I try to be a centrist, but my upbringing pulls me to the left. Still, I try to understand all sides of an argument. Understanding the other side of an argument allows you to take it apart more effectively, but it also gives you insights that you might not have realized.
So I try to read Anne Coulter. Sometimes she gives insight. For example, her thoughts on single mothers, plus my own experience, shows me that children do need a two parent support system, or something similar.
But mostly she just spews dreck. Take, for example, her most recent article. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20090219/cm_ucac/whywedontcelebratehistoriansday;_ylt=AqNCvT0UK4uPRUnCrHyVAfT9wxIF)
I go to the part where she told me I couldn't name seven presidents. Obviously, since I can't name seven presidents, I am not smart enough to finish this article.
Seriously, rather than come up with rational arguments, she resorts to second-grade level name calling, then wonders why she is persona-non-grata on most TV programs.
Someone needs to duct tape her hands together and her mouth shut until she learns some manners
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mocke: I try to be a centrist, but my upbringing pulls me to the left. Still, I try to understand all sides of an argument. Understanding the other side of an argument allows you to take it apart more effectively, but it also gives you insights that you might not have realized.
So I try to read Anne Coulter. Sometimes she gives insight. For example, her thoughts on single mothers, plus my own experience, shows me that children do need a two parent support system, or something similar.
But mostly she just spews dreck. Take, for example, her most recent article. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20090219/cm_ucac/whywedontcelebratehistoriansday;_ylt=AqNCvT0UK4uPRUnCrHyVAfT9wxIF)
I go to the part where she told me I couldn't name seven presidents. Obviously, since I can't name seven presidents, I am not smart enough to finish this article.
Seriously, rather than come up with rational arguments, she resorts to second-grade level name calling, then wonders why she is persona-non-grata on most TV programs.
Someone needs to duct tape her hands together and her mouth shut until she learns some manners
Didn't she break her jaw and have to have it wired shut recently?
***
But seriously, I'd like to give my two cents.
1st is that I don't think you should have to 'try' to be anything in regards to your political ideology. If you're centrist, you're centrist. If you're liberal, you're a liberal, and the same goes with conservatives. You can be a left or right leaning centrist. I don't really mind what a person is. I don't think a person should have to try to be any ideology, they simply fall under one. Rather than try to be moderate, just try to listen to the arguments from all sources and use them to form your own opinion. (But all of that is likely just semantics. )
But that leads to the 2nd cent. Something that must be understood about media pundits from either side (Rush, Olbermann, Hannity, Coulter, O'Rielly, etc.) is that their key job is to entertain their audience. They try to maximize their audience. Their literal job isn't to accurately inform people, it's to get as many people to listen to/read them as possible. The problem with this is that intellectual honesty is lost to ideology. Often times they will say things that simply aren't true, or offensive if you're on the receiving end. (Coulter's proclamation that liberals can't even name seven Presidents.*) The best thing to do is shrug it off and not let it bother you and see it for what it is. Coulter is trying to appeal to her target audience. Her target isn't left-leaning centrists such as yourself, it's to conservatives who relish in liberal-bashing. (I'm not saying that all conservatives do this, I'm just saying that Coulter's fan-base is typically fraught with this crowd.)
I may hate what she says, but I'm cool with her saying it.
*(I can name all of the presidents, their parties, and a general overview of their administration with the exception of Gilded Era Presidents on the last score, thank you very much. )
ETA:
I don't know if you're just a new sign in or not, but if not, welcome to Hatrack!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
When you stop taking Coulter seriously, she really has some of the best comedic material out there.
Posted by Mocke (Member # 11963) on :
Vadon - Kinda sad though. One would think audience maximization would include not alienating whole groups of people. I mean, I know you can't please everyone, but that doesn't mean you have to have to be a jerk and alienate people who might otherwise listen to you.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mocke: Someone needs to duct tape her hands together and her mouth shut until she learns some manners
I would like to jump on the "Orincoro would hit that" bandwagon.
But in this case, I think he might pass.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mocke: Vadon - Kinda sad though. One would think audience maximization would include not alienating whole groups of people. I mean, I know you can't please everyone, but that doesn't mean you have to have to be a jerk and alienate people who might otherwise listen to you.
Oh I totally agree that it's sad, but it's just the way things are. Let's face it, if you work to please everyone, the entertainment value of your message goes down. It gets burdened with boring facts and balanced analysis. Why would you want to watch a dull, tweed-wearing professor when you could watch, oh, I don't know... Dumbledore in hot pants? (By that I mean you know it's wrong, but you just can't turn away.) You watch people because they're loud and entertaining. They say what you want to hear and how you like to hear it.
I mean, looking at the competitive timeslot cable news pundits you have three to choose from. Olbermann, O'Rielly, and Brown. Olbermann bashes conservatives, O'Rielly bashes liberals, and Brown is a sensationalist. Afterwards it doesn't get much better with Maddow, Hannity, and the rerun of Lou Dobbs (IRC on CNN's schedule).
People get audiences for being passionate and entertaining. Not because they're 'right' or accurate. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When you stop taking Coulter seriously, she really has some of the best comedic material out there.
^ this
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:Seriously, rather than come up with rational arguments, she resorts to second-grade level name calling, then wonders why she is persona-non-grata on most TV programs.
I am no fan of Anne, but I don't think she "wonders why she is persona-non-grata on most TV programs." I think is knows exactly what she is doing and is getting the exact response she is shooting for. I think she is a savvy business woman.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
What I find really sad it that so many people seem to enjoy her hateful venomous style. Its like middle school all over again. She is the nasty rich, popular cheerleader who gets her kicks by being mean to people who are different. And her fans are like the hoard of kids who laugh and when the cheerleader does something mean.
Its really disgusting.
Unfortunately, this kind of nasty mean spirited humor seems to have become part and parcel of right wing punditry. I will never be able to understand how "Christian" people who claim to worship The One who taught "Love your enemies", can conscience let alone support people like Anne Coulter.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Vadon, thanks....I fought a visual, and lost.
I'll get back to you when I am done vomiting. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Unfortunately, this kind of nasty mean spirited humor seems to have become part and parcel of right wing punditry.
Unlikethe punditryof the left. It's not a partisan issue; it's that vituperation sells. And, in some cases, will take you from SNL all the way to the US Senate.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I am really getting tired of the "Oh, it's basically the same thing, coming from both sides, they're both engaging in the same tactics, no side is better than the other."
I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that the pundits on the left have said some fairly nasty things. But they are not, as far as I've seen, calling those they oppose traitors, calling for them to be removed from the public discourse, or advocating violence against them.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
That depends entirely on what the argument in question is, Sterling.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
At least they're not calling for Anne Coulter to be duct taped.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Unfortunately, this kind of nasty mean spirited humor seems to have become part and parcel of right wing punditry.
Unlikethe punditryof the left. It's not a partisan issue; it's that vituperation sells. And, in some cases, will take you from SNL all the way to the US Senate.
I find it sad when left wingers find it entertaining to be mean and hateful too, fortunately that just doesn't happen nearly as often. Even if it did, "the other side does it too" hardly stands as justification.
Beyond that, the examples you've cited simply don't support your case. I've read parts of Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them and it is for the most part a refutation of alleged facts circulated by right wing pundits. While it certainly says lots of bad stuff about specific individuals, nothing I've seen in it has anything like the blanket vitriol people like Anne Coulter routinely spew against not only public personalities but the majority of the American population. If such passages exist, perhaps you could give us specific examples the way Mocke did with Anne Coulter.
SNL is a particularly poor example for two big reasons. First, SNL has a long enough history for people to know that they make fun of anyone in power, left or right. No one was screaming about bias in the 90s when they parodied the Clintons. I have never ever heard of Coulter or Limbaugh or any of that camp making jokes of any kind about the right wing or republican leaders.
Second, there is, at least in my mind, a very clear difference between the kind of caricatures SNL does of public figures, and the "entertainment" promulgated by right wing pundits like Coulter. For example, everyone I know, left, right and center, thought that Tina Fey's Sarah Palin impersonation was funny, at least initially. Even Sarah Palin said she thought it was funny and agreed to appear on SNL with Fey. One of the characteristics of a good joke is that people can laugh about it even when they are the butt of the joke. It wasn't until it became evident that the McCain/Palin ticket was sinking fast and that many were laying the blame for that on Palin, that Palin and her supporters started calling foul on SNL.
Now SNL has a history of running good jokes into the ground and they probably did this with the Fey/Palin thing. But taking a good Joke and push it too far, just isn't the same thing as the fundamentally mean spirited humor enjoyed by Dittoheads and Anne Coulter fans.
Now I have seen some very mean spirited attacks on the average conservative Christian from left wing sources -- but those sources don't have Nationally Syndicated TV and radio shows, their book aren't on the Best Sellers lists and the authors aren't earning millions for speaking engagements. The left wing people spouting the kind of hatred Anne Coulter spouts are on the margins not mainstream. Yes, vitriol exists on both sides but the claim that both sides are equally guilty just doesn't fly.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: At least they're not calling for Anne Coulter to be duct taped.
Is there someone other than Mocke calling for Anne Coulter to be duct taped? If not, I hardly think its fair to compare something a little known poster says on small internet Forum to with what people making millions on books, shows and interviews say. There is also an enormous difference between calling for one incendiary individual to be removed from the debate and suggesting that all people espousing a particular view should be removed from the debate.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Without googling or wiki'ing I can name:
George Washington Franklin Delenor Roosevelt John Fitzgerald Kenndy Barack Obama George Walker Bush George Harold Walker Bush Bill Clinton Ronald Reagan Jimmy Carter Ford Richard Nixon Lindon Johnson Harry S Truman "Ike" Eisenhower Woodrow Wilson Coolidge herbert Hoover Andrew Jackson Madison Thomas Jefferson John Adams (I think there were 2) Tilden Garfield Abraham Lincoln Monroe Teddy Rosevelt van bueren william harrison how do you praise only served 30 days. hohn tyler polk zackary tayler millard franklin peirce mckinnen andrew johnson ullysess S grant rutherfurd hayes gover cleveland william mckinly
And I'm Canadian, then again I watched the US Presidents song...... 978 times in a row.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Very well done, especially considering you're not a US citizen. I believe the song you're referring to is the Animaniacs one?
Couple of minor corrections though. There was no McKinnen. You did get McKinnley. So I'm wondering if your McKinnen was a combination of Buchanan and McKinnley?
We also never had a President Tilden. Though props to you for knowing the 1876 controversy. I had almost forgotten about it.
The ones you were missing that I can see, if you were wondering, are Chester A. Arthur, Taft, Harding, and Benjamin Harrison. (And Buchanan, but you had McKinin which I'm guessing is a phonetic memory from the song.)
Two of those are Gilded Age presidents so I definitely don't blame you for forgetting. But Taft and Harding you should remember. Taft got stuck in the bathtub (something I bet he'd hate to be remembered for) and Harding likely died because of the stress of office caused by the corruption. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or was poisoned.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Off the top of my head, Blayne:
George Herbert Walker Bush
Tilden lost to Rutherford Hayes in the election of 1876, unless you want to get into the details of the Compromise of 1877, but there isn't a real argument that Tilden really won the election, not when Democratic vote stealing was easily just as bad in the south as Republican certification of Republican victories regardless of what the actual tallies might have been. Both sides cheated, which is why neither of them were particularly interested in really investigating the matter. How and why you know that as a Candian when most Americans probably couldn't even name Hayes let alone Tilden is beyond me. Off the top of my head I can only name a handful of presidential losers in 19th century American presidential elections, and frankly unless you're doing an actual study of the period and the election itself, I'm not really sure why that random knowledge would really be useful except as a point of pride.
quote:Two of those are Gilded Age presidents so I definitely don't blame you for forgetting. But Taft and Harding you should remember. Taft got stuck in the bathtub (something I bet he'd hate to be remembered for) and Harding likely died because of the stress of office caused by the corruption.
For shame. Gilded Age America might be the lost age of American history as far as history classes go, but that doesn't mean it's less important than what came before it or after it, especially as it relates to Industrial and labor history. There were a lot of ineffective presidents in this age, but only slightly more so in a more compact period of time than say 1830 to 1860.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
The Rabbit-
I think you misunderstood my SNL reference. I was not citing it as an example of vituperation; just pointing out that if someone wants to go from a career as a comic to one as a national politician, evidently vicious, sneering attack politics is a feasible way to do it.
And whether you like Franken's message or not (or the others I could readily supply) the fact is they depend on tearing down conservatives, calling them "nutcases," "tyrants," "shamefully dishonest," and the ever popular "big fat idiots." True, he (and other liberal commentators) tends to denigrate their enemies cognitive abilities rather than their moral fiber (unlike, for instance, Coulter's "Treason"), but I find it no less excusable.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Off the top of my head, Blayne:
George Herbert Walker Bush
Tilden lost to Rutherford Hayes in the election of 1876, unless you want to get into the details of the Compromise of 1877, but there isn't a real argument that Tilden really won the election, not when Democratic vote stealing was easily just as bad in the south as Republican certification of Republican victories regardless of what the actual tallies might have been. Both sides cheated, which is why neither of them were particularly interested in really investigating the matter. How and why you know that as a Candian when most Americans probably couldn't even name Hayes let alone Tilden is beyond me. Off the top of my head I can only name a handful of presidential losers in 19th century American presidential elections, and frankly unless you're doing an actual study of the period and the election itself, I'm not really sure why that random knowledge would really be useful except as a point of pride.
quote:Two of those are Gilded Age presidents so I definitely don't blame you for forgetting. But Taft and Harding you should remember. Taft got stuck in the bathtub (something I bet he'd hate to be remembered for) and Harding likely died because of the stress of office caused by the corruption.
For shame. Gilded Age America might be the lost age of American history as far as history classes go, but that doesn't mean it's less important than what came before it or after it, especially as it relates to Industrial and labor history. There were a lot of ineffective presidents in this age, but only slightly more so in a more compact period of time than say 1830 to 1860.
Animaniacs.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am no longer surprised to find arcane bits of American history in non-Americans. Most of the Irish immigrants that hang around in my local know much more US history than the average American. One noted moment was when an Irish friend of mine - a non-college educated brickie* - was trying to prove some political point about the civil war. He turned to me and said, "Aw, Katie, what's the name of the guy who lost to the election in 1856? It's just on the tip of my tongue." Like he expected me to know!
John C. Fremont (the first Republican to run for national office) is now emblazoned in my memory.
*And possibly the smartest and most well-read person I have ever met.
Edited to correct date typo. Stevenson lost the election in 1956.
[ February 20, 2009, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
*psst..that should be 1856*
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ooops. Yes, of course. Bad typo.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
You must have meant 1856 not 1956. I believe Adlai Stevenson lost to Eisenhower in 1956 but I'd have to google it to be sure.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
You must have meant 1856 not 1956. I believe Adelaide Stevenson lost to Eisenhower in 1956 but I'd have to google it to be sure.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not to mention that the Civil War was less of an issue by 1956. Fixed. Thanks.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Two of those are Gilded Age presidents so I definitely don't blame you for forgetting. But Taft and Harding you should remember. Taft got stuck in the bathtub (something I bet he'd hate to be remembered for) and Harding likely died because of the stress of office caused by the corruption.
For shame. Gilded Age America might be the lost age of American history as far as history classes go, but that doesn't mean it's less important than what came before it or after it, especially as it relates to Industrial and labor history. There were a lot of ineffective presidents in this age, but only slightly more so in a more compact period of time than say 1830 to 1860.
There is plenty of fascinating history that occurs in the Gilded Age, our Presidents just happen to not be one of them in my book. I prefer to look at the Gilded Age in other aspects. The two you mentioned, the further industrialization of the US and the rise of labor are interesting parts. But I think that there are other characters who are more interesting from this era like Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and Vanderbilt.
I'm not saying that they weren't important, I'm simply saying that of any era to forget Presidents, the Gilded Age makes sense and is understandable.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I am not fond of Ann Coulter. She was on Dr. Phil one day ranting about how daughters of single mothers are more likely to become strippers and blaming many of the problems in America on single mothers which is a bit unfair considering the fact that none of those women got pregnant on their own without help. That happens to maybe alligators or turtles or something, but not with people.
I was also amazed at how many people applauded her rude statements. She really does urk me.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: At least they're not calling for Anne Coulter to be duct taped.
Is there someone other than Mocke calling for Anne Coulter to be duct taped? If not, I hardly think its fair to compare something a little known poster says on small internet Forum to with what people making millions on books, shows and interviews say. There is also an enormous difference between calling for one incendiary individual to be removed from the debate and suggesting that all people espousing a particular view should be removed from the debate.
I should have put a smiley after that one. It wasn't meant to be serious.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: And whether you like Franken's message or not (or the others I could readily supply) the fact is they depend on tearing down conservatives, calling them "nutcases," "tyrants," "shamefully dishonest," and the ever popular "big fat idiots." True, he (and other liberal commentators) tends to denigrate their enemies cognitive abilities rather than their moral fiber (unlike, for instance, Coulter's "Treason"), but I find it no less excusable.
I see an important difference between Al Franken calling individual public personalities on the right "nutcases", "tyrants", "dishonest" and "big fat idiots" and people like Coulter claiming that all people who espouse a particular political view are "traitors" or "idiots".
The distinction is not primarily because they are attacking different failings but because liberal commentators tend to direct their insults to specific public personalities where as Coulter and many other conservative pundits spew their insults relatively indiscriminately at whole groups of people. I find that a very important distinction.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I think no matter which side it comes from and who it's aimed at, it's brainless pandering that makes the discussion--whatever it is about--that much dumber.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I am not fond of Ann Coulter. She was on Dr. Phil one day ranting about how daughters of single mothers are more likely to become strippers and blaming many of the problems in America on single mothers which is a bit unfair considering the fact that none of those women got pregnant on their own without help. That happens to maybe alligators or turtles or something, but not with people.
I was also amazed at how many people applauded her rude statements. She really does urk me.
She actually places the blame on SCONUS for changing the marriage laws (something they should have had no power to do.) But I think it's fair for her to say that if women would keep their legs shut before marriage many of the problems we have today would be less severe. Society's former expectations on women (which were stupidly considered unfair to women, as if men and women had no differences between them) were based on the knowledge that men are leches and must be forced into stable relationships in order to prevent illegitimacy, which is a proven corruptor of society. The onus is on women to abstain from sexual promiscuity. Unfair? Too bad, that's just the way it is.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
SCONUS? The Supreme Court Of Not United States? Is this an acronym for something else I don't know about?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Now I want a scone.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I am not fond of Ann Coulter. She was on Dr. Phil one day ranting about how daughters of single mothers are more likely to become strippers and blaming many of the problems in America on single mothers which is a bit unfair considering the fact that none of those women got pregnant on their own without help. That happens to maybe alligators or turtles or something, but not with people.
I was also amazed at how many people applauded her rude statements. She really does urk me.
She actually places the blame on SCONUS for changing the marriage laws (something they should have had no power to do.) But I think it's fair for her to say that if women would keep their legs shut before marriage many of the problems we have today would be less severe. Society's former expectations on women (which were stupidly considered unfair to women, as if men and women had no differences between them) were based on the knowledge that men are leches and must be forced into stable relationships in order to prevent illegitimacy, which is a proven corruptor of society. The onus is on women to abstain from sexual promiscuity. Unfair? Too bad, that's just the way it is.
Wow. You just totally insulted men.... Not all men are irresponsible leches lead by the leech by their penises and not all women equal virtuous. Why not have equal standards of don't do it but if you must than at least use a condom? Seriously how hard is it for a dude to just get a condom when they are free in health clinics and there's tons of them in bathrooms and right at the local drug store.
Man, that sort of thing really gets on my last nerves.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Oh Resh, I missed you. Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: SCONUS? The Supreme Court Of Not United States? Is this an acronym for something else I don't know about?
Oh crap, there I go confusing my acronyms. I was confusing SCOTUS with CONUS (Continental United States.) Nailed me!
Synesthesia, I'll paraphrase Coulter here: "Safe sex practices don't do much to prevent illegitimacy if 99 percent of unwanted pregnancies are prevented whilst extramarital sex goes up 10,000 percent."
If that sort of thing gets on your last nerves, you must not have had many nerves to start with.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
If men didn't have sex before marriage, the same "problems" would go away. As we've already gone through the Victorian and Puritan ages, perhaps it would make for an interesting change.
And contraception, and where that fails, abortion, can also prevent illegitimacy- under which conditions, a more thoughtful person than Coulter might recognize that many single mothers are actually very brave people, and hardly deserving to have such rancor thrust upon them.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Sorry but all I could come up with is duct tape + AnnCoulter = waste of duct tape
It ain't as if duct taping AnnCoulter to a cracked mast 'll let ya continue sailing. And a bowling pin made of AnnCoulter wrapped in duct tape jes don't work. She leans so far right that she'd tip over into the gutter well before a ball can even be tossed.
[ February 22, 2009, 05:39 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: She leans so far right that she tips over into the gutter well before a ball can even be tossed.
...Wouldn't that be a good thing?
A free pin every time?
(Or is your post advocating violence against those you disagree with?) Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: If men didn't have sex before marriage, the same "problems" would go away. As we've already gone through the Victorian and Puritan ages, perhaps it would make for an interesting change.
And contraception, and where that fails, abortion, can also prevent illegitimacy- under which conditions, a more thoughtful person than Coulter might recognize that many single mothers are actually very brave people, and hardly deserving to have such rancor thrust upon them.
Why did you put quotations around the word "problems?" 80 percent of the prison population was raised by single mothers, the majority of suicides, prostitutes, drug addicts and alcoholics were raised by single mothers. These are "problems."
Yes, good for those brave single mothers who do the best they can with their poor life decisions. How about the remaining vast majority who deal their very own children a losing hand at birth rather than placing then up for adoption, thereby giving them them the best statistical chance of succeeding in life? Are they deserving of the "rancor" thrust upon them? And by rancor, I assume you mean the constant praise and victimhood status given them by the media day in and day out, as if being an irresponsible slut were some honorable achievment.
This is Coulter's argument.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If Coulter wants to even pretend she's making a serious argument, she's going to have to get a lot more specific than "single mothers." She isn't talking about all single mothers, she's taling about a specific socioeconomic subgroup of them. I'd be willing to bet heavily that if 80% of the prison population really are people from single mothers, than the grand majority of them were also poor and in bad, crime ridden neighborhoods. I'd be extremely surprised if more than a small fraction of that group were raised by single mothers of middle or upper class status.
And for that matter, I think there's a social argument to be made that a lot of those women are single parents yes, because of some poor decisions (not in choosing to not adopt or not have an abortion per se), but also because of cultural roots.
There's nothing inherently wrong with being a single mother. I don't think that successful single mothers are exceptions to the rule because most of them are destined to fail, I think they are exceptions to the rule because they're either already in a good enough situation to make raising a child alone doable, or because they were lucky, and for the rest circumstances beyond their control take over. I'm not convinced those kids would be a whole lot better off shuffling through foster care for 18 years either.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
You should read her book then. She is making a serious argument, and it is a lot more specific than what you make it. I mean, she writes entire books about this stuff, with dozens of citations per chapter. Her attackers just prefer to boil her all arguments down to one invented flaw, and then all you free-thinkers out there believe it because you want to.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Lets just abort the extras then, reduce the surplus population.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I mean, she writes entire books about this stuff, with dozens of citations per chapter.
Al Franken devotes a chapter to Coulter's so-called "citations." Twisting people's words is not the same thing as rigorous documentation.
quote:I think there's a social argument to be made that a lot of those women are single parents yes, because of some poor decisions (not in choosing to not adopt or not have an abortion per se), but also because of cultural roots.
To add to this, I'd like to point out that African-American slaves were not permitted the benefit of legally recognized marriages, and that husbands, wives and children were routinely sold off to other slaveholders. Slaves were also actively bred like animals. Any notion of a conventional family was intentionally disrupted not merely for the convenience of the slaveholder, but with the intent of preventing the slave population from having a cohesive social structure that could potentially revolt.
It's no great wonder that today's society is still dealing with the effects of these policies. Coulter thinks she's making a conservative statement about family values, when what she's really doing is blaming the victims.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Ann Coulter often says things just to be provocative. But sometimes she also makes good points. Basically, she is entertaining. I have never listened to Rush Limbaugh at any length. Bill O'Reilly, on the other hand, strikes me as being much more conscientious than most, and makes a serious effort to be even-handed and fair. He does this far better than any liberal commentator or talk show host who ever existed. This is why no liberal talk show has ever succeeded, and there are plenty of conservative talk shows. Even Rush at his most extreme is better than any liberal talk show host who ever tried to draw an audience.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Why did you put quotations around the word "problems?" 80 percent of the prison population was raised by single mothers, the majority of suicides, prostitutes, drug addicts and alcoholics were raised by single mothers. These are "problems."
Because an indeterminate number of those "problems" are caused by society's attitudes and reactions towards illegitimate children and the parents who bear them, not those children or the parents themselves.
If more employers and educators made child care available, raising a child alone wouldn't mean curtailing all ambitions towards personal betterment for so many people. And more of those children wouldn't end up either living in poverty because their parent can't look after them while holding down a job that pays a living wage, or being raised by whoever happens to be handy- good, bad, or indifferent- because the parent needs to work and the social/family structures necessary to raise a child well are not guaranteed to anyone.
quote:Yes, good for those brave single mothers who do the best they can with their poor life decisions. How about the remaining vast majority who deal their very own children a losing hand at birth rather than placing then up for adoption, thereby giving them them the best statistical chance of succeeding in life? Are they deserving of the "rancor" thrust upon them? And by rancor, I assume you mean the constant praise and victimhood status given them by the media day in and day out, as if being an irresponsible slut were some honorable achievment.
This is Coulter's argument.
A judgement born of a narrow grasp of the subject combined with an eye for only those subject cases that suit her preconceived notions and a heart like a raisin.
Some of those "poor life choices" include leaving or being left by spouses who were various degrees of abusive. My mother was one such, not long after having my eldest sister.
That same sister just adopted an eleven year old boy. He's been bounced around various foster families for a decade. I don't doubt my sister and her husband are going to do their level best to make sure his life goes well up to this point, but you'd have to be blind and possibly drunk to suggest that being put up for adoption in the first place was unquestionably the best thing that could have happened to him.
And despite the eternal, misbegotten bugbear of the liberal media making it so hard for the morally upright to speak out about the moral degeneracy of society, it didn't keep some twit from mouthing off to one of my (pregnant) friends that how dare she bring a child into this world who was going to be a burden on society, and that she ought to be ashamed of herself.
Said friend was 28 at the time, married, and gainfully employed, but looks much younger. Of course, you don't need anything like accuracy, insight, or wisdom to fly off on a sanctimonious high horse these days.
Yeah, being a single mother is so like winning a prize in our culture.
So, no, I don't grant the right of Ann Coulter or anyone else to brand single mothers with all the wrongs in society. It's an ignorant and wrongheaded thing to do.
[ February 22, 2009, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: You should read her book then. She is making a serious argument, and it is a lot more specific than what you make it. I mean, she writes entire books about this stuff, with dozens of citations per chapter. Her attackers just prefer to boil her all arguments down to one invented flaw, and then all you free-thinkers out there believe it because you want to.
1. If Coulter is making a serious argument, is it anything approaching the argument you are making?
2. Do her attackers really boil all her arguments down to 'one invented flaw' versus a number of well-documented errors of fact?
3. Do you still give vehement defenses of Ann Coulter's pathological reliance on ad hominem, while frequently making the charge against liberals and board dissenters of your opinion that ad hominem invalidates their argument?
Posted by Mocke (Member # 11963) on :
What I read in her article was essentially that there is a link between single mothers and societies ills. And that part was thought provoking. But to call them raging sluts who should have kept their legs shut is to ignore the actual causes of the problems. 1. That this is, in some cases, cyclical, and has been happening for generations. And the fix is not to chastise the mothers, but attack the root of the problem...somehow. 2. The other portion are, as stated before, mothers who escaped some terrible relationship. I wouldn't be calling these mothers any names though. Of course, I would imagine people who denounce them also think that the women did something to deserve their beatings.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling Because an indeterminate number of those "problems" are caused by society's attitudes and reactions towards illegitimate children and the parents who bear them, not those children or the parents themselves.
No they're not.
Unless by "indeterminate," you mean "a number so small or inconsequential that it cannot be factored." But I doubt you meant that because then you would have no point. Which you don't anyway.
quote:If more employers and educators made child care available, raising a child alone wouldn't mean curtailing all ambitions towards personal betterment for so many people.
So someone else should take up the slack for the mistakes of another. Hey, why don't we just put them all on welfare? Oh wait...
Oh the poor single mothers. If only they hadn't screwed up their lives, and then refused to allow their child to be adopted by one of the many willing adoptors who are on a waiting list for years and years.
Rather than dream up yet more government plans to help poor young promiscuous women make the choice to get pregnant, thereby ensuring a lifetime of government assistance, why don't we start placing the blame where blame is due and simply remove all incentives for continuing this scourge on American society? Why not? Oh, 'cause it's mean. Oh, sorry. Let's not be mean here. Let's just flush society down the toilet. So long as we're nice about it.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
In fact...
quote:Originally posted by Sterling Because an indeterminate number of those "problems" are caused by society's attitudes and reactions towards illegitimate children and the parents who bear them, not those children or the parents themselves.
That is actually the problem. It is the lack of those attitudes that is the problem. It used to be: "You had a child out of wedlock? Kiss all respectability goodbye, you little tramp."
But now, "we should give the poor woman special treatment! It's not her fault! She only wanted a night of fleeting pleasure! Probably many times, with many men, but even if it was only the one time, it's not like she had the baby. More like... the baby happened, and she's just the victim in this tragedy. The condom broke! Not her fault! Let's give her someone else's money. What a hero!"
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Let me see if I have your argument straight here. If I don't, please correct me.
You don't want the government or society to coddle single mothers simply based upon the fact that they're a single mother, right? You think it creates an incentive for out of wedlock child-birth because it lets women get into a non-stop welfare program with things like WIC. The statistics show that criminals tend to come from single parent households. Therefore, your solution to decreasing this problem is to create a disincentive for women to have pre-marital sex. By taking away the social programs that assist single mothers, they will no longer engage in sex. This stops the illegitimate births and should therefore solve many problems including crime, huge spending on bad programs, and the moral degregation of society.
That is your argument, right?
Well, I have some major problems with it.
I'm actually really sleepy and not thinking straight, so I'll try to give you the brief summary of my contention against your words.
Basically, I believe that people are going to have sex no matter what, regardless of marriage. I don't believe in general deterrence theory. I don't think single women think, "Well, gee, I might just get pregnant from these here shenanigans I'm about to pursue. But I don't have to worry if I do, 'cause the government will take care of me!" It may just be with me, but foreplay doesn't usually include tallying up the number of government handouts my counterpart would receive should she become pregnant.
But that's a minor concern to me. My biggest problem with your argument is that it doesn't punish the single-mothers. It punishes the children. These social programs are to try to help the children succeed in life and receive opportunities that may not have otherwise been given to them because of the lack of another parent. Many mothers would no longer be able to afford food or the rent for their children because they'd lose programs like SCHIP, and WIC. Ultimately, families would be ripped apart because the mother can simply no longer provide for her child. And if the mother were able to still provide for her child in spite of the new hardships accrued, the child has still had the hard conditions that often breed criminal behavior.
And mothers who become pregnant? They have three options available. 1. Raise the child on their own, and hope that they can make ends meet. 2. Give the child to another family to take care of (parents or adoption) or 3. Abortion.
What's so different from those options that would come from your plan as what a woman has today? Ultimately all your proposed plan would do is rip families apart and hurt the well being of the children. And quite possibly increase the number of abortions. I'm pretty sure that's not something you'd look favorably upon.
So my opinion? Keep the social programs in place, increase safe-sex education, and stop judging people that are under hardships we can't begin to comprehend.
It's been fun!
ETA: Oh, and I think putting the onus on women as you suggested previously is complete and utter bull. I'm pretty sure a man has control of who he has relations with. Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Resh:
You are a Christian, are you not? Anyway, I was reading some interesting things. Perhaps you should take a look.
Matthew 7:1-5, 7-12; 18: 12-14
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: If men didn't have sex before marriage, the same "problems" would go away. As we've already gone through the Victorian and Puritan ages, perhaps it would make for an interesting change.
And contraception, and where that fails, abortion, can also prevent illegitimacy- under which conditions, a more thoughtful person than Coulter might recognize that many single mothers are actually very brave people, and hardly deserving to have such rancor thrust upon them.
Why did you put quotations around the word "problems?" 80 percent of the prison population was raised by single mothers, the majority of suicides, prostitutes, drug addicts and alcoholics were raised by single mothers. These are "problems." ]
You are so full of crap you probably squish as you walk.
It's nice to see that some things don't change. It is a shame your attitudes exist at all, but since they do it's not surprising that they haven't changed.
It isn't Coulter who makes me worry....she's obnoxious, but everyone expects her to be, even herself. It's how she makes her living.
It's you, and people like you. The fact that we survived 8 years of people like you amazes me.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
...
Talk about Refuge in Audacity.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Resh...I'd like to apologize. What I said up there was not polite, and I would edit it except for the fact that it would look like I was trying to hide what I had said.
I don''t agree with you, and if you tried legislating your morality on me or my family I'd fight you tooth and nail, but that doesn't excuse me being that rude.
I'd like to see some backup stats on your claims, and the proof that the single parent families cause alcoholism, rather than it being the other way around. I doubt you'd be able to find any, as it isn't the case. BTW, quoting Coulter's book doesn't count. Neither do quotes from Rush.
[ February 23, 2009, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Mocke (Member # 11963) on :
Resh - How come it falls on women? Because after the act, they get to carry the outward signs for 9 months? Because men are lecherous pigs and it falls to the women to be gatekeepers of sorts? because we have no way of accurately determining paternity?
no. This whole punish the mother tirade seems a little misogynistic.
I once heard Dan Savage talk at length about how the homosexual male community engaged in mindless random sex at rates unparalleled by any other coupling, causing them all sorts of problems. He then called on the community to "release their inner woman" (the idea that the presence of the woman decreases random sexual encounters), and think before you hop in bed. So in the heterosexual community, why does it always fall to women? A man can just as easily keep it in his pants. It just takes a little self control and self respect.
Second, paternity can be much more easily determined in this day and age. Why should it fall to women alone when we can target the man in the equation?
Finally, you suggest adoption? Really? Well, go look at the number of single mothers, and out of wedlock birthrates, then look at the number of people waiting to adopt. Include homosexuals at your leisure.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I think whenever someone effectively makes the statement, "We should make sure those [single mothers/homosexuals/homeless people/black people/Jews/Catholics/Mormons/Japanese Americans/etc.] know they're not welcome here.", they probably say a lot more about themselves than they know. And a lot less about the target of their spite than they think.
Wanting to hold onto one's right to sneer, at the cost of preventing people from becoming functioning and contributing members of society, is no cause for self-congratulation.
Even if one can assume that every single single mother is nothing more than a hopelessly promiscuous person of little worth- which is the kind of overly simplistic non-thinking that brings into question one's own ability to function as an effective part in societal decision-making- the question ought to be how to make "those people", and especially their children, into people who can give back as much as they take.
Single mothers aren't going to go away. It isn't a question of shunning them or letting them be leeches on society. It's a question of dealing with them or pretending to.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Why talk about single mothers? Isn't the real issue "Dead beat Dad's"?
Seriously, none of the statistics I've been able to find on single parent households distinguish between women who got pregnant on a one night stand, those who were part of a long term committed relationship and those who were actually married but are now divorced. Single mothers include all of the above and if my anecdotal experience is at all representative, most single mothers are divorced women. Unless Anne Coulter has access to some statistics that I can't find, her using statistics about "single mothers" to make inference about promiscuous women or even sex outside of marriage is fundamentally flawed.
On the other hand, with the rare exception of women who used "sperm banks", a father was every bit as involved in the conception of these children as the mother. These women aren't SINGLE parents because they got pregnant, they are SINGLE parents because the fathers of their children are not there sharing the responsibility..
[ February 25, 2009, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Rabbit-
I agree that we as a society expect too little of these fathers. I couldn't agree more that "a father was every bit as involved int he conception of these children as the mother." I also think, though, that with increased expectations, fathers also need increased influence over decisions like adoption and abortion. Currently, mothers can make both those decisions without any input from fathers. I think that sort of societal inequity leads fathers, in such situations, to feel that they are extraneous, and to resent any increased expectation of action.
As far as statistics on whether single parents start that way or not, the current rate of out-of-wedlock birth is about 40%. So 4/10 of all children start life in single parent households. Of those single mothers, about 20% eventually marry, which leaves about 32% of the population who never live in a two-parent home. I imagine that unwed pregnancy is at least as big a cause of single parent households as divorce.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: As far as statistics on whether single parents start that way or not, the current rate of out-of-wedlock birth is about 40%. So 4/10 of all children start life in single parent households.
Not necessarily. An increasing number of couples are choosing to live together without ever formally getting married, even if they have kids. So those "out-of-wedlock" births are still in a two parent household.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: Currently, mothers can make both those decisions without any input from fathers.
Not true for adoption. Of course it varies state by state, but in most states if the father is identified, an adoption can not go forward without his relinquishing his rights to the child.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I wonder if a lesbian/gay same-sex couple in a state without same-sex marriage, with an adopted child from a surrogate would count as an "out-of-wedlock" birth. Maybe one should legalise same-sex marriage to bump up the stats.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:As far as statistics on whether single parents start that way or not, the current rate of out-of-wedlock birth is about 40%. So 4/10 of all children start life in single parent households. Of those single mothers, about 20% eventually marry, which leaves about 32% of the population who never live in a two-parent home. I imagine that unwed pregnancy is at least as big a cause of single parent households as divorce.
Can I ask for the source for these statistics since they do not match those from the center for disease control.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I'll concede both points. However, according to this Princeton study, 60% of non-married parents split up in the first five years (with about 15% of them getting married, and the remaining 35% being split between those who never lived together and those who continue living together after five years).
As far as adoption, I know rules vary from state to state. But they shouldn't. If a father is a father he should have a say. I think the same is true of abortion. In both cases I can certainly see abusive situations (in both directions), where such rights need to be curtailed by the judicial system. But the default should be that both parents need to consent to either an abortion or an adoption.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I got the aggregate stats from this article which has links to raw stats. The stats at the CDC seemed similar when I glanced at them. I attributed the difference to statistical noise in the different years of the studies and the numbers summarized by the CDC. <edit>Yeah, according to the CDC the 2005 numbers (which were what I found on their website) show 36.9% of births being out-of-wedlock, and the 2006 numbers show an increase to 38.5%, which the author of the article I linked seems to have rounded up to 40%.</edit>
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: On the other hand, with the rare exception of women who used "sperm banks", a father was every bit as involved in the conception of these children as the mother. These women aren't SINGLE parents because they got pregnant, they are SINGLE parents because the fathers of their children are not there sharing the responsibility..
Amen!
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
After briefly reviewing what I could find about biological father's rights, the situation seems both better and worse than I'd first understood. Most states now have "putative father registries" where you need to list yourself if you believe you are the father of a child. If you do not, you won't have standing to contest an adoption. The other requirements seem more reasonable: you've paid for some of the delivery costs, you've asserted paternity, signed the birth certificate, etc.
It does still vary state-to-state, but it seems that since the late 90s things have improved dramatically for biological fathers seeking to prevent adoptions. There's still inequity in the system, but most of that seems to me to be inherent inequity due to biology (a mother can hide a pregnancy from a father, but the reverse cannot be true).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
This study on custodial parents reports that only 30% of single custodial parents fall in the never married category, 57% are either divorced or separated and 22% are married (to someone other than the non-custodial parent, usually remarried).
So if we are talking about "Single Mothers" we are talking about a group that is overwhelmingly divorced and separated women not women who have never married.
There are so many problems with Anne Coulters use of statistics on children of single mothers to draw conclusion about the harms of women having premarital sex that its hard to even know where to begin.
First off, girls who live below poverty level are far more likely to become unmarried mothers. To have even a shred of credibility, any study of the influence of single motherhood on crime, drug abuse etc would have to control for poverty since poverty is extremely strongly correlated with all the problems Coulter blames on single mothers. Furthermore, since in most cases single mothers who are living below poverty level were living below poverty level before they got pregnant, it is irrational to conclude that having a child out of wedlock caused the poverty.
I'm not trying to defend promiscuity. I'm think people are in general far happier if they mate for life or at least strive for that than if they play the field. I think children are in most cases better off in a home with two loving parents. My problem is with Coulter laying the blame for all of societies ills on single mothers. Not only is this a gross over simplification of the problem, but it is also reflective of one of the main roots of the problem -- the tendency of society to place the burden for successful family life disproportionately on women.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
In our society, the only "sin" is getting caught. So it isn't promiscuity that is wrong, it is getting pregnant (or caught). Since the man didn't get caught, it is fine for him to sleep with as many women as he wants.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: In our society, the only "sin" is getting caught. So it isn't promiscuity that is wrong, it is getting pregnant (or caught). Since the man didn't get caught, it is fine for him to sleep with as many women as he wants.
In fairness, the right is in favor of abstinence, one of the justifications of abortion is that allowing it does (up to a point) address the asymmetry in terms of consequences for non-marital encounters, and paternity suits are successfully prosecuted all the time.
Without actually ever having read more than excerpts from Coulter, I would assume that her point is that as the living conditions of many of those requiring assistance from government programs can be explained by a choice they made, they shouldn't receive tax-payer funded aid. Of course, as Rabbit has pointed out, this supposed causal link is far from clear. And, as Vadon pointed out, even if it exists, in punishing mothers the offspring are also punished. Studies have been done linking diminished IQ with malnourishment suggesting that these kids both have fewer opportunities to realize a 'successful life' and also might be intrinsically less capable of realizing said life. The entrenchment of an underclass isn't what the American Dream used to be about.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Why talk about single mothers?
Easy scapegoating for those whose solution to societal ills is derision.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)