Although in this world of extremes there's literally millions of folks who are far more sold out to expressing negativity-that-calls-for-an-immediate-criminal-acting-out-of-rage than her, Ann Coulter's access to millions of minds via national media raises the question:
"Is Ann's influence merely superficially exciting negativity patterns in the minds of resonant listeners and, as such, jiggy-with-Ann-ness but another way for the masses to be mentally entertained such as when viewing, say, a slasher movie, or is she, more profoundly harming our culture by building/changing/harming minds by inculcating her brand of hate into those who (at present) merely have a slight tendency towards such negativity?" If I ask: "Really now, Edg, if Ann had never had access, and if FuxNoise had never found someone like her to plug into their programming, would America be measurably better off today?, then I have to admit, I would be very surprised if any measurement possible by today's analysis tools could "pick up on" even a slight influence by Ann. If that's so, why am I so vulnerable to her? Why do I give her so much immediate attention and space in my holy mind? Why can she trigger my anger processes into full alert so effortlessly when her true potency is no more harmful (per person) to society -- measurably -- than, say, a barking dog's harm when it excites negativity at 3 in the morning? To be silly, how many "barking dog's worth of stress" would it take to equal an Ann Coulter five-minute, KKK tirade on Fox? Am I really that intuitive that I KNOW she's harmful, or is she just an easy target, and, gadzooks, it is I -- not her -- who is really the holder-of-hate for the manifestation of which she's being set-up to take the fall when actually almost any reason will "do me" if I want to get myself high by hating? If we look at the concept of Maharishi's (hypocritical) stance that we should not rail on the heads of leaders, because "they're just innocent expressions of the group consciousness of society," then Ann's presence merely shamefully proves our society's level of angst, and if not her, then someone or somemany will have gravitated to her position and have done whatever she didn't do; so Ann's really and actually only filling a slot and not deeply harming culture with any potency, but rather self-harming is an emergent property of our society's dissonance. (Hypocritical: "George Bush is Satan." or "England is a bad country." -- if that's not railing on "innocents," I'd like to know what is.) I've had my own personal enemies who have coldly and cruelly trampled my "best laid schemes" and -- seemingly only -- been the "causative agents" in my "gang aft agley" experiences. It would be easy to justify virtually any manner of pay-back upon many of them -- except for that nasty fact of life: I am a free mind who involved myself with them, let them get under my radar, gave them access to me, and denied any and all intuitions about them, until, finally, they squished me into a writhing goo under their feet like a wad of gum on a hot sidewalk. How does one OWN one's participation in all the world's negativity? We thought we could escape causality by transcending the problems that we were a part of, right? That was the theory, right? But while the TFB is still telling the TBs that today's front-burner problems are merely "that final roiling of Helium just before it enters perfect coherence when it's near absolute zero, and to expect that the Maharishi Effect will suddenly phase transition our society into peace any moment now that Maharishi's spiritual powers have increased a thousandfold now that he and Guru Dev are tag-teaming the earth with sacred intent," meanwhile, every ex-TB knows that the world is in a far worse place than it was before TFB came out with its World Plan. (TFB = the fucking business.) But is it? Is the world in a far worse place? Well, do we ask Ann for the answer to that question? Willytex perhaps? Or do we ask Chopra or the Dali Lama? That "we choose" those whom we listen to seems more powerful than whom is selected as "our expert answerer." Harder to hate Ann, eh? But, yeah, hating Ann is delicious pain -- sorta like that burn you get from Big Red gum -- hate it but ya keep chewing. Here's my bottom line: Ann is put out there to draw our hate -- a massive tar baby put there to divert us -- an ever so-easy-to-hate person to target lest our hate go to those who have really harmed society like those who made actual billions as their reward for selling Fanny and Freddy -- get that? -- actual billions made by ONE SINGLE SALESPERSON -- that's a truth. Salespersons got billions for one year's worth of selling shit -- pure shit - to the smartest investors what am. Or, like those who are at the top of the food chain in any of many industries that maraud the masses by actually bribing our politicians to pay tax dollar to those who would build more: -- nukes, -- bridges to nowhere, -- pipelines into nature preserves -- coal ash ponds -- 12 miles per gallon cars -- a bigger navy to fight terrorists in the middle of deserts and landlocked countries -- and on and on the list goes. Those are the TRUE COULTERS of our world, and Obama has about two weeks after Jan 20th to grab at least one of those true villians and take all the money back, rip their kids out of private schools, sell their yacht and Ferrari, and put them in prison cells with rapists. Two weeks is all I'm giving Obama to nail at least one hide to a door. Where did the money go? It went somewhere, and it was a criminal act. Find the crook, and you've got the money to give back to the people's IRAs. Never happen, right? Shit. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <babajii...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <drpetersutphen@> > wrote: > > > > She is so profoundly devisive. Her critiques are almost always hate > filled polemics. If a point she is making is valid, it is usually so > covered in hate-shit you can't see it but can only smell the stench > of hate. > > > I wonder what she smells like in person? > Oh, no, I don't think so... > Don't need to know that, do I,. really... > Be careful what you wish for... > R.G. > > > > From: Robert <babajii_99@> > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] 'MSNBC Bans Lead Raksashii' > > To: fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 3:57 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NBC CUTS COULTER; KEEPS PEREZ > > Mon Jan 05 2009 17:50:57 ET > > > > **Exclusive Details** > > > > The nation's top selling conservative author has been banned from > appearing on NBC, insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT. > > > > "We are just not going to have her on any more, it's over," a top > network source explains. > > > > But a second top suit strongly denies there is any "Coulter ban". > > > > "Look for a re-invite, as soon as Wednesday," said the news > executive, who asked not to be named. > > > > NBC's TODAY show abruptly cut Ann Coulter from its planned Tuesday > broadcast, claiming the schedule was overbooked. > > > > Executives at NBC TODAY replaced Coulter with showbiz reporter > Perez Hilton, who recently offered $1,000 to anyone who would throw a > pie at Ann Coulter. Hilton is also launching a new book this week, > RED CARPET SUICIDE. > > > > Coulter was set to unveil her new book, GUILTY. > > > > One network insider claims it was the book's theme -- a brutal > examination of liberal bias in the new era -- that got executives to > dis-invite the controversialist. > > > > "We are just not interested in anyone so highly critical of > President-elect Obama, right now," a TODAY insider reveals. "It's > such a downer. It's just not the time, and it's not what our audience > wants, either." > > > > Others inside the peacock network strongly deny the book's theme is > at issue. > > > > For the book, Coulter reportedly received the most-lucrative > advance ever paid to a conservative author. > > > > The TODAY show eagerly invited the author months ago, for her first > network interview on GUILTY. > > > > The exclusive was to air during the show's 7 AM hour. The cut came > Monday afternoon. > > > > Coulter was also to appear on the TODAY's fourth hour. A host even > teased the segment saying the 'conservative pit bull and bestselling > author' would be a guest. > > > > NBC's cable outlet, MSNBC, will also become a Coulter-free zone, > insiders explain. Morning host Joe Scarborough is said to be > concerned with the new ban. "He's working to overrule it," tips a > source. > > > > Developing... > > >
