Die.
kitten   September 13, 2001

I have decided that Ann Coulter, syndacated columnist, needs to die. Slowly. Painfully. Her head spiked outside the city gates.

In this article she explains that the reason the terrorists attacked us is because they aren't Christian. A few choice excerpts:


This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack. Those responsible include anyone anywhere in the world who smiled in response [to the news]."

Great, lady. We should go kill anybody who disagrees with the mighty US, regardless of whether or not they did anything to us.

Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are.

That's right, it's those filthy Arabs, you racist insensitive fuckface two-bit dipshit. Every Muslim is probably a hijacker, not "Suzy Chapstick", the nice white Christian. Go to hell, Ann Coulter.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

Because anybody who believes in Christ would never (Crusades), ever (Inquisition), think of hurting anybody who wasn't like them (Holocaust).

We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians.

Almost everyone in Germany at that time was involved with the war, you fucking dipshit. And by the way, Hitler was a Christian. So much for your idiotic theory.
Isn't it bad enough that thousands of people are dead, without having to drag religion into it? Must you use the same demented logic as the terrorists, laying down a blanket racist stereotype on everybody who isn't like you?

In this gem she attempts to use satire - failing miserably - to argue that abortion is bad. Whether or not abortion is bad is besides the point I'm getting at here.. I merely wish to show that her next article extolls the virtues of the death penalty. "Abortion kills! Death penalty is good!" Make up your feeble mind, you ignoramus.

Ohio resident Brian Dalton was recently in the news for coming under legal prosecution for child pornography. He was writing child-porn related things in his personal diary, which he kept at home, and did not show to anybody. While I personally think that child pornography is revolting, as long as he wasn't pushing it on anybody, I don't see what the problem is.
But Ann Coulter strongly disagrees. She feels that


Dalton insists he had no intention of sharing his journal with his pederast friends. It was for his eyes only. This point has great emotional appeal, but throws into doubt whether Dalton's journal qualifies as "speech." To whom was he speaking?

and goes on to claim that since he had no intention of showing this to anybody, he wasn't trying to 'communicate' and therefore his "mere words" are not protected under the First Amendment. From this she concludes that

Dalton was either pandering child pornography or he was talking to himself - which obviously isn't protected by the Constitution. ... The states can do anything that isn't prohibited by the Constitution. If a state wants to outlaw artichokes, it can, unless the artichoke is actually, say, a gun, in which case it is constitutionally protected.

Let's ignore that last sentence, as it is utterly incomprehensible to anyone but Coulter herself. The point is that this advocate of Thought Police feels that either: Dalton was peddling child porn (in which case he should be locked up), or else he was talking to himself in his own personal journal (in which case, she argues, the state "has a right" to ban talking to one's self and therefore he should be locked up). As Coulter states,

If Dalton's journal was intended solely for his own individual pleasure, it's not apparent why it should have any greater constitutional significance than a blow-up doll.

Well damn, Ann, if Dalton's journal was intended solely for his own individudal pleasure, then who the fuck was he hurting that you have to swoop down like a goddamn Harpie and scream for wrathful vengeance? Instead of screaming "Won't somebody think of the children!" maybe you should first demonstrate that children were actually harmed because of this. Merely because the state can ban anything that isn't specifically protected, doesn't mean they should.. by Coulter's logic, stupid idiotic anorexic right-wing feminist pro-death-penalty anti-abortion dipshits like herself should be banned. And why not? I didn't see a specific protection for being a moron in the Constitution.

God, I'm bitter.