OK, for those of you who think she's gone off the deep end, let me suggest to you that there is genius in her madness. Seriously, do you think her message would EVER get out if she were PC about it?
Well, if you're liberal, you've hated her since way back in the way back, before the dinosaurs probably, so she's not talking to you any more than Al Franken is talking to me. If you're conservative, you might like her and already be reading her latest book, but if you weren't planning to, or are just too busy being sane, productive members of society to think you need to bother, you might not. And if you're in the vast middle, you're like "Ann who?"
My point is, she's making as big a noise as she can because she knows full well that the liberal MSM will only give her the time of day if she does offend the crap out of them and their ilk. Do you hear or see any press about any of the myriad books written about right-wing positions? (crickets chirping...) Do you hear or see TONS of press about Michael Moore's lastest bowel movement, or what about Ward Churchill? That guy calls the victims of 9/11 (all of them mind you, even those who were registered Democrats) "little Eichmanns!" The guy equates victims of 9/11 with Nazis and the ACLU, NYT, and every liberal rag under the sun not only gives him voice without criticizing him, they DEFEND his right to say it and applaud his courage in the face of so many "right-wing attempts at censorship."
Ann gets no such largesse from anyone, not even her usual fans, and she knows it.
So what should she do--to sell books yes, but also to get her message out? BE OUTRAGEOUS, that's what! And in so doing, she might become the story, yes, that's a risk, but as long as they give the microphone to her for a minute or two, she'll be able to say what she wants to say, and there will be people out there who will hear it and say "Hmmmm.... I think she actually has a point underneath all that vitriol! And damn, it's a GOOD one!"
What is that point? Well it's very simple really: Being a victim of anything, be it 9/11, a war, a car crash, a gun crime, whatever... Does not entitle you to spout your political positions (especially on subjects that may not even directly relate to the way in which you were victimized) without challenge!
That's the key here kids, Ann is saying that the "Jersey Girls" as they call themselves, are being trotted out as often as they are, and often for the sole purpose of raising money for liberal causes, simply because it's assumed no one will DARE challenge what they have to say on any subject because, well, they are widows.
Yes, it's sad. No, we have no way of knowing whether their husbands would approve of what they are doing or not, but isn't that the point? Frankly, I'd be pissed as shit if my husband used my untimely demise (at the merciless hands of terrorists no less) to run all over the country making money for whatever pet cause he had even before I died. Even if it were directly related to how I died, I would want my husband to be damn sure he wasn't being used or exploited by people whose only concern for him or my family was how "credible" a witness for their cause we would make. That's kind of SICK.
And if he decided to gain celebrity for himself for the purpose of expressing his political opinions (to which he has a right, but about which he is no more qualified to speak than the average Joe or Jane in the street), he damn well better expect to take as much as he dishes out, and defend his views not just snap back at people who disagree that they are "cruel" for attacking a victim. Once you step into the spotlight, you're asking for it, that's all there is to it.
What about MADD then? And other victims groups? Well, in their case, they are using what happened to their loved one to help PREVENT THE PREVENTABLE! Tell me please how the Jersey Girls are doing anything to prevent more terrorism? I actually think they are going a great distance towards bringing more to us, the represent a weakness in us--our inability to see who our real enemies are because of their fixation on Bush and his policies (which, after all, were not to blame for 9/11, how could they be, the guy was in office but a few months before it happened, and we know it took almost a decade to plan).
What Ann is also trying to point out is that she and other right-leaning pundits can call these people out, but they are then vilified, whereas the Ward Churchills and Cindy Sheehans of the world are canonized as saints on the spot, no matter who they hurt or offend.
Would I say things the way Ann does? Well, as bombastic as I can be, the answer is still no. I wouldn't have the GUTS. I agree with much of what she says, and do I see her points when they are taken IN CONTEXT (key with her, you cannot but think she's a loon unless you hear her out), so I have to defend her, or at the very least, her right to say exactly what she thinks.
Ward Churchill on the other hand? Sure, he has a "right" to say what he thinks too, but he also has an obligation to answer for it just as Ann has, by the same media that loves him and attacks her, as if only her targets have feelings.
Posted by insomnomaniac at June 9, 2006 2:51 PM | TrackBack