Posts Tagged ‘Janet Albrechtsen’
Don’t you hate it when you have to go to a family reunion and you have to listen to some wacky relative go on and on about the same thing they go on and on about at every family reunion?
Aunty Jan does that a lot, and I dread going to the front page of The Australian for fear of seeing another one of her stupid, inflammatory headlines almost as much as I dislike being told about my shortcomings by relatives who, frankly, are way more disturbed than I am (lucky for me, most of them are overseas).
I hope I don’t get the reputation for being obsessed with Janet Albrechtsen. I know she says so many crappy things which really should be ignored, but once in a while she displays such ignorance and bigotry that I just can’t help but point it out for the amusement of my dear Readers. This week’s masterpiece has been the subject of Aunty Jan’s ire not less that twice in the last six months (the 4 pages of her blog’s archives that I can be bothered to load).
The topic I speak of is, of course, the “looming menace” of activist judges. (Mind you, if I go and count references to the other topic of her piece this week, same-sex “marriage”, I might be here all month.) You know, those, horrible, nasty elitist fiends who wipe out historical myths that may disadvantage an entire race, prevent an indigent accused unable to access legal aid from being denied a fair trial, allow ministers to exercise powers granted by parliament and commit other such atrocies against the community which amount to an “open declaration of war against our elected politicians“.
In a dazzling display of conservative intellect and wisdom, yesterday’s headline boldly declares war on those smarmy, unelected gits: “Judges should butt out of politics“.
That’s right, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Bench — Butt. Out. Y’all may have spent years studying in law schools, working in top firms and advocating at The Bar in order to be appointed as judges and work your booties off dealing with people’s problems and issuing punishments to criminals, but you and your bonehead friends can’t tell me what to do! Nuh-uh!!! I’m telling Mummy on you! … IknowyouarebutwhatamI? … Whoeversmeltitdealtit! … Liarliar! Pantsonfire!! … Mummmmmyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You know what? I may be biased. I went to law school and learned about this whole law and politics thing and now I work for two judges, so I might just be hero-worshipping and sticking up for them.
But as Aunty Jan warns of the apocalyptic doom we now face because Californian Judges have decided (4:3) that it’s ok for two grown adults who just so happen to be of the same gender to commit to each other for life, she appears to have forgotten that the California Supreme Court hasn’t at all usurped the state congress’ role in deciding whether or not to extend the full entitlements of marriage to same-sex couples. The Californian Senate and Assembly legislated for the validity of same-sex marriages, without court pressure, in 2005 and 2007. The (duly elected) Govnernator vetoed the bills because he believed that same-sex marriage should be settled by the courts as the constitutionality of the 2000 “Proposition 22” referendum, in which 60% voted for a “man & woman” definition of marriage, was yet to be considered and validated.
Or maybe she didn’t know that? Come on, Aunty Jan, it really ain’t too hard to use Wikipedia. You have a doctorate in laws, don’t you? Did they give you a lobotomy and remove the section of your brain in which you stored the concept of doing “research” when you accepted the job at Teh Oz, or something?
To all my law friends, and my other friends, who are also smart and worldly (because, hello, you’re friends with me!), do you have any thoughts? Will the world now end or should we try to get Sarah Connor to crush those evil judges in hydraulic pumpy things?
I leave you with the wise words of His Honour, the irrefutably awesome, Justice Micheal Kirby, who has his own Facebook appreciation society and gets extra marks for having enticited a personal vendatta from Aunty Janet:
So long as law is something more than mere rules, so long as it speaks of deep values and human aspirations, of human dignity and fundamental rights, there will be people called judges who have the responsibility to express and apply the law and, in new circumstances, to push it forward and adapt it in a principled way. So long as judges do this, there will be critics. And sometimes the criticism will be fair and require correction. But let us resolve that the criticism will be voiced in civil language. We can leave out the bullying. Childish demonisation and name-calling should be left to infants’ schools. They are contemptible and anti-intellectual. We should resolve to replace swearwords with analysis and bullying with open-minded dialogue. [link]
After her column a couple of weeks ago about how K-Rudd’s been doin‘ O-Kay (which left more than a couple of commenters asking, “Who are you and what have you done with the real Janet?”) Aunty Jan returns to doing what she does best: writing diatribes full of broad, sweeping statements that generally end with “It has happened in the US. It should be happening here.”
This week’s thesis: “University is not the place to crush ideas”.
You’re soooooo right Aunty J. Of course it isn’t; High School is.
Sarcasm aside, I once again find myself agreeing with Janet.
Now, there’s a Facebook group called Law School: Where Idealism Goes to Die, but I promise my idealism is only slightly anemic rather than already cremated.
Mind you, my corporate-law coffin is pretty much ready and waiting for me (habour-views, satin lining and all!), but I’m not quite ready to lie down in it.
Anyway, my point is that I am certainly not one of the “group of Young Liberals” who are the subject of Albrechtsen’s current concerns (btw, as one commenter rightly points out, what counts as a ‘group’? 100? 50? 10? More than 2?). However, I do believe that “freedom of thought and intellectual freedom” (maybe articulated a little snappier) is one of the most important (if not the ultimate) tenet of a university.
However, I reckon that if JA really had her way, she’d just as biased for the Right as the Leftie Scum academics the Young Libs have a problem with. My fave comment from the blog is from Steve of Sydney:
Welcome to Janet Albrechtsen University. Please read the Charter for each of our faculties:
- Business: Maximise profit. It doesn’t matter what you do to achieve it but it helps to use others in order to get there. Global warming doesn’t exist so pollute as much as you can.
- Law: Screw the poor. The law is there to serve and protect the interests of the corporate state. All other matters are trivial.
- Medicine: Survival of the fittest is how we should gear our health systems. Don’t waste money on improving public health because there is no such thing as “the public.” It’s everyone for himself.
- Education: Our role is to churn out compliant but suitably skilled fodder for the business community.
- Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences. This faculty is now permanently closed and no correspondence will be entered into.
- Science: Studies in this faculty to be geared at improving GM crop yields in semi arid parts of South Australia.
- Architecture and Engineering: We will will teach you underlings how to design chic blocks of flats that will make good investments for those clever enough to pass our Business or Law degrees.
- Theology: We operate from the premise that the world is 6,000 years old, that church and state must be blurred and Islam must not be examined, but simply crushed. This faculty is continually upgraded thanks to our friends and sponsors from the Hillsong Church.
- International Studies. The US is unquestioningly a force for good in this world.
Full course fees, payable by your parents, are required at the time of enrolment. No “special considerations” will be entered into in ANY circumstances.
Hey!! That sounds reeeeeally familiar!!!
I often lament over the fact I have yet to attend a Real University, rather than one that (regardless of the rhetoric, trust me, I was there) pretty much ticks all the above boxes. My dreams of not having a HECS debt ended up becoming a Fee-HELP nightmare and I really don’t have many good things to say about the “University” of Notre Dame Australia.
I recently discovered ND had released an Academic Freedom Policy. And oh, what a glorious example of witty, ironic, sarcasm-based humour it is!!!!
At least I assume it is… ’cause this schizzle canno’ be fo‘ real:
1. The University of Notre Dame Australia … is an integral part of the world-wide group of great Catholic universities, and follows academic freedom norms which are common in all such universities.
5. The University hopes and anticipates that most of its students and staff will support and contribute to the context of Catholic faith and values within which it functions as an institution of higher learning.
6. The University must be a liberal and unfettered place where the basic values and beliefs of Christians are exposed, explained, researched, debated, freely challenged, and openly affirmed or rejected.
Well, at least with such clear and unambiguous terms, not, we don’t have to worry about it being binding on anyone.
Cause it (specifically number six) certainly didn’t apply to the Vice Chancellor when The Quasi tried to debate the morning-after pill, in a”fair and balanced” way with perspectives of a female student and a member of the School of Philosophy (who has since resigned, along with pretty much all of the best academic staff ND ever pretended to have).
This year’s PROSH put it so perfectly:
Notre Dame: All the downsides of Catholicism, none of the benefits of university.
From my inbox re my vile raving rant from yesterday:
Well, here I was carelessly surfing the internet and thinking to myself… geez there’s a lot of conservative crap being printed on the internet. With a slight sigh of relief I stumbled across your ‘blog.’ At the very first glance of your page I was quickly reassured with the state of the media. The media isn’t biased at all. There’s just as much conservative crap out there as there is ‘liberal’ bulldust such as yours (and for those wondering I use the term liberal very loosely).
To start off with I have to say that it is no real surprise that you got so worked up on the issue. Well, think about. If someone says something stupid your shrug your shoulders and think, if not say, what a “poor stupid bastard.” But in this case you had a person making logical, valid points and all you could respond with was a whole heap of swearing and false bravado. And to make things worse for you the person making these points was actually one of your own-kind (someone else who writes what they believe is right in an attempt to save the world.)
Oh… you thought I was referring to author’s gender. Opps, I guess you forgot the first rule of feminism: equality. Yes, that’s right – gender is irrelevant. WHEN WILL YOU PEOPLE FINALLY UNDERSTAND THIS. The fact that it was a female writing the article is completely. Utterly. Undeniably. IMMATERIAL. But I suppose I should forgive you, when you can’t attack the content of an article you have to fill your page moaning about something.
The problem with old-feminists is that they completely lost sight of what they were fighting for. Originally, they weren’t simply about women’s rights, they were about equality. It just so happens that, at the time, women were getting a bloody raw deal. So, that’s what they fought for. Tooth and nail. They fought for a system where women could be educated, given the same opportunities and be just as, if not, more successful than their muscularly enhanced counterparts.
Conveniently (but predictably) you forgot to mention the fact that women do have a chance. And not just a 30% chance either. Confused? Oh, let me remind you of someone who actually has some facts.
Women in the present day are:
* Four times LESS likely than young men to kill themselves
* 22 times LESS likely to be imprisoned.
* And MORE likely than boys to leave school with no qualifications.
Oh, but didn’t you say:
“It’s only when women are educated, supported and given the chance to excel do we have a $%&* choice.”
What’s worse is that you then go on to lament about the demise of the Office of Status of Women. Well don’t men have issues too? Isn’t this what we are fighting for here – Equality.
Oh… that’s right… now I remember why men don’t have an Office of Status. Because if they haven’t killed themselves then they are in prison or too uneducated to do anything about.
The thing that is admirable about Janet Albrechtsen is that she isn’t afraid to fight for equality. She isn’t the ego-thirsty, power-hungry person that you are. She can accept that 30% ain’t bad for women. Now, all your readers out there, bear with me here.
Let’s face facts. Men have penises and women have vaginas. Women give birth (using their vaginas). Men are strong and are more suited to the blue-collar jobs (not that anyone cares about those jobs anyway). But nevertheless, a bit like YOU said. You want to stay home and look after the kids. Well what happens if 70% of women agree with you. Do we then launch into a cry about the High Court?
No. We look at it objectively. Women have great opportunities. In fact, in some cases, they are better off than men. Most women are educated, out-of-prison and alive. And if a woman wants to gets on the High Court, SHE HAS THE OPPURTUNITY. So now that women have opportunities you can get off your high horse. Old feminism can slowly fade away. And a new, truer form of feminism can be bred where equality is fought for, regardless of the gender.
This, folks, is even more gold when one knows who wrote it, and I now feel 100% justified in certain possibly-irrational choices I may have made recently 😀
But, to the issue at hand.
I agree with you, Jane, about equality. In fact, I was discussing this issue with a Friend From Up The Road yesterday and he takes exactly the same position as you with regards to what modern feminism is about. The term feminism should apparently be scrapped (in the same way one might say the ALP should get as far away from ‘Labor’ as possible which some creative corporate re-branding, but I’ll save that one for a rainy day… it’s too lovely a day today to be angry…) in favour of ‘equalism’ or, in the alternative, we should just forget about the whole damn thing all together and just get on with our lives.
However, there’s something about forgetting the past which I just cannot deal with. What happens when you forget the past is that you make the same mistakes over and over again. This is the same issue I have with indigenous issues and economic policy… everyone gets lulled into a false sense of security when things are ‘fine’ and all of a sudden, you’re back 70 years. As long as you, Jane, promise me that on the road to equalism we don’t forget that women have suffered with the raw deal for a very long time, I agree that we need to support everyone with warm-fuzzies.
But, here’s my reply speech (especially since you don’t like them…) on the other issues you raised, in chronological order.
Firstly, I’m not the media. I’m an over-excited twenty-something nerd who hates to piss off the few real-world friends she has and has thus taken to venting in kilobytes. Furthermore, I believe there has been some good research done on the fact blogging doesn’t affect the mainstream media enough to have real impact on the information war, and with 8 hits a day I’m not part of the tiny number who may in fact do so.
Secondly, I feel that my harping on Janet Albrechtson’s gender was justified. Someone said to me yesterday that if a man had written what she had written, it would have never been published. Why would anyone say that if what she wrote wasn’t ridiculously offensive to women and the hard fight fought by crazed feminazis everywhere? Plus, she wrote it as a woman, she should be able to justify it as a woman, and so I am going to write about what she wrote as a woman.
Thirdly, would you like to re-read my post and tell me exactly how many times I moaned without discussing ‘content’? I may get emotional sometimes, but I generally try to stick to the issues at hand when I criticise something, without resorting to blatantly making stuff up.
Fourthly, I’m glad you accept that there needed to be a cat-fight for women to “given the same opportunities and be just as, if not, more successful than their muscularly enhanced counterparts” and that “as a result of the pressure from such people that many women’s lives have improved“:
This is great. Women have achieved so much. But the brutal facts remain. The vast majority of the world’s women still have very little power, at work, in their relationships at home, or in the wider world. As British social commentator Polly Toynbee noted, even in the Britain of 2004: ‘the battle is only half won.’
Worldwide, 70 per cent of those living in poverty are women, as are two-thirds of illiterate adults. One in four women is beaten by her husband or partner. Every day, 1,300 still die unnecessarily in childbirth or during pregnancy.
I do not believe feminists have “lost sight of what they were fighting for”. It is only when we accept sub-par results do we lose sight of the fight.
Fifthly, if you’re up for some websurfing: here are some more facts about women and our (cough) place in the world.
Sixthly, when I was talking about [deleted] choices, it was in the context of responding to Auntie Jan saying feminazis do not offer women ‘real choices’. I was saying we have choices. Because of feminazis and what they fought for. Yes, hurrah, something to celebrate! Auntie Jan goes on and on about how Old Femmos whine despite the progress we’ve made and yet what does she do? Whine about something we could celebrate. Way to go!
Seventhly, I understand the point you are making about the status of men. I’m sure you feel very strongly about it. All I have to say to that is, then let’s stop arguing about women and men and fix the education system which currently favours the rich over the poor and is on a steady march to increasing that divide.
Oops, did I suddenly switch from whinging about gender to whinging about class? Here’s the thing with equality in this country right now: Everything and everyone is divided into competing factions because it appears that the elites seem to like it that way. They’re happy propping up their friends to high places and ignoring those who can’t increase their status. My apologies for the digression, but there is a link…
The thing is, exactly the same issue exists with women. Women have always have and, if we ignore it, always will face an uphill battle for equality. Probably because we have different bits down there to men. (I am going to ignore the thing you said about Auntie Jan’s ego: la la la la la la imnotlisteningoriwillswearagain la la la la.) My Friend From Up The Road pointed out that the number is 30% because 20% of women are having children at all times. (Like how 69% of statistics are made up on the spot.) Well, if that is the case, I give up. I concede. Capitulate, even. Ok, we have the chance and opportunity to be on the High Court now, let’s get the hell over it.
But 30% isn’t equality yet. We need to support everyone, men, women, children, elderly, indigenous people, migrants, students, workers, heck, even wild tree frogs, but we still have to fight for equality, as the best way to provide that support. We still have to fight because the current status quo doesn’t give a shit. That’s all I was saying. That and Janet Albrechtsen is evil.
Thanks for taking the time to send me a response, and I hope to talk to you soon
P.S. I know I’m not one to talk about spelling, but I’ve recently found that Copy-Paste to Word only takes a few seconds 😉
Note: Sorry I’ve been out of the blogging loop for a while, it was due to the post-exam blob-out and being too busy in the real-world and then writing about slightly more interesting things elsewhere–I have even avoided looking the news up online–and please forgive that this response to my second favourite Tory Lady Janet Albrechtsen is a little tardy and may have been covered elsewhere. I promise I’ll be getting back into the swing of things again shortly. Oh, and yeah, I get really ticked off here, so you have hereby been given a
Anti-feminist women perplex me. Conservative anti-feminist women (though I’m hard pressed to name any progressive anti-feminist women) more so. Let’s face it, if a woman it so brainwashed by her context to think her place is in the home and she should never be able to achieve or do anything because she wants to, then I can’t blame her. Heck, if a woman sits down and has a good think about all the issues and decides, for. her. self, that’s what she wants to do, then kudos to her. But how can an educated, apparently intelligent woman of the world think so? I suppose “an intelligent Conservative” is an oxymoron. But, in my humble opinion, so is Tory Anti-Feminism.
And rightly so, because Tories like the Luddite “picket-fence, mother-at-home model” of women’s policy in preference to the “oh, shit; quick, put a woman on the High Court even if it’s solely to save us from international humiliation (even though we probably can’t be more humiliated and looked down upon…)” model.
But, surely, if a Conservative woman was all gung-ho for that personal-best-self-interest realist crap, she would be promoting the need to support women though affirmative action mechanisms because it’d be the best way for her to win?
Which I SO do not get. Doesn’t Jan realise that maybe one day she could be swinging her sensible shoes off the edge of highest park-bench in the country if only she supported giving women a so-called ‘free ride’?
No, she’s too busy pointing out that 30% is a victory.
According to Jan, ‘real women’ (of which I am apparently not one) should be celebrating (and that does not just mean being pleased with the current progress, but actually congratulating ourselves on this is be-all and end-all achievement) the following:
Women hold 33 per cent of Australian government board spots, well beyond the 8.6 per cent of seats they had on Australia’s top 200 listed companies as at June 2003. For the same period, women held more than 30 per cent of positions at the senior executive service level in the Australian public service. In the private sector the figure is 8.8 per cent. Women fill more than one quarter of Coalition seats and as Howard noted in his post-election press conference, there are more women in cabinet than at any time since Federation.
First of all… 103 years is a LONG FUCKING TIME SINCE FEDERATION, but, more bizarrely… we’re supposed to be proud of THIRTY FUCKING PERCENT?????????????
Oh, pardon me. That’s thirty-three percent of government board spots.
Fuck the fuck off, Jan. Not happy, even.
Apparently we’re not allowed to be ‘angry’ that only SIX women head government departments. That’s SIX out of EIGHTEEN departments. Good things obviously come in thirds, because this fact, according to Auntie Jan, is the. Best. Thing. Ever.
I appear to be repeating myself. But I just can’t help it. I am livid. FUCK THE FUCK OFF, JANET!!!!
On the issue that affirmative action is a ‘free ride’, Auntie Jan argues that:
… merit must come first. Short cuts based on gender will hardly advance the status of women. When you appoint a woman on sex, not talent, you risk appointing the talentless — or at least promoting that perception. And that can only encourage a view that women are not quite up to the job.
What complete and utter bullshit. On first glance, Jan’s point appears relatively rational. (Heaven forbid!)
But let’s have a think about this, shall we? (Phew. Order is once again restored to the world.)
First of all, while we may like to think we live in a meritocracy, oh no we fucking don’t. What’s the difference between appointing a woman to the High Court because she’s a woman and appointing a conservative to the High Court because he (let’s face it, he) happens to be a conservative, for fuckssakes? Because that’s what fucking happens in the fucking real world, as much as it pains me almost to the point of tears.
Second of all, we “risk appointing the talentless”??? Give me a freaking break, woman. Why don’t you just SAY “there are no talented, qualified, quite-up-to-the-job women available to fill these positions”, COUGHBULLSHITCOUGH, and just admit your redicularity (is that a word? I mean it in the same way one says ‘hilarity’). Giving women a chance to enter a male-dominated profession is shitloads more progress than THIRTY FUCKING PERCENT. Can someone please explain to me how the fuck she ever passed highschool (heck, even kindergarten) thinking THIRTY PERCENT was good enough? That concept is just spinning me out right now.
And on the issue of choice… The feminazi version of choice apparently has “a nasty tendency to transmute into the dictatorial and doctrinaire“. WANKWANKWANKWANKWANK. Your point, sweetie? (By the by, what a nice way of appealing to the masses; you go, Jan.) There is so a fucking choice when you support women. When I have children, I will stay at home with them because I’m the clucky type and I want to watch the cute little monkeys grow up. But I also want to do something with my life other than get sprogged up. That’s called choice. It’s only when we have opportunities do we have a bloody choice. It’s only when women are educated, supported and given the chance to excel do we have a fucking choice.
Finally, if it’s not too much to ask, Auntie Jan, would you care to explain and/or give an example of what you mean by “objective policy making based upon impartial research of women’s needs and wants”? I would be most appreciative. Because if that isn’t what the Office of Status of Women is about, well, then, I’m stumped.
So now I’m back to being confused. Confused as to why a woman thinks it’s fine for women to only be 30% of the decision making process which affects 50% of the population, confused as to why she’s not riding the affirmative action train to Success Station herself, since it’s in her go-get-em Tory nature anyway, and confused as to how in blazes she gets stuff published in national newspapers. (No, wait, I so know the answer to that last one: Tinkerbell.) Oh jeez, how is her existence even rational? Is she some sort of über Conservabot sent here from the future to destroy our souls or something? If so, is she from the same lab from which Ann Coulter spawned?
Right, back to being angry. Jeez Louise, I am so pissed off right now. I’m just going to stop before I say something which could get me sued. If I haven’t already.
Last night I read a post on Ann Coulter, written by an anonymous (hah) Big AC Fan, detailing an apparent example of the ‘hypocrisy’ of the left. The logic of the ‘column’, what little I can garner from it, goes something like this: Ann Coulter is a woman who says some stuff. People (aka Those Mean Lefties) criticise her, but they only point out things about her appearance. Therefore what she says is valid.
Ann (can I call her Ann? I like to keep things a little less formal over here, unless it’s completely necessary) has every right so say whatever she wants to say. It’s in that old Constitution thingy those Americans are so proud of (right after that apparently inconsequential part about separation of church and state, y’know, the First Amendment). And I totally agree that people who just sit in front of their laptops and say “She’s a whore” are not helping anyone.
The thing that confuses me is this: how can people actually read or listen to what dear Ann has to say honestly be able to defend what she says (rather than her right to say it)?
The purveyor of Defend Ann 2004 listed down a bunch of quotes berating dear Annie on the basis of her gender, appearance and sexuality as proof of why the Left Wing is sexist.
If that was the point, then I’d have to agree that that’s just not on. But, kids, let’s not forget context. Maybe we should be able to see if those Ann-haters had something meaningful to say as well? (Subtitles: what are your sources?)
But what about looking at Ann’s work itself and telling us why she should be so admired and revered? What about defending her instead of bashing her critics? “People say mean stuff about her so she should be given a medal” just doesn’t cut it for me.
So, in my dedication to rational debate, and in flagrant violation of context (because these things should not be said no matter what the context), I pulled up another random Coulter-bashing page off Google and I will reproduce some little Annie pearls of diplomacy, wit and wisdom which were reproduced in it…
“God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.'”—Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01
The “backbone of the Democratic Party” is a “typical fat, implacable welfare recipient”—syndicated column 10/29/99
To a disabled Vietnam vet: “People like you caused us to lose that war.”—MSNBC
“I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don’t need any more.” Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, “Well, before the New Deal… [The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start.”—Politically Incorrect 5/7/97
“The presumption of innocence only means you don’t go right to jail.”—Hannity & Colmes 8/24/01
“I have to say I’m all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the ‘hood to be flogged publicly.”—MSNBC 3/22/97
And as for gender, appearance and sexuality…
“Anorexics never have boyfriends. … That’s one way to know you don’t have anorexia, if you have a boyfriend.”—Politically Incorrect 7/21/97
“Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let’s just call it for what it is. They’re whores.”—Salon.com 11/16/00
“I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote.”—Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01
“Clinton is in love with the erect penis.”—This Evening with Judith Regan, Fox News Channel 2/6/00
“[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks.”—Rivera Live 8/2/99
And, my favourite Ann quote of all time, detailing her anti-terrorism policy at her old job on National Review Online* on 13 September 2001:
“we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”
You go, girlfriend.
‘[L]ogic in Miss Coulter’s arguments’ indeed. That’s all I have to say, I’m supposed to be learning about Breach of Trust. But, the moral of the story:
*Sorry, I’m not including hyper-links because those Right-Wing Arses get enough hits, but here’s Google to give you a headstart. Or better yet, go read The Nation. The blogs there are quite excellent. I highly recommend The Daily Outrage and Editor’s Cut.