" By Trent Lott

posted by goethean at 10:18 AM on December 10, 2002


How about:

"Playing Nice Together" by Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush

and

"Peekaboo!" by Osama Bin Laden

and

"My Best Friend Has Special Needs" by Condaleeza Rice
posted by orange swan at 10:48 AM on December 10, 2002


And here I was, hoping for the surprise return of Ann Poultry.
posted by britain at 2:37 PM on December 10, 2002


Very sophisticated. Very progressive.

Media support awards for Central Park rapists.
posted by hama7 at 3:50 PM on December 10, 2002


"Only Poor People Have to be Deaf" by Rush Limbaugh
posted by Hildago at 9:17 PM on December 10, 2002


Hate to be out of step with the consensus, but I found the piece pointless. I despise Coulter as much as the next America-hater, but I didn't get anything fresh from this. Parodying Coulter is so four months ago (e.g. britain's link) and the kiddie-book device was run into the ground by MAD at least 25 years ago.

In a word: Feh.
posted by FeetOfClay at 10:27 AM on December 11, 2002


In case anyone is misled by hama7's link (unlikely in this crowd, but you never know), here's a good piece from the current Voice that makes the situation pretty clear (and before you sneer "oh, sure, the Voice," do me a favor and actually check it out; I too am sick of their usual shtick, but this is reporting, not posturing). Sample:
In a 58-page affirmation responding to the motion to vacate the jogger convictions on the basis of newly discovered evidence, information obtained during the D.A.'s extensive reinvestigation of the case is summarized in detail as it relates to the specific issues raised in the defendants' petition. The complete results of the D.A.'s new probe were not presented in the document and may become available at a later date. Among the key findings in the document was the fact that Reyes's account of the attack and rape is "consistently . . . reliable and accurate," while the statements of the then teenage defendants were found to reveal "troubling discrepancies."

While Reyes's version of the assault is "corroborated by, consistent with, or explanatory of objective, independent evidence in a number of important respects," the statements made by the teens were not supported by physical evidence. The investigation of Reyes's claim has even resulted in the discovery of additional evidence in the case. These revelations effectively rebut the group attack theory presented by the original prosecution, and point to Reyes as the sole perpetrator, but nonetheless the debate continues as to the culpability of the defendants....

Despite sensationalized accounts of a gang rape based on inconsistent statements made by teenagers reputedly under coercion, the D.A.'s office notes that during the original trials: "The People were unable to offer medical testimony to the effect that the injuries the jogger had sustained could only have been inflicted by multiple perpetrators." Further, "there proved to be no physical evidence recovered at the scene or from the person or effects of the victim which connected the defendants to the attack on the jogger, or could establish how many perpetrators participated." It should also be mentioned that none of the victims of any of the other attacks that night were able to identify any of the defendants.
posted by languagehat at 11:59 AM on December 11, 2002


« Older The New River. Which isn't either...   |   Elf, Elf, Baby. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments