Friday, March 10, 2006

Oscar the grouch

Somebody grab me an umbrella, because Ann Coulter just spewed forth another dose of racist, bigoted, hate-filled bile. In her latest quasi column she unloads on the winners of the Oscars and those damn homosexuals that are conspiring to steal Hollywood:

'This may have been the most American Oscars yet, if America consisted of beautiful airheads in $50,000 dresses. And that was just the guys in "Brokeback Mountain."'

I've come to realize that Ann sees the world in strictly partisan terms. She views the Oscars, not as a light and fluffy look at the dubious artistic merits of Hollywood's yearly output, but rather which side of politics the event leans towards:

"Although I must tell you, overall, this Academy Awards ceremony was a major strategic retreat by Hollywood. Despite all their Bolshevik bluster about how Democratic politicians won't stand up to Republicans, the Hollywood left is as scared of decent patriotic Americans as the Democrats are.

"Brokeback Mountain" did not win best picture, "Munich" won nothing, and the Palestinian suicide bombers movie won nothing. There was no angry self-righteousness from Vanessa Redgrave against "Zionist hooligans," or from Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon for the Haitian boat people. There was no Bush-bashing. There was no Michael Moore. The host was not Whoopi Goldberg, so that's a big fat reward to every man, woman and child in America right there."

"Bolshevik bluster"!?! "The Hollywood left"!?! Sure, there are some left wingers in Hollywood - Matt Damon, George Clooney et-al. - but how many people in the audience do you remember applauding Mike Moore last year when he got up to make his acceptance speech; you know, the one that was highly critical of team Bush? I'd say the audience response on that night was evenly divided between cheers and jeers.

As you can see, Coulter sees Brokeback's failure to win best picture as some sort of victory, even though the result smashes down her earlier predictions that it would win simply on account of its subject matter.

I'll leave it up to you to decide why Ann doesn't like Whoopi Goldberg.

But wait! Ann's attack on her favorite minority group hasn't finished yet. No, no - how could she lay down her keyboard without first smacking down gays:

"Even on AIDS — which is something you'd expect people like Clooney to know something about — Hollywood was about seven years behind. Wait, no — bad choice of words. Even on AIDS, Hollywood got caught with its pants down. Still no good. On AIDS, Hollywood got it right in the end. Oh, dear ... Note to self: Must hire two more interns to screen hate mail."

What's a couple of gay jokes between conservative friends, eh?

It is at this point in proceedings that it starts to get a little chilling. Mostly her rage filled outbursts are simply the ravings of a paranoid, ignorant wretch; the mutterings of the local bag lady, standing on the corner trying to swat imaginary flies. But note this little phrase in her retort to George Clooney's speech:

(Emphasis mine)

"Forget about Hollywood being ahead of the big issues: Hollywood has never even been on time for the big issues. This is why, for example, in the middle of an epic war with Islamic fascists, Hollywood is still making movies about the Nazis. Now and then, just for variety, they tackle a more current topic, like the Jim Crow era."

This for me illustrates the current conservative mindset towards war in general and the War Against Terror(TM) specifically - they think that war is "epic". I think that for someone who clearly doesn't get out and watch many movies, Ann has been watching a little too much Lord of the rings. Anyone that has had an IED tear through the side of their vehicle, ripping through muscle, sinew and bone without remorse, would probably disagree that war is epic. I'd say that anyone who has had a misdirected smart bomb - an oxymoron if ever I've heard one - drop on their house, turning women, men, and children into meatloaf, would probably consider Ann Coulter and her epic wars a lunatic.

But if Ann's dark fantasy of epic battles chills me, her take on race relations really get the Goosebumps a-bumping:

(Emphasis mine)

"Only recently has George Clooney heard about segregation. (He's against it.) But he still can't nail down the details of something that ended nearly half a century ago."

Why would Ann need to highlight what should be an obvious position on segregation? What is Ann's position on this matter? Does she think there is room for contrary opinions on the topic? And remember while you ponder the answers to those questions that Ann isn't out of the mainstream - the Republican Party still has her speak at their conservative rallies, she is still given airtime on conservative talk-shows, and she still has a large readership for her column.

No comments: