print“Ann Coulter, I imagine, considers herself an individualist, not a collectivist. Which is why her views on grief perplex. About certain September 11 widows Coulter has written the following: “These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them.” (Emphasis added.)
Nations don’t grieve; individuals who incur loss do. The nation, following September 11, can legitimately lay claim to the confusion that comes with a loss of a previous sense of security and to the sorrow that accompanies the deaths of compatriots. However, only the immediate relatives of the victims were in fact bereaved. The nation might be shocked, reeling, but only the families of the dead were utterly devastated. With every day that dawns, they alone face the kind of pain the rest of us cannot fathom…
The idea that people not directly affected by a tragedy ought to perform the rites reserved for the bereaved conjures the image of a tribe in the paroxysmal throws of a grief ritual. It’s inspired by the equally primitive specter of Oprah’s televised group therapy sessions, in which every individual’s pain is equally weighted. ..”
My complete column, “Coughing Up Some Coulter Fur Balls,” is here. A section of the column will be familiar to Barely-A-Blog readers.
I must say that the accusation that Coulter is doing things for money is idiotic ad hominem–attack a person’s unknown motivation. It’s an invalid argument. Today on “Hannity and Colmes,” a Democratic strategist alleged just that. What’s more, she carried on as though she had made a startling discovery. How did she know Coulter had written the book only to make money (not that there’s anything wrong with that; in fact that’s one excellent reason to write a book)? Well, the fool replied, “It’s number one on the New-York Times’ Best-Sellers List.” You can’t beat that for a circular argument. She knows Coulter intended only to make money, because she is making money.