Jersey Girls And Adams Apples

Ann Coulter has to a great many finally stepped well over the line of good taste, but she don’t mind, it seems. In fact, it could well be argued that she prefers that position. In her recent book, Godless, she has placed the widows of 9/11 on the same par as Cindy Shehan, yet another set of poster children that can speak for the liberal philosophy in such a way that the average conservative can not dare to question their integrity or motivations. Of course, making such an insinuation to Ann Coulter is like throwing red meat to the wolves, and Ann Coulter is ravinish in her displays of contempt for all matters liberal, and for those liberals who promote them-nomatter who they are.

On a recent appearrance on the Today Show, however, she seemed genuinely stunned, and even thrown off balance, by the questions of Matt Lauer. She never quite recovered from his acussations of insensitivity to the 9/11 widows, though she insisted that their loss, their grief, did not give them a free pass to, for example, support John Kerry in the last Presidential race, and not be questioned for it.

But what she never explained to my satisfaction is exacty why they should not have a right to support any position they choose, without having their integrity questioned. She made some vaque remark about being used by either the Demcoratic Party, or the Far Left, or both, as though they were purposely sought out, recruited for this, much like Cindy Shehan seems to have been recruited by Micharel Moore and MoveOn.org, after having initially met with Presidnt Bush and expressed a belief that he was sincere in his grief for the loss of her son Cassey.

In Shehans example, one could conceivaby make such a case. In the case of the 9/11 widows, however, she offers no evidence of any kind of collussion, of any kind of opportunism, other than the evidence of what she considers the apparent symptoms, that being their support for Democrats and their oppossition to the policies for the Bush Administration.

Well, the only problem with that idea is, a lot of times what might appear to be the symptom of one ailment might well turn out to prove to be something entirely different. And, sometimes, a symptom that might obviously point to one malady might in fact turn out to be just what it is.

An example of the first deceptive type of symptom might be what has been construed to be an adams apple that adorns theneck of Ms. Coulter, which some wags have suggested is an indication that Ann Coulter in reality is, or at one time was, “Mann Coulter”. A cleverly ingenious satire of this theory is to be read in this article. Of course, the adams apple is either not truly an adams apple, or if it is, it is an obvious anomaly, perhaps some kind of birth defect, which is a misleading symptom, one pointing toward a different explanation than tothis one that is often profferred in satire, more often than not malicoulsy so.

An example of the second type of symptom might be applicable to these particular widows of the 9/11 disasters. Until proven otherwise, it should just be surmised that their liberal sympathies might be an indication of-surprise, surprise-they are democrats, with a liberal predisposition. Nothing more, nothing less. In some cases it may or may not be at least a partial result of the 9/11 disaster that they sufferred through so traumatically. That is certainly understandable, if so.

And, it is fine to disagree with their position. It is quite another thing to question their motivations, or their integrity.