I can’t get enough of Anne Coulter (Actually, it didn’t take much). Her writing is like the low-cut dresses she wears in publicity photos. There doesn’t appear to be much worth either concealing or revealing. (This is a misleading argument strategy sometimes called False Comparison, although if you’re really into fashions, there may be more truth in it than dr. Coulter would like to think about.) But dr. Coulter knows how to make an argument, and that means I don’t have to worry about thinking for myself (implying that anyone who agrees with Coulter is happy letting somebody else do their thinking for them). There is no doubt about who the bad guys are. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28524234/ (dr. with a small d implies that Coulter lacks both credentials and intellectual stature without any effort on my part to substantiate either one.)
In argument there are other misleading rhetorical strategies, like Ad Hominem, which kind of means suggesting somebody is wrong because they look scary in a low dress instead of making a substantive reply to the argument. Another one is called Poisoning the Well. Poisoning the Well more or less means assuming the truth of conditions without any information, such as the assumption that liberals are bad guys. The first sentence in the excerpt from Coulter’s book explains that liberals make up pretend victims like Cesar Borja (the retired NYC cop chosen by Hillary Clinton as the poster child for 9/11 emergency services) to crank up sympathy for their cause, very similar to John McCain and Joe the Plumber, but palin’ by comparison (a pun alluding to McCain’s vice-presidential candidate).
There is another misleading rhetorical strategy called Oversimplification. Oversimplification would be like dr. Coulter making selective remarks about the two politicians with connections to discrimination. One of the politicians might never have expressed any regret about discrimination and might have only refrained from openly practicing discrimination because it could mean jail time. The other might have publicly expressed regret for any association with discrimination and left a discriminatory organization because he thought the people in the organization were crazy, but oversimplification only takes into account that both politicians had connections to discrimination, and are therefore equal. That’s what I like about dr. Coulter. She can use a misleading rhetorical strategy per paragraph, and like her heroes, George Bush and Karl Rove, she is proud of it (implying that she deliberately uses misleading strategies).
If you want to talk about deceptive seminal imagery, let’s talk about Weapons of Mass Destruction instead of NYC Emergency Services, but seriously, folks, let’s be frank, ‘n forget all the propaganda extremes on both sides (another pun, this one alluding to the senatorial candidate who previously wrote a book commenting on, among other things, Anne Coulter’s misleading rhetoric). Suppose for the sake of argument, that Cesar Borja is a fraud and Hillary Clinton knew it. The idea was, what? Federal funding for New York City emergency workers? Oh my gawd, there’s a cause we wouldn’t want to accidentally contribute to. We need far too much of that money to blow up things in Iraq. (That’s a misleading rhetorical strategy called Ad Populum, which means connecting the argument to a well-known issue that inspires either common support or common opposition, but this isn’t sensible, or even intellectual. This is satire, or at least sarcasm, so I can get away with it.)(Also implying that intellect doesn’t necessarily make sense.)
And finally, I reluctantly (nothing reluctant about it at all) point out that regardless of any moral issues and misleading arguments involved, regardless of how pathetically pandering and perverse liberal ideology may be, it’s palin’ (ibid., a Latinate abbreviation meaning see the previous related reference) by comparison to the fraud and larceny perpetrated by corporate banking and other pillars of conservative finance that did not benefit anyone except corporate executives. Bernie Madoff, former NASDAQ chairman, CEO of an investment firm renowned for successfully cautious management practices, parlayed Reagan financial deregulation (implying that Reagan is responsible for current economic problems, which he is, which is in itself an oversimplification) into the most fantastic Ponzi scheme since the French monarchy (suggesting that conservative economics reflect aristocratic arrogance), and “made off” with enough money from investors to supplement New York City Emergency Services for a hundred years. (What’s in a name?)
The only trouble is, he didn’t give it to New York City Emergency Services. Nobody knows what he did with it exactly. While dr. Anne Coulter was busy complaining about misleading liberal political strategies, conservatives were out there making a real difference in the real world (implying that yeah, they made a difference, but a negative difference). None of your petty, hypocritical, grand-standing for conservatives. By gawd, when conservatives rip somebody off, they do it right. (A misleading rhetorical strategy implying that all members of a group behave the same.) They’ve got the liberals beat again, and so I congratulate dr. Coulter for making a point in the best conservative tradition, clearly, cleverly and completely bogus. (And I congratulate myself for applying the same strategy. I may not be better, but at least I’m as bad, even if I'm not syndicated.)
And just as an aside on Coulter’s NBC interview, I’m equally appreciative of the brilliant performance by George Bush in the White House (if you’re that fond of dancing), but an economy spiraling into collapse is a funny idea of keeping the country safe. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28537291/ On the other hand, the economy isn't an issue for Coulter, so maybe she's referring to how George and Laura have been champions of free speech.
Here's thinking for you.
Iffy
No comments:
Post a Comment