LOIE
Gold Member
- May 11, 2017
- 954
- 325
So, I took the challenge and read Mugged, by Ann Coulter. My first takeaway is the author’s obvious disgust and disdain for all things liberal. She uses words like this: Neurotic nuts. Drama queen, thy name is liberal. Liberals lie about history by manipulating words. Liberals are for race discrimination. Since that was the overarching theme of the book, I realized that everything she said, cited or quoted was going to be used to prove her strongly held conviction that liberals are wrong.
She says in part: “The century-long struggle for civil rights was over. Attorney Thurgood Marshall had won his cases before the Supreme Court. It was over. For the next two decades liberals engaged in a ritualistic reenactment of the struggle for civil rights – long after it had any relevance to what was happening in the world. Their obsession with race was weirdly disconnected from actual causes and plausible remedies. While liberals spent the decades after the civil rights era pretending they were fighting 1962 battles – the rest of us had to live through race riots, denunciations of the police, extreme restrictions on speech, liberal racial pandering and a stream of racial Armageddon. From race riots to race hoaxes to the automatic excuse machine for black criminals, the country had gone mad.”
She proceeds to talk about the accusations of racism that turned out to be hoaxes and cases where the media hid or distorted information. An example is the Rodney King beating where she declares that if everyone had seen the entire video, the part where King lunges at the officers, things would have turned out differently. I’m not so sure about that. There’s no way the Black community would have accepted that beating as justified. As a white person, seeing that portion would not make me say, "Well, I see now why they had to beat him nearly to death."
She also talks about the George Zimmerman phone call to police being edited to make it look like he was racist. I do, however, remember hearing the part where he tells the dispatcher he’s going to go after the guy and is told “We don’t need you to do that,” and he proceeds to do it anyway.
Some of the racism cases were, according to Ann, proven to be hoaxes. I don’t disagree with that. Some were. Her point, however, is that the debunking of the story, even if it’s months or years later, does not get the media attention that the initial case got. I think that’s the case with any news story. People’s memories are short and we tend to want “up to the minute” information, not old, hashed over stuff. There are even such cases today. But I personally don’t believe there is an overabundance of them. And I don’t believe that false cases ever nullify the existence of real ones.
As for the civil rights struggle being over and liberals trying to bring it back from the grave, I have to disagree. Perhaps for some, the civil rights issue had been laid to rest by the passing of a few laws. However, I know many people for whom the words are still stuck on the page.
There's much more to the book and one part about certain southern people from the Celtic fringe that I found fascinating and may comment on later.
She says in part: “The century-long struggle for civil rights was over. Attorney Thurgood Marshall had won his cases before the Supreme Court. It was over. For the next two decades liberals engaged in a ritualistic reenactment of the struggle for civil rights – long after it had any relevance to what was happening in the world. Their obsession with race was weirdly disconnected from actual causes and plausible remedies. While liberals spent the decades after the civil rights era pretending they were fighting 1962 battles – the rest of us had to live through race riots, denunciations of the police, extreme restrictions on speech, liberal racial pandering and a stream of racial Armageddon. From race riots to race hoaxes to the automatic excuse machine for black criminals, the country had gone mad.”
She proceeds to talk about the accusations of racism that turned out to be hoaxes and cases where the media hid or distorted information. An example is the Rodney King beating where she declares that if everyone had seen the entire video, the part where King lunges at the officers, things would have turned out differently. I’m not so sure about that. There’s no way the Black community would have accepted that beating as justified. As a white person, seeing that portion would not make me say, "Well, I see now why they had to beat him nearly to death."
She also talks about the George Zimmerman phone call to police being edited to make it look like he was racist. I do, however, remember hearing the part where he tells the dispatcher he’s going to go after the guy and is told “We don’t need you to do that,” and he proceeds to do it anyway.
Some of the racism cases were, according to Ann, proven to be hoaxes. I don’t disagree with that. Some were. Her point, however, is that the debunking of the story, even if it’s months or years later, does not get the media attention that the initial case got. I think that’s the case with any news story. People’s memories are short and we tend to want “up to the minute” information, not old, hashed over stuff. There are even such cases today. But I personally don’t believe there is an overabundance of them. And I don’t believe that false cases ever nullify the existence of real ones.
As for the civil rights struggle being over and liberals trying to bring it back from the grave, I have to disagree. Perhaps for some, the civil rights issue had been laid to rest by the passing of a few laws. However, I know many people for whom the words are still stuck on the page.
There's much more to the book and one part about certain southern people from the Celtic fringe that I found fascinating and may comment on later.
