Too bad the DJ is so bad at explaining himself. He could simply have claimed that "clean darky" was meant not as his own opinion, but to make clear Biden's statement(after all, even if he left off the "darky" part, that is what Biden meant).

Of course, one could argue that the DJ's failure to use that explanation suggests that it is not the correct one and that it in fact was a racist statement by the DJ.

Also not helpful that his station's call letters, KXAN, look a lot like KLAN.

It's probably not PC to criticize the latter group's handbook though, because it's called "THE KLORAN"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kloran

If I wrote a post titled "I SPIT ON THE KLORAN" I might get in trouble with the word cops.

What a niggardly bunch!

In the big picture, Coulter's use of the term and her context is completely defensible. In the small picture of the setting and audience, it was completely awful. In the end, as is typical for her, I think her atonally bad taste drowns out her her intellectual argument.

It was Coulter in microcosm: make 90% of a valid argument, then unravel it with a cheap punch line, or make 90% of a really funny joke, then spoil it by trying to make a point. She's 90% classic beauty, 10% hideous shrew.

Suppose she had said, "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word "ni66er," so I -- so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."

She's using the f*t word in the context of decrying political correctness, saying that she's unable to use worse words (whatever those might be) against someone. It's a standard passive-aggressive insult form, and can be really funny, in the right venue. An endorsement speech at a family-oriented convention is not that venue. You just don't talk that way at serious, professional events.

It was classic Coulter: 90% of the way there, failing miserably.

What would Lenny Bruce say?

I get the impression the DJ was suggesting Biden was a racist.

I believe this is the first case of someone being accused of racism for accusing someone else of racism in an un-PC way.

Thus PC inches ever towards its logical conclusion.

Lenny Bruce would probably call the Lone Ranger:

http://www.notbored.org/mask-man.html

But using the word nigger would have made no sense, unless there was some recent case of someone using it, and the handling of it being over the top. Coulter was responding to the case of the TV actor who was forced to accept internment into a psychiatric hospital for calling another actor on the show a faggot.

That was her reference. It was a slight at the handling of using any offensive words getting to the requirement to accept psychiatric treatment or get fired.

And if you aren't working for a big company with HR policies similar to that, you haven't been paying attention.

I don't think I'd have a problem with people getting fired for saying words you find offensive, but then those words should be listed in the employee handbook and the bribe of accepting psychiatric treatment should not be allowed. That's WAY too far into the privacy area.

As others have pointed out, a joke isn't funny or successful if your audience doesn't know the reference, but that was the context for her bad joke.

Had the guy on the TV show called the other actor a "Moron" that is the word Coulter would have repeated in this context, "...but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'moron'..."

Her remarks on Hannity and Colmes regarding the incident included, "It's a schoolyard taunt meaning 'wuss,' and unless you're telling me that John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person."

So I've repeated the word here myself, but I used in a context not directed with any hostility towards someone who is gay.

Am I to be tainted with the same broad brush? I repeated it. Does context matter?

But if it was wrong to say it in the first place, and the punishment of it was wrong, does that really justify the use of the word?

I think the context here includes the fact that she wanted to use the word "faggot" -- to an audience that wanted to hear it. I doubt she'd have said the same thing at the White House.

When I was a teenager, it was very clear what the word faggot meant -- the imputation of homosexuality. I think it still means that. Have times changed?

And even if she didn't mean to suggest Edwards was gay, so what? Wasn't this a clear putdown at others' expense? Some Jewish people got very offended when a friend of mine once referred to someone who (his words) "Jewed me down" -- even though the person he was speaking about wasn't Jewish. I think they were properly offended.

Didn't Ann Coulter impute homosexuality to Bill Clinton not long ago?

Is it neceassary to like Bill Clinton to criticize her for such a cheap shot?

I believe Andrew Sullivan is selling offsets for the use of the f-word-2.

Have times changed?

Yes, in a sense, they have. It is impossible to know if Coulter meant the new or the old.

You wrote about this yourself recently. "That's so gay" has become a phrase that has nothing to do with "gay," well, the gay that gay came to mean in our times, not the times before that, when it meant something else.

It is roughly equivalent to saying "that's so tired."

It is interesting how phrases and words change their meaning. The youth using the phrase "that's so gay" have grown up in a different time. They don't know gay bashing in a real sense. It is to them like the civil rights movement or Vietnam--it is something that happened a long time ago, like we might think of the Spanish American war.

So they don't have the sensitivity meters calibrated in the same way we do.

Calling someone a "faggot" or someone's behavior "gay" isn't calling them "a queer" or "you're a homo!" with any of the same meanings it had when we heard these things as youth. The closest I can come to translating it is "that's so tacky" but with a wimpy inflection. And "wimp" in this case doesn't mean effeminate. It is more along the lines of being a sell-out, or someone who is PC.

Hey, "Queer Eye" is mainstream to these kids and with shows like Family Guy or any number of other anti-PC shows they've grown up on, these phrases and expressions have NO sting in them.

It is a type of counter revolution to being PC. They've grown up being taught PC and they just ignore it. Intentionally.

Hmmmm, I hope you're right Connie, and while I don't like gay bashing, I hope this "counter revolution to being PC" doesn't cause an expansion in the unprotected vocabulary. I notice that there's a meme going around that it's "politically incorrect" to be against Darwinian evolution. Does simply attaching the "politically incorrect" label to something make it cool? The rudeness factor aside (although rudeness will invitate counter rudeness), I worry about the logic of this phenomenon.

Also, I think Ann Coulter is smart enough to take into account that there's more than one audience. I majored in traditional Rhetoric, so I tend to analyze political discourse in terms of the ostensible versus the intended audience. But I think this situation is further complicated by the fact that the actions of the ostensible audience (which were quite predictable) might have been intended to influence several other audiences, in several different ways. I think this will tend to resonate politically, and so I naturally wonder whether that was Ann's intent. Right now, Republicans are arguing with Republicans. Longterm, I worry that this will reduce itself to something very easy for ordinary voters to remember -- about Republicans. I suspect they'll be skillfully, regularly reminded too.

Will any good come of this? I think it depends on how "good" is defined.

If you want to take this offline, feel free... but I DO think some good will come of this, or could.

For one, people need to get over the name calling thing. Yes, all the usual can be said about it, bad manners, rude, and crude, but the counter balance to it of "... but names can never hurt me" needs to be brought back into the lexicon.

I have kids. One of the annoying things they do is annoy each other. They test boundaries. They poke-poke-poke until the other explodes. Then the other pokes-pokes-pokes until they get a reaction to their reaction. This goes on constantly. Without going all Bill Cosby on them and declaring, "Don't any of you ever talk or touch each other again!" you have to let them sort it out.

One of the clues I've given to them is to stop being annoyed by something the other does. If you allow it to annoy you, they will keep doing it. If it never causes a reaction, it will stop. It's a akin to pretending that being tickled isn't ticklish. So most of the annoyances are avoided by CHOOSING not to be annoyed.

And I think that's key.

On a related bit... I once worked with a woman who was getting her degree in Marriage and Family counseling. She went away on a retreat as part of the program, and she shared a story about the weekend. One of the women in the program made a point of saying that she didn't like it when people cursed, especially the word fuck and wanted to set some rules for the meeting that cursing wasn't allowed. Now it would be interesting to work in a career in Marriage and Family counseling, a referee to a potentially never ending heated interchange of adults, and have a negative reaction to cursing.

Rather than give power to the woman to control the language of others, the facilitator of the session gave her an assignment. The assignment was to go into another room and say the word 1,000 times. After she did that, she could come back and join the others. She was to continue to say the word for the rest of the session. All of her sentences needed to include the word.

She got to the point, very quickly, that she couldn't say the word without laughing about it. It became a game and the word no longer had any meaning at all. It was just a sound, 4 letters, having no power to cause her any reaction at all, except a kind of mild amusement that she once reacted so strongly to hearing it.

I think the worst part of the political correctness stuff is that it has had the reverse affect on the populace. We, by refusing to allow the utterance of certain words, have made them powerful. Almost like we've turned words into magic spells, with the ability to cause harm.

Words cannot harm anyone. They aren't magic spells. They don't have any power besides the power we've decided they have. They can't harm you UNLESS you choose to allow them to harm you--you CHOOSE to be hurt/offended by them. That is a very bad thing and a very unhealthy thing for a supposedly sophisticated and civilized society.

This means that we have allowed others to have power over us--we've shown them our pink underbellies, in a sense. Allowing others to have power over you with the incantation of a word, as if the word itself can cut through your skin like a bullet, making your organs bleed, or your heart stop beating. These aren't libelous or slanderous statements. There is no reputation lost in someone shouting an invective at you, or hearing one from across the room, unless you give the word that power.

But there seems to be this collective gasp when these words are used, similar to Harry Potter's cohorts whispering the name of the Dark Lord. Even here, people will asterisk out the words, as if repeating it even to make the conversation clear is bad. But Harry Potters says the Dark Lord's name, often, and perhaps that is the secret to Harry's power: An unwillingness to give the Dark Lord any power, by being cavalier about his name: Voldemort, Voldemort, Voldemort. Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice. Did anything happen to anyone when they read those words? Did lightening strike them? Did their organs bleed or their hearts stop? Because we've given no power to those words, even in incantation. They have no power over us because we've decided/chosen they have no power.

I think the cure/solution is much like the one the facilitator at the meeting designed, and one the youth seem to have figured out on their own. Say those words. Say them often. Repeat them when it makes no sense it all. Similar to how you might recite "Rubber Baby Buggy Bumpers" until the sounds run together and your tongue can no longer pronounce the syllables and it becomes a kind of gibberish. Invoke them constantly, inserting them where they make no sense, and without hostility or malice... until the power they once had is completely lost... and when you hear others use them, laugh. Nothing takes the sting out of a sting more than laughing. Giggle helplessly that someone thinks they can harm you with a sound.

If folks are unwilling to do that, if they have an investment in staying annoyed, perhaps it isn't so much about the words as much as it is about controlling others--or wanting some control over others.

That seems worse to me and seems to be the source and motivation for political correctness.

I often wonder if our society has reached a point of stagnation or some sort of retreat into the Middle Ages, where sounds or smells are seen as all powerful... and like a form of witchcraft or word-alchemy, that requires us to react, and burn the heretics at the stake, rather than the casual behavior of the playground where we responded to heckling with "I know you are, but what am I?... what comes from you sticks to you, times two."

I must have been off the planet because I completely missed the whole episode. I gather Coulter called Edwards a faggot. Seeing that he's not gay I assume it was a metaphor but I don't have the context. It would bother me more if it were Barney Franks who was the object of such a remark. But I haven't seen the context.

I have no trouble with complaints over language. I have hundreds of such gripes. However, what's PC is the assumption that others should accommodate one's request for sensitivity. I have no such expectation that anyone would or should cater to my discomforts or sensitivities. But that won't stop me from complaining.

Besides, I think I look a bit like Edwards ... not that there's anything wrong with that! ;)

"I'm having trouble with the rules again. Can anyone help me out?" - Eric

It's simple, Eric:

Ann Coulter said something outrageous predicated on the premise that legions of conservative and leftist bloggers and the MSM would generate reams of free publicity for her.

It worked. ;)

Check and see if she has another book due to come out soon.

[Ironbear's Razor: "Given a choice between several motivations, the cynical one may not always be the most accurate - but it's usually the most entertaining." ;)]

Have we all just decided to ignore the fact that Iran is making nukes and the new Medicare bill is going to cost more than Social Security? Honestly, how can this be getting so much attention?

Ironbear, I've posted repeatedly about Ann Coulter and the entertainment factor.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/003713.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/003716.html

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/003734.html

The problem is that this does not end the debate, because if she's simply in the entertainment business and saying what she says to get attention, traffic and money, then why do so many people maintain that she has principles?

And if she is in this for attention, traffic, and publicity, is it not in her purely logical interest to want Hillary Clinton as president? I can think of no better way or platform to advance the Coulter's Conservative Diva career.

Read all those. I'm one of those people you thought didn't exist: I read all the way down to the bottom of the page looking for updates. ;]

"The problem is that this does not end the debate" - Eric

*snork* Wasn't looking to end the debate. ;)

I ain't got no "Final Word", Eric. God doesn't talk to me and give me The Answer. ;]

All I gots is the occassional insight, and it gives me the occassional grenade to toss into volatile discussions. Keeps me happy and off the streets.

"And if she is in this for attention, traffic, and publicity, is it not in her purely logical interest to want Hillary Clinton as president? I can think of no better way or platform to advance the Coulter's Conservative Diva career." - Eric

Bingo.

How many bloggers on the right did we read both pre-and-post midterms saying effectively "It's good if the Dems take the House and Senate - it's a Guaranteed Employment Act for Conservative bloggers!" ?

Commissar over at Political Diktat was rooting for the Dems to win midterms - and now he's calling [possibly facetiously] for Lefty bloggers to hold the Dems feet to the fire on their campaign rhetoric... overlooking decades of evidence that to the Left, rhetoric is ony rehtoric: it's being in power that counts, not what you do with it. [Or promised to do with it]

Hugh Hewitt and Neal Boortz look to be in hogshit heaven - they have a guaranteed income now on radio shows bashing The Left. Powerline's pretty well guaranteed they're not going out of bidness.

Rush Limbaugh climbed to prominence on sHrillary's husband's cock. He's dwindled more than a bit while the 'Pubs were in power.

Coulter's interests won't be harmed by a Hillary or Obama victory in '08. [They won't be harmed much by a Guilianni victory, either. S'a win/win for her career.]

"because if she's simply in the entertainment business and saying what she says to get attention, traffic and money, then why do so many people maintain that she has principles?" - Eric

Because getting attention, traffic and money *is* a principle?

There's as much Principle involved in being true to your own pursuit of self-advancement as there is to being wedded to A Higher Cause [cue theme muzak].

Coulter's a bomb thrower. She's *always* been a bomb thrower. She tosses out comments like this the way I toss forum grenades into a thread to watch the sudden shocked silence and the inevitable implosion. ;) She built a rather lucrative career on being a bomb thrower. Lucrative enough that Malkin and others have tried to imitate the formulae.

She *is* being true to her principles. Not her fault other folks are using their own interpretations of what those princples might be.

[MY opinion, Eric. I could be way off base on that. Take with pound of salt. But I've been watching and reading Coulter for a looong time now, and I've seen this same pattern over and over: Coulter makes outrageous coment, Lefties go berzerk, Righties disown her, as soon as dust settles, she tosses next bomb. Rinse, wash, repeat. Three months from now, I'll be watching this same discssion again, somewhere else.]

Have we all just decided to ignore the fact that Iran is making nukes and the new Medicare bill is going to cost more than Social Security?" - Jon Thompson

Yes.