Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (103191)	5/4/2005 10:32:21 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I am going to bring forward the more complete allegation that the author of the article makes, and you can read it if you want to. You pulled out a small snippet that does not seem to fully represent what the author of the article is alleging. If I had more time I would go to some of the sites that list many of Ann Coulter's lies, but this conversation, like so many, is just a complete waste of time I do not have. Seeing Coulter's accuracy praised sent Somerby to work on another suspect passage from "Slander." Here's the entire paragraph as it appears in her book: "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.'" Now anybody who's read three New York Times editorials, as Coulter's defrauded readers clearly have not, would realize immediately that such racial slurs never appeared there. (Notice the cunning use of the passive voice: Thomas "is called.") Indeed, some reviewers noticed that Coulter's footnotes led readers elsewhere. Somerby tracked them down. Guess what? The offensive phrases didn't appear in those places, either. His curiosity piqued, Somerby ran a Nexis search. He found the offensive phrases word-for-word in an agitprop-style Washington Times book review of "We Won't Go Back: Making the Case for Affirmative Action" by Charles Lawrence and Mari Matsuda (Houghton Mifflin, 1997). Washington Times is the right-wing newspaper heavily subsidized by Korean cult leader Sun Myung Moon. It appeared that our willowy sex kitten had simply lifted a couple of sentences, misattributed them, then concocted bogus footnotes. With some experience of The Washington Times, I phoned Somerby and suggested that he take his research a step further. And guess what? It turns out that Lawrence and Matsuda, the Georgetown University law professors whose book was being reviewed, protested having slurs they'd called hateful bigotry put in their mouths. It's all make-believe. Every word of it. But straight from the heart.