Historian Arnold Toynbee defined the point at which any society becomes decadent.  Toynbee mentioned that this occurs when a society dwells upon its sex organs and displays no respect for the dead.

Tragically, child pornography on the Internet represents dire decadence.  Grave robbers and the Iraq War dead evidence disrespect for the dead.  This disrespect is also evident in Ann Coulter's disrespect for the widows of the 9/11 tragedies.  This fits another decadence definition.

Listening to Ann Coulter being interviewed on Fox New Sunday evening revealed her disrespect for the dead.  Her judgment of the widows of 9/11 definitely reached a decadent low, fitting uniquely in Arnold Toynbee's definition of the pivotal point at which a society is on its last legs.  

The fact that Ann Coulter's books have achieved consistent bestseller status makes one wonder exactly what kind of people would buy a book by such a brazen, heartless, ignorant individual.

cc: of a letter sent to The Tonight Show

Dear Jay,

I caught your show last night.

It's been a long time since I've watched The Tonight Show, but George Carlin was on and who can pass that up?  You know what I'm saying.   We're from the same neighborhood.  He's a bit older than me and we traveled in different circles, but I still feel a sort of misplaced local pride in his success. Besides he's funny as hell.

Listening to him last night was an eye opener for me.  Not the "I'm a modern man..." riff.  That was just a rollercoaster fun ride.  What struck me was how long he's been in the business and how many times he's been on the Tonight Show.  It never occurred to me how much NBC has been a part of my life, especially when I was growing up.

"How sick can a society get?"  That is a good question considering what is happening right now in the U.S.A.?

Last week in Seattle, a Mexican drug contingent was picked up.  The house they lived in was filled with cocaine and heroin, constituting a real smorgasbord of drugs.  Selling them to sick, drug-crazed Americans, they would make millions.

In the June 9, 2006 Seattle Times a headline read:  "HEAD OF POLICE PANEL ACCUSED OF CONFLICT."

The article went on to reveal: "A chairman of the Seattle Police Foundation, Michael Malone, has helped raise money for life saving gear for city cops.  He also sits on the board of a software firm that sells blockbuster games in which gamers try to elude police and kill them."

As Ann Coulter once more runs amok, throwing any form of responsibility, reason, and propriety carelessly adrift as she assails widows of 9/11 victims who dare to criticize an institution the controversial author puts above all criticism and denunciation, the Cheney-Bush wing of the Republican Party, it is time to ask a simple and basic question:

Is there any accountability for personalities who irresponsibly assail and operate in a manner inconsistent with decency or reality?

The above question prompts reflection toward an interesting interview involving Bill Moyers and David A. Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, on the former's PBS weekly television series.  Moyers had interviewed Keene during the ACU's convention.  

Keene pursued a lofty demeanor during his interview with Moyers, denouncing negative politics and stating that his organization believed in elevating dialogue and engaging in an election process in which issues are paramount and inflammatory invective discouraged.  

Professors should beware.  That is any professors to the left of Fox News, since anyone failing to heed and speak the devout word is in the sights of David Horowitz, the self-anointed head of the Thought Police maintaining watchdog status over academia.

According to Horowitz there are 50,000 college and university professors currently endangering students with exposure to anti-American propaganda.  Since this is a tall order for even as devoted a right wing zealot as Horowitz to handle at one time, he has concentrated his efforts on those he deems to be the 101 leading malefactors.

The Horowitz crusade takes the form of a propaganda-laden book entitled The Professors:  The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.  Assuming equal interest to the author's background and agenda is the identity of the publisher, Alfred Regnery, also known, and with good reason, as "the right wing publishing ghetto."  

One work that emerged as a gigantic bestseller released by Regnery was Unlimited Access, written by former CIA operative Gary Aldrich.  

Professors should beware.  That is any professors to the left of Fox News, since anyone failing to heed and speak the devout word is in the sights of David Horowitz, the self-anointed head of the Thought Police maintaining watchdog status over academia.

According to Horowitz there are 50,000 college and university professors currently endangering students with exposure to anti-American propaganda.  Since this is a tall order for even as devoted a right wing zealot as Horowitz to handle at one time, he has concentrated his efforts on those he deems to be the 101 leading malefactors.

One work that emerged as a gigantic bestseller released by Regnery was Unlimited Access, written by former CIA operative Gary Aldrich.  

The author disclosed that while in the White House Hillary Clinton decorated the national Christmas tree with pornographic ornaments while Bill snuck away from his Secret Service detail in the wee hours of the morning and walked by himself to the Marriott Hotel a few blocks away on Pennsylvania Avenue to engage in secret trysts with young women.  

Former right wing author-propagandist David Brock, who ultimately broke away from the Fox-Scaife-Limbaugh-Reveren d Moon axis, revealed that he was the "source" that Aldrich thought reliable enough to use for the Bill Clinton "disclosure."  

Brock explained that he disclosed to Aldrich that such a rumor was making the rounds, which was good enough for both the author and his publisher, even though Brock stressed that it was unconfirmed.  

When employees at the Marriott were interviewed in connection with the Aldrich charge by the media, raucous laughter was the response.  As one employee stated, "How could President Clinton come and go in the early hours when our lobby is virtually empty without being discovered?"

Despite no evidence being forthcoming to substantiate either absurd charge, Alfred Regnery stuck by both revelations and the work became a bestseller icon to the hate Clinton crowd.  Regnery also was noted for providing that historian of probity and incisive accuracy, Ann Coulter, with an early showcase to try out some of her earliest "traitor" lines in print.

Horowitz fits comfortably into the aforementioned tradition, a former Marxist firebrand who merely traded brands of extremist thought.  

It is significant how many times this occurs, only to find the right douse their newly devoted converts with an appropriate holy water welcome.  The right's leading voices assert that a watershed conversion has occurred when in reality a troubled fanatic has no more than begun reading from a different script.

Two of the accused professors have responded recently to Horowitz's charges while, in recent Amazon.com reviews, students have come to the defense of others, relying on a firsthand experience unknown to Horowitz.  

One of the professors Horowitz singled out was Professor David Barash of the University of Washington.  Considering the topic Barash chose for his latest book, Horowitz's suspicions are understandable.  

The psychology professor, who teaches a course in Ideas of Human Nature, dared to co-author a book on Peace and Conflict Studies, crossing paths with the neoconservative agenda embraced by Horowitz natural allies such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.  

"Some of the assertions in Horowitz's book are flat-out lies," Barash wrote in an e-mail, the contents of which were published in The Daily, Washington University's campus newspaper.  "He evidently didn't bother to read my Peace and Conflict Studies book, but simply took it as an occasion to agitate."

Barash tackled the crux of the issue in stating, "I've never made any bones about my personal politics, but I also think it's very important that I don't expect my students to agree with me."  Barash noted that, while it might be true that in social work and the humanities there might be a "left bias," he conjectures that "the exact opposite is true in engineering schools or business."

Taking up a related point was another individual singled out for rebuke by Horowitz, Professor Robert W. McChesney of the University of Illinois.  

Considering that McChesney has been an articulate critic of the current monopoly of the mainstream media by the likes of Fox and Clear Channel, and co-authored with John Nichols the incisive work Tragedy:  How The American Media Sells Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy, he would thereby loom as a conspicuous Horowitz target.

After all, don't O'Reilly, Hannity and their Fox colleagues insist that the network is objective and is criticized only because they refuse to sell out to the left?  This is the message that the propaganda machine, of which Horowitz plays an ardent part, has attempted to inculcate into the minds of Americans.

McChesney, in responding to Horowitz's attack on the website CommonDreams.org, cited the prevalence of staunchly conservative thought in an area where Horowitz has never treaded, that of the U.S. military.  

"Generals and military officers are far more important (than professors) to the functioning of a government," McChesney wrote, "and, as history shows in depressingly frequent detail, a much greater threat to democratic governance than anthropology professors.  In the United States the military is enormous, it is entirely funded by taxpayers, and the officer corps is significantly right-wing Republican.  There is hardly a liberal Democrat in the bunch, and I dare say probably not a single soul to the left of the Clinton-Kerry center of the Democratic Party."

McChesney, a shrewd media critic who knows undiluted propaganda when he observes it, finds it "revealing that Horowitz uses the term `dangerous' as a pejorative in his book's subtitle.  Dangerous professors are those with ideas with which Horowitz disagrees.  This is a ludicrously opportunistic and undemocratic framing.  The entire premise of a viable democratic public sphere is that what some perceive as `dangerous' ideas be protected, even encouraged, and permitted to be thrown into debate.  Especially, above all else, in universities."

If there is one thing that Horowitz and his ideological allies do not want it is a free marketplace of ideas.  What troubles Horowitz is that there are those that dare to think rather than fall into the tidy pattern of Fox zombies, docilely accepting the communicative Big Brother's message of the moment, whether it be disseminated by Horowitz, Limbaugh, Coulter or Hannity.  

The phrase "dare to think" is a toxic to the likes of Horowitz.  If you dare to stand up for the First Amendment and freedom to worship or not to do so without government interference, if you believe that the government has no right to intrude into an individual's thoughts or bedroom, known traditionally as a right of privacy, or if you believe that searches should be preceded by warrants from magistrates, or that the Nuremberg and UN charters along with the Geneva Code should all be followed under both U.S. and international law, then Horowitz and his thought police have news for you.

The foregoing used to be regarded as bedrock constitutional principles by both traditional John Stuart Mill liberals as well as Edmund Burke conservatives.  To adhere to these principles currently is to invite at least suspicion, perhaps investigation, and maybe prosecution under the dire Orwellian warning, "We are at war!  You are making the world safer for terrorists!"    

Ann Coulter's latest column implies that a legally-conducted New York Times investigation is equivalent to the illegal spying conducted by Bush, libels Frank Rich, advocates the use of torture and genocide, and makes racist statements about Arabs and Asians:

...I have difficulty ginning up much interest in [Bush's criminal activities] inasmuch as I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East...

There are no Japanese internment camps today. (Although the no-limit blackjack section at Caesar's Palace on a Saturday night comes pretty close.)

Someone needs to tell Coulter that Israel is in the Middle East... unless she wants Israel hit by daisy cutters, in which case we can add anti-Semitism to her ever-growing list of abhorrent character flaws.

All in all, business as usual for the immoral, intellectually bankrupt, treasonous elitist. Let's hope the next pie that hits her in the face contains anthrax.

Ann Coulter isn't a happy camper these days. Her President is an unpopular liar, Michelle Malkin is stealing her "Crazy Conservative She-Devil" shtick, and all her idols/Sith Lords are being brought up on one charge or another.

So what does she want? Why, to join them, of course:

I'm getting a little insulted that no Democratic prosecutor has indicted me. Liberals bring trumped-up criminal charges against all the most dangerous conservatives. Why not me?

I never thought she'd admit that conservatives were dangerous. But wait, there's more!

I've done a lot for my country. I think I deserve to be indicted, too. How am I supposed to show my face around Washington if I haven't been "frog-marched" out of my office by some liberal D.A. looking to move to D.C. for the next Democratic administration? What's a girl have to do to become a "person of interest" around here? Mr. Krischer, where do I go to get rid of my reputation?

Can't we help her out?

Once again, Ann (Plagiarist) Coulter, you expose yourself as a hate-filled propagandist whose physical emaciation is matched only by your intellectual anemia.

"It probably goes without saying that it is extraordinary for criminal charges to be thrown out by a judge before any jury ever hears the evidence. For the judge to dismiss an indictment before trial, it means he concluded that -- even if the jury finds everything Ronnie Earle alleges to be true -- no crime was committed."

Wow, Ann... now we know why you're so horrifically thin: You're constantly overreaching -- and burning-off way too many calories stretching the truth. The conspiracy charge wasn't thrown out because it was baseless, it was thrown out on a technicality:

...DeLay lawyer Dick DeGuerin argued that one of the charges -- conspiracy to violate the Texas election code -- did not even take effect until September 2003, a year after the alleged offenses occurred.

Prosecutors, however, said the crime of conspiracy was already on the books and could be applied to the election code even though such uses were not explicitly in state law at the time.

"Obviously, this was a huge victory for DeLay..."

Sure, it's a HUGE victory ... if you discount the fact that one charge was thrown out on a technicality while the more serious charge of money laundering stands, and the fact that the still-indicted DeLay is unable to return to his House post, and the fact that his party is looking to replace him, and the fact that he has to spend time and money to defend himself against criminal charges, and the fact that the latest legal development reminded voters that he's in trouble.

What are you waiting for, Annie? Break out the champagne!

bzbb at My Left Nutmeg wrote up an interesting diary on Cindy Sheehan's visit to Uconn the other day. Given that it is crunch time for students across the nation I thought that I would give bzbb a little cover before coming back with a promissed diary on Anne Coulter's visit to Uconn. (Good luck in your exams, and essay efforts!)

Needless to say, Coulter wasted very little time going from zero to idiot:

STORRS, Connecticut (AP) -- Conservative columnist Ann Coulter cut short a speech at the University of Connecticut amid boos and jeers, and decided to hold a question-and-answer session instead.

"I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am," Coulter told the crowd of 2,600 Wednesday.

Before cutting off her speech after about 15 minutes, Coulter called Bill Clinton an "executive buffoon" who won the presidency only because Ross Perot took 19 percent of the vote.

Yep! Right into her GOP talking points without a moment to spare.

I said "Darling, you sound like a prostitute pursing"

Click on to feel the love down below...

Wow. News Flash: Ann Coulter's an asshole.

Didn't she jump the shark a long time ago?

Must be a slow news day.

R.J. Eskow has a delightfully scathing piece about plagiarist Ann Coulter and the pathetic, hypocritical whining noises she made to the Terrorist Sympathizer this week.

"The I Hate Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity Reader" has a title that bears on the hatred spewed by the radical right wing spokespersons evaluated.  Those who object to the title should reflect on the words of those individuals analyzed.  Their own words defy any claim to reason and decency as those who disagree with their viewpoints are savagely excoriated in the midst of diatribes bereft of reason.

A hilarious beginning point is Ann Coulter.  With seething ferocity Coulter attacked Bill Clinton's morality and still vehemently believes that he should have been removed from office for his sexual indiscretions.  When Coulter was cornered on the Geraldo Rivera Show for her lifestyle while living in Manhattan and dating successful pornographer Robert Guccione Jr. she replied, "I'm not married and I can sleep with as many people as I want!"

Plagiarist and traitor Ann Coulter has slandered decorated war veteran John Murtha. E-mail the Universal Press Syndicate (lsalem@amuniversal.com) and tell them what you think of the screeching, venemous Eva Braun-wannabee and her latest piece of extreme right-wing propaganda.

(Via Think Progress)