Coulter Peddling the Drug of Ignorance

It didn’t take long for Ann Coulter to get on my bad side again.

On CNBC’s “The Big Idea with Donnie Deutsch” this past Tuesday, Coulter described President Bill Clinton as displaying “latent homosexual” behavior. The conversation, which was inane from the start, didn’t really go anywhere but was indicative of Coulter’s narrow-mindedness.

Wonderful insight:

DEUTSCH: But where’s the — but where’s the homosexual part of that? I’m — once again, I’m speechless here.

Ms. COULTER: It’s reminiscent of a bathhouse. It’s just this obsession with your own — with your own essence.

DEUTSCH: But why is that homosexual? You could say narcissistic.

Ms. COULTER: Right.

DEUTSCH: You could say nymphomaniac.

Ms. COULTER: Well, there is something narcissistic about homosexuality. Right? Because you’re in love with someone who looks like you. I’m not breaking new territory here, why are you looking at me like that?

President Clinton has been called a lot of things, but this might be a first. Homosexual is the last thing you associate with Clinton, except for that whole “don’t ask don’t tell” thing.

You can read the rest of this ridiculous interview here.

I considered not discussing the matter, for although the material is incensing, it’s also somewhat irrelevant. What can my readers, or any committed citizen, learn from Ann Coulter’s comments? Nothing, there is nothing productive that comes from this. Coulter is the uber-pundit, the voice of irrationality, the devil’s advocate in almost a literal sense. And her interview on Tuesday simply shows the level of her desperation in an attempt to belittle liberalism. Clinton was the bastion of liberal hope in the 1990s. Gay people are “narcissistic” and bad. Clinton is bad. Clinton is gay.

I know I should stop giving Coulter the time of day because her infantile logic is horrendously stupefying, but I simply cannot resist highlighting her faults. It’s affirmation of my belief that most of the people in this business talk simply to make noise, not to add to the national debate. Coulter’s career has been based on extreme viewpoints and harsh rhetoric. She has turned politics into a form of entertainment, which I cannot completely condemn her for. But to make absurd statements and to reinforce them with even more absurd logic is just a testament to Coulter’s loosening grip on reason.

Listening to Ann Coulter is like smoking crack: the temporary entertaining pleasure one receive’s from it is quickly overshadowed by horribly malicious retarding side-effects, but the cravings are too intense to consider the dangerous influence. It’s an addiction I’m sure a lot of us share, whether we want to admit it or not.

 

Gay Marriage: The Daily Show Take

Jon Stewart is at it again, this time discussing Gay Marriage with Bill Bennett:

Stewart: So why not encourage gay people to join in in that family arrangement if that is what provides stability to a society?

Bennett: Well I think if gay..gay people are already members of families…

Stewart: What? (almost spitting out his drink)

Bennett: They’re sons and they’re daughters…

Stewart: So that’s where the buck stops, that’s the gay ceiling.

Bennett Look, it’s a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a women.

Stewart: I disagree, I think it’s a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.

Here’s the clip

 

I wish I could quit you…but I can’t, so I’m going to make a big deal about the Oscars…

How many of us sat, open jawed and befuddled as Jack Nicholson announced "Crash" as the upset Best Picture at this year's Academy Awards instead of heavy favorite "Brokeback Mountain"? I was so surprised that I actually did not hear it the first time; "Crash" simply would not process itself in my mind as Best Picture. "Brokeback Mountain" rose in the mind of moviegoers and critics as the controversial but sound film that would easily sweep the Oscars. I was subjected to weeks of Oscar propoganda, bombarded with images of Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhall in Entertainment Weekly, US News, the New York Times, and Entertainment Tonight. I was (and unfortunately still am) a drone, exposed and subjected to the Media's will and desires. I was programmed to know that "Brokeback Mountain" would win. When it didn't, I was shocked, disgusted, and angry.

That is, until I sat and thought about it for a moment.

Crash, many torrid liberal film critics proclaimed, was one of the worst movies of the year and was definitely not deserving of the Best Picture Oscar. A movie about a homosexual relationship would never be accepted as Best Picture. This just shows the narrow mindedness of Hollywood and its Conservative undertones.

Something tells me that these people were convinced that "Brokeback Mountain" had to win in order to accomplish a great victory for popular acceptance of homosexuality in America. Many of the attacks on "Crash" were groundless and simply out of political zeal. As Roger Ebert explained, "describing 'Crash' as 'the worst film of the year' is as extreme as saying John Kerry was a coward in Vietnam. It means you'll say anything to help your campaign." Critics, both in film and in politics, often blindly follow a rhetoric based on their ideology and not on empirical or self-evaluation.

Say what you will, but last time I checked, "Crash" is about racial misunderstandings and tolerance. And "Capote" is about an overtly homosexual writer during a period of extreme homophobia. Whoever says Hollywood is not tolerant or open-minded is yelling with their heads in the sand.

In fact, all five Best Picture nominees (Crash, Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Munich, and Goodnight and Goodluck) had some social implication about tolerance. For those liberal pundits who claim that neglecting "Brokeback Mountain" as a progressive portrayal of homosexuality in the mainstream media is an act of close-mindedness or politics needs to reassess their position. Screaming for the sake of making noise just gives everyone a headache.

"Brokeback Mountain" has already reached a greater audience than it ever could have in its short story form. And despite many theatres is rural Midwestern towns refusing to show the film, many people viewed the film and enjoyed it. It won Golden Globes for Best Picture and Director. This film received much praise, and rightfully so.

But before people get too infuriated by Hollywood's supposed political agenda, they should try sitting back and thinking about it for a moment, as I did on my couch while Paul Haggis thanked his beautiful wife for her inspiration. Why does everything have to be a political attack? A threat to our livelihood? Instead of being a malicious act, is it possible that, perhaps, "Crash" simply was a better movie? I think so.

By making a big deal about the supposed Oscar snub is simply taking away from "Crash", an excellent film about racial tolerance and misperceptions in Los Angeles. To me, this is the most important social issue facing our country, and "Crash" beautifully displays the dynamics of ignorance and assumption in the close interaction of different racial groups. Tolerance comes in many forms, as does success for films. "Brokeback Mountain" was by no means a failure, and will still remain one of the most important films of our time.

But if liberal extremist film critics are going to continue yelling about "Brokeback Mountain" deserving the Oscar for its progressive vision, I'm going to yell right back, exclaiming "Crash" does the same.

 

Crumbling pillars of archaic values (or my past reading of same sex marriage)

What is marriage in a social and practical context? It is the answer to this question that will ultimately help us better understand the issues of same sex marriage. The ultimate problem with marriage is that it is inheriently tied in with religion. There can be no discussion of marriage without first understanding the reasons for marriage and the ideals of morality. Marriage in the eyes of morality is a spiritual bonding between two people with a child usually being the consumation of their vows and devotion. Religion emphasizes loyalty, purity, and love with one person in a marriage (barring certain Mormon sects that would otherwise argue that the Old Testament suggests that polygamy is a commandmant from God). The connection is what is emphasized ultimately and universally.

So what if your connection is with one of the same sex? Is this something that is shunned or wrong? Well, what context are we examining? Biologically, males and females come together to procreate, but this is relationships at its most basic and primordeal form. Spiritually, marriage involves a connection. However, religion does look down upon homosexuality as a sin. But we do not live in a religiously dominant society anymore. Our definitions of society have changed over time. It was not but 160 years ago that Africans in this country were slaves. How much our perceptions have changed (or not, this is something I should discuss in the future) is an example of our misconceptions and how we learn from past mistakes.

So we must ask ourselves before we move further, if we live in a society where religion is not a totally social encompassing force (as some might argue), what is the purpose of marriage? This is where the law steps in, citing that marriage leads to a collaboration of incomes and a merging of personal capital and resources. Is it the idealist in me that cringes every time I understand law's view of marriage, which is simply seen as a financial tool that binds people together. But this makes sense; from an anthropological approach, many cultures have used marriage as a social tool to bind two families together. Consider it a formal contract, recognized by everyone and blessed by God.

The context of marriage existing in our society to protect the best interest of children can be considered, but then consider those married couples who never have children. This is a personal choice, yet their marriage was not in the intention of their children, or anyone's children. And what about the fact that we allow same sex couples to adopt children? Surely in the best interest of the child a state recognized tax break would surely help pay for his eventual public education at UC Berkeley, even if he does have two dads. Is society really that willing to hold desperately onto something that arbitrary?

Or is it arbitrary? If it is not about children or religion or morality, and we can legally define marriage through financial and legal terms, then why can't it be extended to same sex marriages? Some believe that idea of marriage is sacred and that it must be kept safe and clean. They believe that people that desire same sex marriages should get a legally recognized and equal relationship, but they won't allow it to be called a "marriage". This would break down what they have, they suppose. But what would this new category be? Would they call it a "pseudo-marriage"? A separate but equal form of marriage? Hmm, smells like a violation of the 14th Ammendment if you ask me…

We have seen the holes in the now crumbling concept of marriage, we can understand that it exists for people and an ideal of happiness. Forget that one out of three marriages end in divorce, when I think about the concept of marriage I don't think about the financial, legal, religious, or social definitions and problems, I can only think about the journey that two people are setting out on that could potentially last the rest of their lives. Nobody enters marriage in this country with the intention of ending their relationship in three years with three more years spent in court battling out for possession of the dog and visitation rights to the children on Thanksgiving. They enter by vowing to "spend the rest of their lives together". This is what marriage is ultimately about, and when people finally understand that, they will begin to understand how my view of same sex marriage comes from…