Sunday, June 11, 2006
Ann Coulter on "emotional welfare"
Gaby Wood of The Guardian pulls himself together and has lunch with Ann Coulter. Heh:
Coulter was born in 1961 in New York then moved to Connecticut, birthplace of both Colt and Winchester gun manufacturers. Her father was a WASP lawyer who made his name as a union buster, and her 'Southern Belle' mother looked after Ann and her two elder brothers. It was a 'really nice', 'boring', 'happy' family, she says. Every Friday, they would come into the city and go to the Philharmonic. As a family they never talked about personal things. 'It's not necessarily all about politics but when you're with smart people, you're talking about things at a higher level,' Coulter expands, 'You're talking about ideas, telling jokes, it's not: this is what happened to me today.'
'Who looked after your emotional welfare?' I ask.
Coulter laughs out loud - a laugh that means: what will these idiot liberals think of next? 'Wasps aren't into that,' she says. 'In fact, if I ever used the words "emotional welfare", I would be sent to my room without dinner.'
Indeed. Our schools, families, businesses, and politics would be a lot better off if people stopped worrying about the "emotional welfare" of others. The new and bizarre requirement that we must protect other people from their own emotional reactions requires us invade the minds of the people around us. Concern for the "emotional welfare" of others -- particularly strangers or others with whom you have exchanged no personal commitment -- is precisely the same logic that explains away rioting over cartoons (for example) or violent crime on account of upbringing. If you react with rage, sorrow, violence or suicidal depression to something I say, we ought to regard your reaction as your choice and responsibility. If we make your feelings my responsibility, then you will not learn to control your emotions. In other words, you won't grow up, and I will forever contort myself wondering how you will react next. Why is that good for either of us?
3 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun Jun 11, 09:09:00 PM:
I never thought that looking out for someone's emotional welfare meant "protect(ing) other people from their own emotional reactions," and I'm not sure that's what the interviewer was asking Coulter. A parent should always look out for their child's emotional welfare and steer them in the right direction for maturity's sake. That's partially what parenting is about (up to a certain age, of course). Concern for emotional welfare does NOT explain away rioting over cartoons or violent crime on account of upbringing. Not having a brain and being blindly devoted to a religion may explain those things. Maybe we're labeling the whole "emotional welfare" thing differently, but I'm glad my folks and community had great concern for mine to show me how to be respectful and patient towards others, otherwise I'd end up a snotty, stuck up, mean-spirited bitch like Ann.
By 
Wes, at
Sun Jun 11, 10:57:00 PM:
Ann Coulter is a nut bag who probably should be shunned by the republican base just like Hannity, Rush, etc. To say these wives are happy that thier husbands have died only to make a profit and recieve fame is crazy and she is either desperate to sell books or truly crazy. How people vote republican is beyond me and I hope her actions continue to motivate voters to help the democrats take back congress in '06 and the white house in '08.
www.wesleydjones.com
blogspot.illmaticone.com
www.omega-baa.org
By DaveG, at
Mon Jun 12, 08:28:00 AM:
I hope her actions continue to motivate voters to help the democrats take back congress in '06 and the white house in '08.
Don't hold your breath, fella. While Ann may be a bit over-the-top, her underlying point is valid. Consider her the Republicans answer to the Mary Mapes "fake but accurate" standard. The belief that forcing yourself into the public limelight and spouting off about things you have no meaningful knowledge of other than the loss of a spouse, and that your message can't be answered or criticized because of your emotional loss, is patently ridiculous, and is typical of the thin-skinned Dems "free speech for me but not for thee" mentality. If even half of the vituperative ire spouted off my Dem leaders were returned in kind, they'd curl up into a ball and cry themselves to sleep every night.
Until Dems learn to quick making excuses, playing the race and victim cards (the royal flush of posturing), and come up with something other than shrill "Bush Lied!", "Bush is a monkey," "Bush is Hitler reincarnate," and the rest of the litany of loser-whining chants, they will remain a useless minority party.
