Ann Coulter & the 9/11 Widows

[Jim]

If you've not seen the clip, it's worth watching. "I Have Never Seen People Enjoying their Husbands’ Death So Much??" Yowzers.

[swansont]

I shudder every time I hear or read Ann Coulter stating what someone else believes. Consequently I try not to benefit from her "wisdom" very often.

[Pangloss]

Like it or not, she has a valid point. When she talks about the specific 9/11 widows who have taken an outspoken political stance, those people are fair game, and that particular interpretation, while nasty, is a valid one.

 

And if they were men the subject wouldn't even come up.

 

Of course her methods are not those which I would employ, nor can I endorse them. As I've said many times here, I am opposed to demogoguery, and I believe in using reasoned, respectful discourse to solve problems.

 

She also loses me when she fails to make a distinction between those specific widows and others who have, perhaps, made only a slight comment in answer to a direct question, and haven't really gotten involved in a formal way. But in MOST of the interviews I've heard, including the one posted here with Matt Lauer, she does make the key distinction. I did, however, hear another one in which she did NOT make the distinction, but the setting was such that it was quite possible that she missed the subtle shift in premise by the questioner.

 

By the way, I can't wait to see people on this board who thought it was okay for senators to call each other "bigots" in legislative debate will now tell us that it's NOT okay for Ann Coulter to treat 9/11 widows disrespectfully. That should be interesting.

[zyncod]

I note, however, that she said nothing about those widows that got up onstage with GWB at the 2004 Republican Convention. Perhaps it's only exploiting widowhood if you're a liberal.

[Pangloss]

That's an absolutely valid point as well.

[bascule]

I think Alan Colmes has Ann Coulter figured out. She's a troll. She's no different from revprez. She says things which are controversial for two reasons: to get a rise out of people who disagree with her, and to get attention.

 

The best way to deal with people like her is to ignore her. DNFT.

[Tetrahedrite]

Being an Australian, I don't come across here opinions very often, but ouch, she really does have a bee in her bonnet!

[PhDP]

I wonder... she's from New England, many from New England descended from Quebeckers ("French-Canadians"), and her surname is quite similar to the common French-Canadian surname "Cloutier"... If it's the case, I don't think she's proud of it...

 

What's disturbing is not really what she says, but that so many people are buying her books.

[Jim]

I think Alan Colmes has Ann Coulter figured out. She's a troll. She's no different from revprez. She says things which are controversial for two reasons: to get a rise out of people who disagree with her' date=' and to get attention.

 

The best way to deal with people like her is to ignore her. DNFT.[/quote']

 

Guys, shouldn't we get over revprez, eventually.

 

Like it or not, she has a valid point. When she talks about the specific 9/11 widows who have taken an outspoken political stance, those people are fair game, and that particular interpretation, while nasty, is a valid one.

 

I agree that if you enter the public arena you are fair game and that she may have some valid points about specific widows. HOWEVER, sheesh, to say what she said seems self-destructive. I know she doesn't pull punches but good grief, to say that never have widows enjoyed the deaths of their husbands?

[ecoli]

Guys, shouldn't we get over revprez, eventually.

 

Now that I think of it, she is a lot like Revprez. Every once in a while, she'll come out with some interesting points, but without any tact, and in the most offensive way possible.

[bascule]

Like it or not, she has a valid point. When she talks about the specific[/i'] 9/11 widows who have taken an outspoken political stance, those people are fair game, and that particular interpretation, while nasty, is a valid one.

 

Sounds like she feels these people are generally considered beyond reproach due to their circumstances of having lost a loved one, and therefore, shouldn't be political, especially about their loss.

[ecoli]

not even that they shouldn't be political, just that they shouldn't voice their opinions in a forum where they protect themselves against rebuttal.

[Sisyphus]

Is that what they've done? Seems like nobody has had a problem disagreeing with them, and I don't think that's really what this is about. It's just about provoking liberals into a sputtering rage, trying to get them to say something embarrassing. It's just what Coulter always does, and I doubt she actually believes much of it at all (the position is too absurd, the accusation too unnecessarily and ridiculously offensive, and the hypocrisy too blatant for me to believe it's what a presumably intelligent person actually thinks). It's got nothing to do with any real issue, which, Pangloss, is why it's different from the "bigot" thing, where whether or not it's bigotry is precisely the point.

 

As an aside, here's the NY Times' account of Senator Clinton's response, and Coulter's oh-so-witty reply. Biased, perhaps, but it hardly needs to be...

 

WASHINGTON, June 7 — Hillary Rodham Clinton assailed the conservative commentator Ann Coulter on Wednesday for engaging in a "vicious, mean-spirited attack" on a group of 9/11 widows and in turn drew fire herself.

 

In a new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," Ms. Coulter accuses the women — who pushed the Bush White House to create a commission to investigate the government's failures before the 9/11 attacks — of being "self-obsessed" and acting "as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them."

 

"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," Ms. Coulter writes, according to The Associated Press.

 

"And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they better hurry up and appear in Playboy," The Daily News quoted the book as saying.

 

In taking on Ms. Coulter, Mrs. Clinton joined a chorus of critics — including relatives of Sept. 11 victims and politicians from both parties — who expressed outrage over the remarks.

 

Mrs. Clinton, who has been a target of Ms. Coulter's through the years, responded sharply when asked by reporters for her reaction to the author's views. "I know a lot of the widows and family members who lost loved ones on 9/11," she said. "They never wanted to be a member of a group that is defined by the tragedy of what happened."

 

Mrs. Clinton went on to say that she thought it was "unimaginable that anyone in the public eye could launch a vicious, mean-spirited attack on people whom I've known over the last four and a half years to be concerned deeply about the safety and security of our country.

 

"Perhaps her book should have been called 'Heartless,' " Mrs. Clinton said.

 

Asked to respond to Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Coulter sent an e-mail message claiming that Bill Clinton had grossly mistreated women. "Before criticizing others for being 'mean to women,' perhaps Hillary should talk to her husband," her e-mail message said in part.

 

Criticisms of Ms. Coulter's book on Wednesday came from Republicans as well. Gov. George E. Pataki of New York was harshly critical of Ms. Coulter's comments. "I was really stunned and I don't think it's at all fair or accurate," Mr. Pataki said, according to The Associated Press.

 

Ms. Coulter's attacks in the book were aimed at four New Jersey widows — Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza — known in Washington for their political activities, including pushing for the 9/11 commission and seeking more rigorous security measures.

 

The women issued a joint statement. "We have been slandered," the women said, according to The Associated Press. "Contrary to Ms. Coulter's statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day."

[Severian]

I must admit to having some sympathy for her point of view. I don't think the deaths of people in 9/11 were any more tragic than people dieing of cancer or in automobile accidents. As someone who is not American (and live in the country which has been plague by terrorists for decades) I found myself a little bemused by the extreme emotional reaction that 9/11 caused. And it definitely does look like some of the widows are 'milking it'.

[Jim]

I must admit to having some sympathy for her point of view. I don't think the deaths of people in 9/11 were any more tragic than people dieing of cancer or in automobile accidents. As someone who is not American (and live in the country which has been plague by terrorists for decades) I found myself a little bemused by the extreme emotional reaction that 9/11 caused. And it definitely does look like some of the widows are 'milking it'.

 

I agree there is a grain of truth to what she wrote BUT she always goes several steps beyond necessary. Tucker Carlson said the other night that he thinks she must have masochistic tendencies.

 

I will also say that there is some resentment in my home state as to the relative financial treatment of the 9/11 vrs the OKC bombing victims.

[ecoli]

I agree there is a grain of truth to what she wrote BUT she always goes several steps beyond necessary. Tucker Carlson said the other night that he thinks she must have masochistic tendencies.

 

indeed. She lacks all semblance of tact.

 

I will also say that there is some resentment in my home state as to the relative financial treatment of the 9/11 vrs the OKC bombing victims.

 

Well, that's just ridiculous. How can you expect funding for the OKC bombing to match that of 9/11?

 

168 people were killed as opposed to 2,000. And, it was carried out by a relatively small, political powerless group, as opposed to a huge terrorist cell with the full support of foriegn governments.

[Sisyphus]

Well, define "milking it." It would be ridiculous to say they're glad their husbands were killed, which is indeed what Ms. Coulter does say. If you mean they shouldn't have the special status they do, then fine, but I don't think they've done anything wrong. From the one event, they gained both a great deal of motivation and the visibility needed to do something about it. Unless you're going to say that people with any kind of celebrity shouldn't offer their political opinions, then they haven't done anything wrong except, of course, be liberals, which is the real capital offense in this case. It's not just a matter of lacking tact when speaking the truth. She clearly cares what they think, because she wants to hurt them, because she's a masochist, and she's speaking irrelevancies.

[ecoli]

Well, define "milking it." It would be ridiculous to say they're glad their husbands were killed, which is indeed what Ms. Coulter does say.

 

No, that's not what she said. She said that the widow's were enjoying their husband's death. As in, they are enjoying the advantages of 'celebraty' status. Which allows them to speak on a closed political forum... basically allowing them to say whatever they want, and using their widow status to block opposing ideas.

[Jim]

indeed. She lacks all semblance of tact.

 

 

 

Well' date=' that's just ridiculous. How can you expect funding for the OKC bombing to match that of 9/11?

 

168 people were killed as opposed to 2,000. And, it was carried out by a relatively small, political powerless group, as opposed to a huge terrorist cell with the full support of foriegn governments.[/quote']

 

This all begs the question of the principle behind the compensation to 9/11 victims. If I understood that principle, I could comment on whether the facts you cite distinguish the two cases.

 

Personally, I think if we are going to compensate anyone it should be the families of soldiers who die or are maimed.

[Severian]

Personally' date=' I think if we are going to compensate anyone it should be the families of soldiers who die or are maimed.[/quote']

 

Don't you do this in the US already?

[swansont]

This all begs the question of the principle behind the compensation to 9/11 victims. If I understood that principle' date=' I could comment on whether the facts you cite distinguish the two cases.

 

Personally, I think if we are going to compensate anyone it should be the families of soldiers who die or are maimed.[/quote']

 

There's one distinction that must be made, I think. US military, especially today with the all-volunteer system, have an inkling of what they're getting themselves into. You sign your name (repeatedly) on the dotted line, and while you may never visualize yourself getting hurt or killed, it's a risk that's explicitly part of the job. That's not true (or true to a much, much lesser extent) of someone that works in an office building.

 

I don't know what the situation is today, but I recall having $50k of GI life insurance when I was in the navy. Don't remember if that was standard or you could opt-in/opt-out, though.

[scicop]

Hate to say it, but too bad Ann Coulter wasn't in the towers. We'd be speared her drivel.

[Jim]

Don't you do this in the US already?

 

I thought they just got an insurance policy that was no where near the millions that went to 9/11 survivors.

 

There's one distinction that must be made' date=' I think. US military, especially today with the all-volunteer system, have an inkling of what they're getting themselves into. You sign your name (repeatedly) on the dotted line, and while you may never visualize yourself getting hurt or killed, it's a risk that's explicitly part of the job. That's not true (or true to a much, much lesser extent) of someone that works in an office building.

 

I don't know what the situation is today, but I recall having $50k of GI life insurance when I was in the navy. Don't remember if that was standard or you could opt-in/opt-out, though.[/quote']

 

Doing a bit of research, it appears that part of the reason this fund was made was to justify cutting off liability of airplanes, airports, etc:

 

Because of concerns that liability claims would clog the courts and create further economic harm, the federal government limited the liability of airlines, airports and certain government bodies. The government established the Victim Compensation Fund to make payments to families for the deaths and injuries of victims. In addition, the government funded a major economic revitalization program for New York City.

 

I suppose this makes sense however, the amounts involved are staggering:

 

Civilians killed or seriously injured received a total of $8.7 billion, averaging about $3.1 million per recipient. Most of this came from the Victim Compensation Fund, but payments also came from insurance companies, employers and charities.

 

Another rationale is to simply refuse to let terroritsts succeed. If terrorists attack us we are not going to let them impoverish families. This rationale should apply equally to domestic terrorism.

 

As far as the relative impact of the act on the community, hands down 9/11 was a vastly more significant event. However, as was noted in the Chicago Tribune:

 

It turns out, though, that while the Sept. 11 attacks were vastly more devastating in both human and economic terms, the Oklahoma City bombing was a more intimate crime. Officials here estimate that more than one-third of the 1 million people in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area knew someone who was killed or injured in the bombing.

 

It does seem strange that 9/11 victims are overnight millionares whereas the OKC bombing famlies are in some cases destitute:

 

"Everybody thought that all the people from the bombing were taken care of," said Tim Hearn, who quit a promising college basketball career to return home and care for his four younger siblings after his mother was killed in the bombing. "That's how the media made it look. But it wasn't nothing like that. We're living day by day."

 

The site where the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building once stood was long ago covered over by a striking memorial. A modernistic--and blast-resistant--new federal building stands defiantly across the way. The scarred downtown has been sleekly remade.

 

But 10 years after the Oklahoma City bombing, which killed 168 people and injured 842 others, the shock waves are still radiating outward.

 

Families in poverty

 

Despite more than $40 million in donations that streamed into Oklahoma City in the days after the bombing to help the victims, more than 60 families of modest means were thrown into such poverty as a result of deaths or injuries that they must still rely on charities to meet their basic needs. Another 70 victims are still receiving psychiatric care.

[swansont]

As far as the relative impact of the act on the community' date=' hands down 9/11 was a vastly more significant event. However, as was noted in the Chicago Tribune:

 

"It turns out, though, that while the Sept. 11 attacks were vastly more devastating in both human and economic terms, the Oklahoma City bombing was a more intimate crime. Officials here estimate that more than one-third of the 1 million people in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area knew someone who was killed or injured in the bombing."

 

[/quote']

 

 

What's the significance of that, though? It's really just the statistics involved; a smaller city will have a higher chance that two randomly chosen people know each other. Have a similar event happen in a town of 1000 and the fraction goes up even further.

[Jim]

What's the significance of that, though? It's really just the statistics involved; a smaller city will have a higher chance that two randomly chosen people know each other. Have a similar event happen in a town of 1000 and the fraction goes up even further.

 

It is probably as irrelevant as is the total number of deaths to the amount of per capita compensation which should be awarded. As I said from the beginning, the first step is to consider the principles involved which justify compensation. Only then can we assess whether we should compensate.