Hey, Hitler had a hell of a good plan too. All he was trying to do was purify the Aryan bloodlines, can’t a guy catch a break? Damn Liberals, I guess they just don’t have any true vision.

Stupid bitch! If it were not for the lieing evil liberals of the past, she would be stuck infront of a stove barefoot and pregnant!
Its the little things like a womans right to vote, equality in the workplace or even to get an education. Those pesky liberals! What are they thinking!

Go easy on Bill Les. He’s the inspiration for my blog name

As I read this, and the background material, I am reminded that my biggest concern about this country is that we allow certain phrases to become valid substitues for facts and thought. In other words, we not only are pliant to propaganda, but we encourage it.

In the 20’s, the 50’s, the 80’s, the 90’s (at least)...there have been epitaths and catch phrases that replaced intelligent debate.

In the 20’s, it was “Anarchist!“ followed by “Communist” in the 50’s and “Liberal” in the 80’s.

To have one of these labels applied to you carried the weight of utter condemnation. And the establishment implicitly or explicitly tells you that you should renounce your citizenship if you should choose to point out that those phrases, by themselves, are empty of any substance.

And as I thought on those phrases, I was reminded of phrases like “Family Values”...which Bush Sr. used in 1988, and which Clinton (quite deftly) stole for himself in 1992. And yet nobody ever seemed to notice that the phrase contained NO substance other than not-so-subtle implications that the Other party didn’t have them.

Personally, I’d be happy to live in a country where the odd kid jumps off of 5 story buildings more or less successfully into a swimming pool, if only the survivors would actually think about what issues are really involved in the governing and running of this country.

Instead, we have The Patriot “give up your freedoms for safety” Act which passes without debate. Lists are made to keep people from flying that have neither author nor appeal process. We go to war with a soverign country to avoid the mass murder of thousands or millions of our citizens at the hands of undeniable WOMD’s that exist in that country—and don’t worry about whether they are there or not.

And as we watch the constitution erode before our eyes, we get people like Ann “Revisionist” Coulter writing books that accuse ME of being anti-american for pointing any of this out.

The rise of people like her seems to be telling us that there is a wave coming…and either we ride it or get swept away. Unfortunately I don’t much care for either choice.

It figures Ann Coulter would admire the “John Ashcroft of the 50’s”...

The lives that man destroyed over his paranoia. It makes me sick.

I am no longer offended by Ann’s opinion on this subject, despite my post above.

Why? Because it’s just one more bit off fluff from a pundit who’s sole purpose in life seems to be to writing books so that that like-thinking people can sit around saying “Yeah, SEE!“  as they read it.

Unable to think for themselves, her readers just know “Liberals bad” and so if they have Rush or Ann to provide them with ammunition, then they can sound intelligent.

My specific change of heart came from two quote I saw in the “From the Publisher” writeup on the book. Specifically:

“Liberals have a preternatural gift for always striking a position on the side of treason”

“Everyone says liberals love America, too. No, they don�t.“

In other words “If you don’t agree with me you an should shut up and let people who think like me make all the decisions. That is the only way to love the country.“

Obviously this is the antithesis of what America is about. And since this is the #1 theme of the book, I can therefore pretty much not worry about finding credibility in anything else Ann Coulter or her books have to say…and I have better things to do with my life then shoot fish in a barrel.

Yeah…and the one thing that really irks readers that so desperately want to deny the truthfulness of what Ms. Coulter scribes is that she meticulously “footnotes” each and every instance she cites - and footnotes are SUCH a son of a gun to discredit…so all one is left with is baldfacedly making every effort to defame her with every available malignment possible, ‘cause “you liberals” do not have any other way to deal with the facts - just take a look at the guys that you look to for leadership, Tom Daschle, Terry McAuliffe, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Al “MR INTERNET” Gore…

And her book is 7 places above lead commie Hillary Clinton on the N.Y. TIMES bestseller list.

Hmmmm, I seem to recall that Michale Moore did the same thing with Stupid White Men…yet that really didn’t shut up any of the neo-cons now did it?

And Jay, just since you seem to think it’s so important, Stupid White men has been on the New York Times best sellers list for 58 weeks and is currently at number 8. I won�t even mention how well it is doing in other countries.

Since I am sure that a good little Republican like you must vehemently disagree with anything Michael Moore says (it’s the party line right?) then even a halfwit like you can see that book sales do not make an author right. It does however indicate their popularity with readers and by sheer numbers alone (based on book sales at least) I think “we Liberals” outnumber “you Conservatives” by a very wide margin.

And while I might agree that the Democratic Party is a piss poor echo of what it used to be, you still have a better chance that a Dem will listen to a voter than anyone currently in Bush Co.

Death to the Republican Party in 2004!

My god,,,you guys are really in a fantasy world.  It’s one thing to have ideals and strive for the perfect world, it’s quite another to forget the reality you live in.

Communists were a REAL threat!  As are Islamic Militants.  This isn’t a perfect world.  There will be racism, religous hate, envy etc til the end of time.  That’s reality. 

To think of the thousands of lives sacrificed by Americans over the past 200+ years to give us the freedom to disagree and speak our minds, yet liberals in this country believe that only applies to them. 

Liberalism in it’s current form is heading this country toward a socialist state.  I dare any one of you to name a socialist state in the world better than republic of the United States.

Communists are a real threat these days? Give me a break. Not even BushCo is trying to lay claim to that. Islamic Militants I can see, but Communists still posing a serious threat is a lot harder to swallow. Christian Militants pose a pretty big threat too, but I don’t hear anyone screaming about them at the moment.

Communists in Russia certainly were a threat, but in America where we have the freedom to speak our minds as you noted, the communists in our country were still American citizens with the freedoms guaranteed to every other citizen (even to choose to vote for a communist presidential candidate). As such their rights were trampled on by a government dedicated to keeping itself safe from challenge, and the American people were whipped up in a frenzy against the “Red Menace” just like today they are being led to hate the “Islamic Terrorists”.

News flash - People of Middle Eastern descent or from predominantly Islamic countries that have become American citizens are, you guessed it, still American citizens! Yet because of 9-11 and the current administrations moves to eliminate constitutional protections with documents like the Patriot Act they are subject to detention due to suspicions of being a terrorist, hostility and distrust from other Americans, and denied access to information to be used against them if a trial is brought. This is happening to citizens.

Let me ask you, in your fantasy world has the United States managed to convert the rest of the world to our “democratic” way of life or did we have to subjugate them all and use them for slave labor? Oh, and feel free to use that freedom of speech I went into the military to defend since I would hate to be hogging it all up.

Learn to read!! 
Liberals live in a fantasy world.
WERE means ‘used to be’. 

Communists WERE a threat!  Trying to (and succeeding in some cases) in infiltrating every level of government and academia.  For one reason, to secure a means of overthrowing or weaking the US government to a point from which it could not defend itself. 

Can you name these ‘citizens’ being held against there will?  Where are they?

Hate Islamic Terrorists?  No, but I say until they change, hunt them down like rats and kill them.

Sacrifice:  If an American citizen has to give up some of their rights to ensure the personal safety of hundreds or thousands of other American citizens.  So be it!  It’s like the argument about racial profiling.  Get over it!!  If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t mind.

I served in the military as well Mr. Paulsen and was proud of it.

Oh yes,,,,and how many Christian terrorists are there?  How many innocent civlians have they killed?  How many planes hijacked?

Get a grip!!

Depends on how you define “Christian Terrorist.“ Some people are referring to Eric Robert Rudolph as a Christian Terrorist. That’s the guy who bombed the Olympics in 1996 (killing 1 and injuring 100) as well as two abortion clinics (killing 1 and injuring 8) and a gay nightclub (injuring 4). Then there’s Oklahoma City bomber Timothy J. McVeigh who rationalized blowing up a Federal Building (168 people dead) on religious reasons.

One could argue that those Christians who participated in the Medieval Inquisition and the Spanish Inquisition were Christian Terrorists as they certainly employed terror in their tactics. Thousands were killed in both though experts disagree with the exact total number. For a follow-up to the Inquisitions the Christians moved on to Witch Hunting, which became very popular and was continued for much longer than the Inquisitions. Again experts disagree over the total number killed, but some estimates put it as high as 250,000.

So as I said, it really depends on your definition of what constitutes a Christian Terrorist.

Sacrifice freedom so the likes of you can feel a little safer? Screw off! You do not deserve the freedoms you have with an attitude like that, you and those that think like you are a greater threat to the American way of life than any Islamic terrorist. All they want to do is wrench freedom from our dead fingers…you would give it up like a craven coward. Idiotic statements about giving up freedom makes me sick!

“If you have nothing to Hide, you shouldn’t mind”? How many times do I have to hear that trotted out whenever someone wants to violate your rights? Gee Jo, then you shouldn’t mind a full cavity search at random check points whenever the police or military deem it necessary, I mean if you have nothing to hide right. Why not allow the government the right to barge into your home while you are sleeping and roust you from your bed to make sure that you don’t have any seditious materials hidden away. How about you just save them then time and volunteer to be placed in an internment camp where you can be watched by armed guards 24 hours a day then you really wouldn’t have anything to hide…ever! Ever hear about a little concept known as privacy? It isn’t just for you, it is for everyone.

Can I name a citizen held against his will? Are you fucking high? How about Jose Padilla who spent more than a year in camp x-ray without access to a lawyer and no idea what the charges against him were? Is that good enough for you? He was held for more than a year of his life that he will NEVER get back and is a citizen.

Who knows how many Christian terrorists there are but anyone who uses terror to promote their belief is a terrorist and bombing abortion clinics, killing abortion doctors, “fag bashing”, and picketing and harassment at gay funerals probably all fall under that blanket. Shit, while Grandpa Reagan was in office there was a different clinic bombed every few weeks. Feel how you want about abortion but it does not absolve those Christian terrorists of the blood they spilled. How many are there…probably more than I want to know about.

Get over racial profiling…well how very white of you. Aren’t you a precious little gem of an American?

Aquarian Weekly
7/2/03
REALITY CHECK

James Campion

ALL HAIL ANN COULTER � CHAMPION OF THE DUMB

    For those who merely get their junk food media jones from Reality TV or Eminem or video game violence, you are missing one of the great purveyors of grandiose stupidity on the market today; Ann Coulter. Noted author, and celebrated carnival barker; Coulter is the living embodiment of modern pop culture genius, well-dressed freak show merchants masquerading their commentary with bombastic rhetoric, mixed daringly with a waft of jingoistic perfume.

    I worship her beatific vision.

    Coulter�s efforts are noble and sound. She knows well the avenue of history has long been open for armchair revisionists to sidle up to the microphone and trump hyperbolic issues and hot-button names in an ostentatious peddling of merchandise. Having pitched a book for the past few months, I bow to her prescient supremacy.

    Mostly, Coulter is a wonderful siren for our greatest attributes, the inability to understand rudimentary ideas beyond our own prejudiced hallucinations. No other social or political essayist possesses more of a keen eye for P.T. Barnum�s vast audience of ravenous lap dogs in the American heart.

    This is a sorely needed talent in today�s politically correct world of pusillanimous frauds. She is a maverick among sheep, but Coulter is often vilified for this, while she should be lauded as a hero for our most precious national resource: The Dumb. 

    In the grand tradition of Jerry Springer, Colonel Tom Parker and Joseph Goebbels, Coulter is merrily plugging her new cantankerous volume entitled, “Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War To The War On Terrorism” with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. And from recent quotes, the book appears to brilliantly reveal how Americans understand history and its effects on today�s social fabric.

    For instance, last night on MSNBC, Coulter wildly defended Senator Joseph McCarthy as “a misunderstood American hero whose sacrifices preserved America�s sovereignty for thirty-plus years.“

    This is the very same McCarthy whose incredible ride to infamy included an historic monopoly of world-class fear mongering this democracy has ever had the displeasure to endure.

    Understand Coulter�s genius here. Aside from Hitler or Manson or Nixon or Liberace, the very name McCarthy, attached as it is to a period of madness called McCarthyism, is notable for its enviable shock quotient. A monument to hate bating and paranoia run amok, McCarthy�s legacy is nothing if not noteworthy. He was a tremendous brute of his times, clinically insane and furiously malevolent, a true celebrity monster. But apparently in Coulter�s luminous tome we relearn that McCarthy�s savagely clumsy attack on basic democratic liberties was “bravery” and that “The myth of ‘McCarthyism’ is the greatest Orwellian fraud of our times.“

    On the heels of Hillary Clinton�s fantastically successful, “Living History” � an embarrassingly potent political manifesto wrapped neatly in a package of scrumptiously infantile musings � Coulter�s grandstanding is sublime, painfully striking, and a clear roadmap to 21st century thought. Clinton�s book aimed to put distance between her and her ass of a husband. Coulter�s work puts a loving stamp on what her president�s dissenters have dubbed “fear-mongering” in the guise of patriotism. But Clinton is a politician, and nothing politicians have written has really meant anything binding since “Mein Kampf”. Coulter is different. She is a pro, in every brutal sense of the word.

    Coulter writes: “Liberals are fanatical liars, then as now. Everything you think you know about McCarthy is a hegemonic lie.“

    This is excellent hyperbole, with just the right amount of stern recognition, but having not read the entire thing, I can only assume she gets to the bottom of these lies about McCarthy; lies which are a matter of overly analyzed public record for half a century. But the book, or the childish assumption that only Liberals held, or hold, McCarthy contemptible, is not the issue here. It is the use of McCarthy as a notorious figure, and an effigy of politics gone frightfully awry, as a weapon against Coulter�s enemy, The Left.

    Trashing The Left, like Senator Rodham�s subtle forms of trashing The Right in her book tour, allow both to employ an important ingredient to mass appeal, consistency. No one wants their Bruce Springsteens jamming funk or Bill Bennetts strung out on cheap wine and loading up on seven-figure Vegas bets.

    Some may find championing terrible goons as political martyrs for the benefit of ideology wrong.

    Hardly.

    Getting massive digs in on the enemy, while refiguring the legacy of a national embarrassment for personal profit has merit. This is what many books have done for decades, rediscovering the Kennedy assassination or the Vietnam War or the Nixon Tapes. It�s good press, even in the face of complete and utter contempt for common sense and truth.

    Another fine example from Coulter: “McCarthy was not tilting at windmills. Soviet spies in the government were not a figment of right-wing imaginations. He was tilting at an authentic Communist conspiracy that had been laughed off by the Democratic Party.“

    Beautiful craziness.

    Did the overall manic dismantling of McCarthy�s crusade have a tinge of backlash fanaticism? Of course. Were there Communists in the government? Sure. In the pall of a Cold War, was it a threat to national security? Correct. Was this why McCarthy was finally harangued by his contemporaries or forever noted as a criminally insane lunatic? No. It was McCarthy�s methods of sidestepping laws, using media outcry and troubled times to promote a sick obsession to shamelessly self-promote his career.

    Even Coulter sheepishly admits to McCarthy�s famous lie about a list of 57 names in the US government with Communist ties. But you won�t find that as a headline on the day I write this. You see, in a way, what Coulter is doing is a metaphor for McCarthy�s greatest legacy: Say something completely shocking and outlandish, and make someone deny or address it.

    Artistic grace.

    And finally the second most successful slant on truth used by Coulter here is her assessment that the Democratic Party was more or less run by a radical anti-American Communist regime since McCarthy�s public demise. This scoffs in the face of horrific mistakes made by Democratic administrations, not the least of which would be the Korean and Viet Nam Wars, instigated, by the way, by Democratic presidents, or the Bay of Pigs disaster, or blah, blah blah.

    Coulter is silly, surely, but I, for one, salute her moxy, her guts, her complete disregard for clear thought and simple research to bolster her debate. She is a hero to our trade, and a great patriot, pointing us to the core of our being; not letting facts get in the way of making a buck.   
   
   
     
 

I’m a masochist.  Some masochists like to be strung up by their toes and doused with hot wax, but me, I watch Fox News and listen to talk radio.

Yeah, I saw Ann Coulter, the Vanna White of vituperation, on Hannity & Wimp (I mean, Insanity and Colmes) last night.  I kept wondering who wanted to go to bed with the other more, Sean or Ann. 

Folks, I don’t think it’s worth addressing any of AC’s statements.  Like other peddlers of inane fascist prop, such as Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and Savage, AC is merely a symptom of the collapse of democracy. 

Eric Alterman and company will refute her risible bafflegab and expose the bogus footnotes of “Treason,“ as they did for “Slander,“ but it won’t matter.  Coulter is a voice appointed by, and on behalf of, America, Inc. 

The media agenda of America, Inc: To maintain a smokescreen between the masses and the corporate-controlled government, and also to keep us ignorant of the international banking kleptocracy imposed by the IMF, WORLD BANK, WTO, GATS, and such alphabet soup.

I would like to see, however, a moderated debate between Coulter and Greg Palast.

Max

Mr. Paulsen,
It is quite obvious you are a misguided and bitter human.  And as with all liberals, it is nearly impossible to have an intelligent conversation because all you can do is make personal attacks. 

I would bet you were enlisted in the military, cause you display a lot of the same attitude many of my troops did.  It is sad.  I’d also bet you got out of the military as fast as you could cause you couldn’t hack it.  Sad.

And Mr. Paulsen.  I am black you stupid son-of-a-b#%.

And as for your definition of terrorists:
If you look back in time, you can find many individuals and groups who performed great evil on humanity.  The Spainish Inquisition, the Muslim attempt to conquer Europe, the Crusades, Nazis, the enslavement of the Jews in Egypt, Atilla the Hun, the treatment of American Indians.  But in a modern definition of terrorist, these do not apply.

A modern terrorist campaign involves the organized effort of a group to inflict terror on others for political gain, and usually involves a minority of the population.  The Israli’s, pre-1948, conducted a terrorist campaign. The abortion clinic bombing and attacks on abortion doctors could be called terroristic.  Now while the actions of Eric Rudolph and Tim McViegh were terroristic in nature, they did not involve an organized and on-going effort, but were more of an individual act.  (I am not diminishing thier effects or the atrocity, just classifying).

But to say that Christian Terrorists represent a threat to America,,,I don’t see it right now. 

And if racial profiling had been conducted at the airports Sept 11,,,,,,,the WTC would still be standing.  Perhaps it will take the destruction of a nuclear power plant which could kill or injure millions of Americans for you to step out of your dream world and embrace reality.

James Campion—That’s an interesting way to look at Ann’s book. Thanks for posting that and giving me a different perspective.

Jo—I know Eric personally and I can say that he’s definitely cynical, but that’s not the same as being bitter.

I find it ironic that you’re whining about being the victim of a personal attack from Eric and then you turn around and make a personal attack on ALL liberals by accusing us of being incapable of intelligent discussion because we’re too busy making personal attacks. The really funny part is that Eric actually raised several points in his reply as well as responding to one of your challenges to name “�citizens� being held against there[SIC] will” all of which you ignored so you could claim all he did was make a personal attack.

Your claim that intelligent discussion with “all” liberals is impossible because we are only capable of making personal attacks is clearly untrue as neither of my responses to you contained anything in the way of a personal attack and I’m clearly rather liberal in my thinking. In fact you’ve been making rather personal attacks all along so I don’t see why you should be surprised if you’re responded to in kind.

The fact that you’re black doesn’t override the fact that several of the statements you’ve made could be considered a very “white” way of thinking. At least a very conservative white way of thinking. Eric’s statement wasn’t so much about what your actual ethnicity happened to be as it was what your attitude seemed to be.

As for your response to me on Christian Terrorists. First you claim that the historical examples I listed do not apply to “a modern definition” of the word terrorist, but then you provide a definition that seems to fit the historical examples just fine.

A modern terrorist campaign involves the organized effort of a group to inflict terror on others for political gain, and usually involves a minority of the population.

The Medieval Inquisition was an organized effort of a group (Catholic church) to inflect terror on others (anyone not a Catholic, namely the Pagan majorities of several nations) for political gain (consolidation of authority and control) and involved a minority of the population (the Catholics). The Spanish (Muslims and Turks) and Roman (Protestant Christians) Inquisitions are quite similar. A couple of the other examples you propose would also fit the very definition you provided and I find it very amusing that you fail to see that.

Eric Rudolph was involved in an ongoing effort and was one of several people involved in such activities. He just took the longest to track down and catch. He isn’t the only person involved in bombing clinics and shooting doctors and many of the others who participated in such activities were associated with the same religious organization Rudolph was.

As for not seeing how Christian Terrorists represent a threat to America, well, all I can say to that is a lot of people didn’t see how the rise of Nazism was a threat to Germany either. Sometimes it can be easy to overlook especially when it comes packaged in the guise of something one would rather not consider as being “bad.“

With regards to racial profiling possibly stopping the terrorists on 9/11, perhaps that’s true. Perhaps not. Perhaps if the FBI had paid more attention to the report from a field agent about suspicious men taking flying lessons for commercial jets who were unconcerned with learning how to land said jets the WTC would still be standing. Perhaps not. In fact, I could probably think up a lot of “what if” scenarios above and beyond the application of racial profiling that might have provided a means of stopping 9/11 from happening had they been done.

Racial profiling is certainly one method and it sounds great as long as you’re not the one being profiled. It wouldn’t have stopped Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph though. The ends don’t always justify the means.

Personal attack? I considered it more a of general attack provoked by your own self-righteous verbiage, though I will admit to being in a foul mood yesterday and I guess I did get a little personal:

Learn to read!
Get over it!
Get a grip!

If you want to start throwing verbal fisticuffs don’t be surprised when someone joins the fight. You should have known me when I actually WAS bitter, this is the kinder gentler me. Just because you think that I am someone you can not hold an intelligent conversation with (and I see that more as a failing on your part than mine) don’t use that to broadly generalize and paint “all Liberals” with the same brush, generalization is for the weak minded. Be specific and attack me. I promise I won�t get all weepy.

You’re black? I never would have guessed that from your deeply conservative rhetoric, you certainly have taken the party line to heart. You will make a fine addition to your local country club…when it accepts black members.

And an elitist as well…disparaging the enlisted men of the military who are the fodder for the wars as if they are too stupid and lazy to become officers. I was a 4.0 performer that advanced every time I went to take the advancement exam and the reason I got out was because I had no interest in making it a career. The four years I spent in the military were some of the easiest working years of my life.

What is sad is your condescending attitude.

OK. Perhaps I got a bit personal too.  It’s difficult not too when being insulted.  And I shouldn’t have lumped ALL liberals together.  But unfortunately a lot arguments I see and hear do not address the issues or fact but play to emotion.

As for my ‘whiteness’.  It is quite surprising to here affirmative action loving born again liberals attaching ‘race’ to a way of thinking. I didn’t know only ‘white’ men could be conservative.

And comments about ‘country club’ etc just let me know what level of success ‘you’ have yet to achieve.  And oh yes, most country clubs accept blacks, but I doubt you’ve been around any to have known that.

Yes I am a bit arrogant.  I’ve worked hard, been successful and enjoy the fruits of my labor.  Condescending? Yes, I can be that way too.  I will not apologize.

I still say the Inquisition does NOT fit the modern definition of terrorism.  For one thing, they (Catholic Church) were far from being a minority.  However, I am not an expert on the detailed history of the Inquisitions.

As for the witch hunts etc, my personal opinon is that it also does NOT fit the definition of terrorism.  But I think we could be splitting hairs here, trying to classify these atrocities.

But to hold on to the notion that Christian terrorists pose a threat to this country and even remotely compare them Nazi’s, Hamas, IRA or Al Quada is absurd.  Were Timothy/Eric taking orders from these organizations?  Are the abortion clinic bombings still continuing?

The thing that does concern me now, is that recent polling indicates >50% of Americans do not believe abortion should be legal.  This may set the ground work for that activity to ‘reerrupt’.
I personnally feel abortion is murder.  But I can’t condone violence to stop.

Racial profiling, as the Israeli’s perform, would have stopped everyone of the 9/11 hijackers.  Period, end of story.  There is no argument or what-if against that.  The FBI example is the use of many pieces of information gathered after the fact to say, “They should’ve seen it coming.“

And yes Racial Profiling would not have stopped Timothy/Eric. But that argument doesn’t mean it should NOT be peformed to prevent other acts of evil.

As for my military history: My troops were my family.  I would do anything for them.  But that doesn’t mean they were all 100%, grade A performers.  There were always the ‘whiners’.  The ones who didn’t want to work, do the job or go to a combat zone.  Ones who did everthing possible to avoid going overseas.  Those are the ones you remind me of Mr. Paulsen.  And I’m glad it was the easiest working time of your life.  I don’t believe it is/was for 99.9% of everyone else I know busting thier humps in the military.

By the way, I want to thank Max for the entry (I just got a little caught up and didn’t have time to say anything). That is a far less stressful way to look at the problem, but one author spouting revisionism isn’t really what irritates me. It is the thousands of readers who will take her words at face value that is worrisome.