CONTEMPT (PART 1)! Coulter is filled with contempt for the public. But then, so are most of her friends:
MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2005
LIKE THAT ALL HER LIFE: Last week, we thought of Marla Ruzicka every time we quoted The Second Coming, in which Yeats foresaw a future where the worst are full of passionate intensity while the best lack all conviction. It was hard not to think of Yeats words with Ann Coulter perched on the cover of Time—and with a denatured press corps continuing to pretend that it cant see the essence of her ministry (much more on that pose tomorrow). But if Americas press corps lacks all conviction, the best among us surely do not. Last week, we remembered that fact each time we read about Ruzickas astonishing work.
Last week, we didnt want to put Ruzickas name in the same posts as Coulters. But were going to continue discussing Coulter, and we were grateful this morning to see Bob Herbert focus on Ruzicka again—to see him names the actual names of some of the people she helped.
If you havent already done so, we suggest that you take a minute to look at the picture essay on the web site of CIVIC, the humanitarian group Ruzicka formed. When cameras follow the Ruzickas around, they send back images from humanitys future. And by the way: Though Ruzicka seems to have been an exceptional case, there are many others like her—the best. Theyre full of conviction, but their work escapes notice in the pages of the lounging mainstream press. (Note: Many reporters risk their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, as Ruzicka did.)
We were struck by two bits of journalism last week as we read about Ruzicka. We applaud the New York Daily News for the language it chose to use in a headline. (The language is drawn from this news reports text.) And we thought Herbert used an interesting quote from Ruzickas father last Friday. What explained his daughters moral brilliance? According to Ruzickas dad, she had been like that all her life.
CONTEMPT (PART 1): Its hard to believe, but theres one more chapter to the story we told on Friday—the remarkable story of that remarkable passage in Ann Coulters crackpot book, Slander (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/22/05). Were going to stay in the weeds one more day to unpack a critical story—the story of the contempt our pseudo-conservatives hold for the American public.
Quick review: Lets take a trip back through the carnage, just as we laid it out last Friday. Early on in her fraudulent book, Coulter makes this striking claim:
COULTER (page 12): After Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion contrary to the clearly expressed position of the New York Times editorial page, the Times responded with an editorial on Thomas titled The Youngest, Cruelest Justice. That was actually the headline on a lead editorial in the Newspaper of Record. Thomas is not engaged on the substance of his judicial philosophy. He is called a colored lawn jockey for conservative white interests, race traitor, black snake, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom, house Negro and handkerchief head, Benedict Arnold and Judas Iscariot.Good grief! A reader would think that the New York Times called Justice Thomas those nasty names—did so in an editorial which failed to address the substance of his judicial philosophy. But thats totally false, as we showed you on Friday; its one of the thousand-and-one bogus claims which define Coulters best-selling book. In fact, the editorial in question was all about Thomas work—and no, it didnt call him those names, nor did it call him any others. Coulters vicious claims about the Times were completely, utterly false. And just to put a cherry on top, Coulter had cut-and-pasted (plagiarized) those names from a book review by Lawrence Stratton. Strattons review appeared in the Washington Times; Coulter stole her nasty names from that source, then pretended the New York Times said them.
But uh-oh! As it turns out, Coulter may not have been the only scribe dissembling about those nasty slurs. On Friday, we excerpted Strattons review, to show you where Coulter got her string of insults—the ones she falsely attributed to the New York Times. But uh-oh! Over the weekend, we did more checking, and it turned out—what a surprise!—that Strattons claims seem to have been phony too! In short, the contempt for the public never ends when you get in the weeds with todays talk-show right. Again, bear with us as we walk through the weeds surrounding Coulters work.
Where did Coulter get her string of insults—the insults she put in the mouth of the New York Times? As we showed you on Friday, she cut-and-pasted from Strattons review of We Wont Go Back: Making the Case for Affirmative Action, a book by two Georgetown professors (Charles Lawrence and Mari Matsuda). Again, heres the relevant part of Strattons review. We highlight the material Coulter swiped:
STRATTON (5/14/97): The violent implications of [Lawrence and Matsudas] analysis are apparent from the hate-laden language criticizing "colored critics of affirmative action," such as Thomas Sowell, Glenn Loury, Linda Chavez and Shelby Steele, but especially Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.According to Stratton, it was Lawrence and Matsuda who called Thomas those names. But uh-oh! Yes, Coulter lied when she swiped those slurs and pretended the New York Times had said them. But it seems that Stratton may have played the rubes too, in his original review! After Strattons piece appeared in May 1997, Lawrence and Matsuda wrote the Washington Times; they complained about his eagerness to mislead the reader about the content of their book. We printed Strattons presentation last week, so were printing their letter in full:
WASHINGTON TIMES LETTERS SECTION (6/2/97):The race-baits do appear in Lawrence and Matsudas book—but they were attributed to others, the authors wrote. (See below: Lawrence/Matsuda have long been critical of the use of such racial rhetoric.) We havent seen the Lawrence/Matsuda book ourselves, and darn it—it cant be searched on Amazon. But well place a generous bet on who is actually right in this matter. In general, newspapers dont print long letters assailing their work unless the letters have actual merit. And weve traced all the slurs to the people Lawrence and Matsuda cite, as you can see below.
Readers, lets get ourselves back out of the weeds and remember the key fact about Coulters book. Her nasty claims about the New York Times are completely, utterly false. And this is only one example; such nasty but utterly bogus claims typify her fake, bizarre book. Yes, you have to be filled with sheer contempt to peddle garbage and slander like this. But the modern world of the pseudo-con right spills with such open contempt for the public. And guess what? The mainstream press shows contempt for you too, when it refuses to correct Coulters work.
TOMORROW—PART 2: Coulter lied about the Times. In response, the Times praised her great research!
WITH REGRETS: Lawrence and Matsuda have long spoken out against the use of racial invective. For example, their previous book was called Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment. Here is its opening sentence: This is a book about assaultive speech, about words that are used as weapons to ambush, terrorize, wound, humiliate, and degrade.
Who really called Thomas the string of names Coulter plagiarized from Stratton? No, it wasnt the New York Times, and no, it wasnt Joycelyn Elders, and well now assume it wasnt Lawrence and Matsuda either. Over the weekend, in fact, we ran Nexis checks on all the terms in question, and we saw who did call Thomas these names. A full rundown is offered below.
Coulter cut-and-pasted—and lied. Tomorrow, well come back out of the weeds and well take a look at the astounding way the New York Times responded to this. Why is Coulter so influential? Because the mainstream press corps lacks all conviction. Theyve made it clear in the past two decades: They simply dont care if people like Coulter lie right in the face of the public. They dont care if Coulter shows contempt for the public—if she makes a screaming joke of all our most basic traditions.
WHO ACTUALLY CALLED THOMAS THOSE NAMES: We havent seen the Lawrence/Matsuda book, and darn it—it cant be searched on Amazon. But Nexis archives show the provenance of all but one of the terms in question—and yes, our findings track what Lawrence and Matsuda said in their letter. No, the New York Times didnt call Thomas those names. Here are the people who did:
Who actually called Thomas a house Negro? Royce Esters, little-known head of the Compton, California, NAACP, in 1991 (quoted in Emerge). Obviously, Esters wasnt a big enough name for Coulters purpose. So she pretended the New York Times said this.
Who actually called Thomas a colored lawn jockey for conservative white interests? As we noted on Friday, the Manchester Union-Leader attributed that insult to the (unnamed) head of the Maryland NAACP in early 1997. So did Perry Morgan, in the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot. But apparently, this wasnt a big enough name for Michael Fumento; a year later, in the Weekly Standard, he attributed the phrase to Jesse Jackson. Fumento seems to have misread (or misread) the Union-Leader article, which mentions Jackson but attributes the comment to that local NAACP head.
Who actually called Thomas a "chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom," and a handkerchief head? Spike Lee, 1991, quoted in U.S. News & World Report. For the record, Lee was channeling someone else: I think Malcolm X, if he were alive today, would call Thomas a handkerchief head, a chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom." Of course, no one cares what Spike Lee says, except, perhaps, for Reggie Miller. So Coulter pretended the New York Times had actually made these remarks.
Who actually called Thomas a black snake? The claim has often been attributed to Thurgood Marshall—but careful, you do have to stretch things a bit! The comment derives from the 1991 press conference at which the aging Marshall announced his retirement. Thomas wouldnt be nominated for another week, although his name was in wide circulation as the most likely black nominee:
QUESTION (6/28/91): Do you think President Bush has any kind of an obligation to name a minority justice in your place?Marshall wasnt specifically asked about Thomas, and no, he didnt name him. But within a few years, his comment was being massaged and improved. When Marshall died in 1993, for example, William Kuntsler wrote a piece called Remember our fallen giant. Unfortunately, Kuntslers own memory was somewhat hazy this day. He wrote, Marshall must have had Clarence Thomas well in mind when he told an interviewer, shortly after his successor's nomination, that a Black snake is no better than a White snake. As we noted, Thomas hadnt been nominated when Marshall made his remark.
Who actually called Thomas a race traitor? As of 1997 (when Strattons review appeared), we cant find any such name-call in the Nexis archives. In fact, Nexis records only one such name-call to the present day; in 1998, Thomas was called a race traitor by James Albrook in the New Pittsburgh Courier, Americas Best Weekly.
For the record, pundits routinely say that Thomas has been called a race traitor without citing any actual instance. So Coulter decided to remedy that. Deceiving readers as she constantly does, she pretended the New York Times said it. Tomorrow, well see the astonishing the way the great paper chose to respond.