News Story
Flipping through the channels last night, I found myself wading through the all-news networks which devote all of their nighttime programming to talk shows or, in most cases, shouting matches. The topic on all three networks (CNN, MSNBC, and FOX) was Ann Coulter's latest book in which she makes some pretty disparaging remarks about several widows of 9/11 victims. It's typical Coulter nonsense that's simply meant to provoke the very reaction that it receives, sheer outrage. The thing to expect from every one of these types of provocateurs is that they'll pop up every once in awhile to make some sort of statement that generates controversy, which means we can probably expect something from Michael Savage pretty soon as well; it's usually accompanied by the release of a new book or some other type of promotional necessity. What usually happens is that people get upset, the controversy rages for awhile, and the it fades as quickly as the book sales that land the remainders in the discount bin. The question remains, though, is she right to criticize these women, clearly victims of a tragedy, and if not, how can we assume when it is okay to criticize and who is out of bounds?

Personally, I think her comments are par for the course with her type of reactionary conservativism. She's a walking contradiction that profits off of rage and pandering to a base that is amused by her rhetoric. Blatant racism, sexism, and any other -ism you can think of in the negative sense are usually what you'll find within the pages of her books or the words that she spews on the television. The networks know what they're in for when they book her as a guest, and it's always a guaranteed verbal sparing match that will engulf the majority of the broadcast. They know it, and they book her anyway.

What I find mystifying about her is that she spouts forth the ideals of the uber-conservative, but actively portrays herself as anything but with regards to her style. Have you seen how short her skirts are? This isn't done by accident. She's a pretty calculating woman, and she exudes just enough raw sexuality that it appeals to the males in the audience, myself included, who find themselves mesmerized by her appearance all the while forgetting just how offensive her comments really are to a huge portion of the public.

As for whether it's right or wrong to criticize the victims of tragedies that decide to speak out on the issues concerned, I'm of the opinion that once you cross the line and enter the public debate, then you're fair game for criticism. Should it be in the form of the near slander the Coulter uses? No, I think you can say that you feel that these people are simply using their status as victims to project on to the public sphere their feelings and opinions and that you don't agree with that. Personally, I feel the same about Cindy Sheehan. I can't listen to her speak, and I turn the channel when I see her on the news. I think that her policies, while noble in regards to her demanding answers for her son's death, have reached a point where her influence seems detrimental to the cause she's trying to promote. Now, she's campaigning not only against Republicans but also Democrats that voted in favor of the war in Iraq. That's her position to take, but I think it's wrong in the long run. The point of the coming election, to me, is to wrest control of either or both houses of Congress from Republican control. Anything that seeks to undermine that cause in favor of ideological nitpicking seems to defeat the purpose. But I would never say that she's some "harpie" that may have been planning on abandoning her son, ala Coulter's remarks about the 9/11 widows.

All of that to say that it's a fine line to criticize a victim.