"Jihad monkey" -- NOW do you get it?
With all the interruptions for applause during her CPAC speech, and without her naming the president of Iran, it was nearly impossible at the time to understand the point Ann Coulter was trying to make with her infamous "raghead" remark. Now that she's put the argument in print, it's easier to see the point -- if you're smart, which not all of her critics are.
I can see that this was basically what she said at CPAC, though she throws in a couple of jabs at her nicey-nice Republican critics. If you don't understand the argument behind her column, just e-mail me and I will explain it. But basically, what she was trying to do was to make a connection between (a) the Danish cartoon controversy, and (b) the lunatic Iranian president's boasting of his plans for nuclear weapons. The key passages here are:
The "offense to Islam" ruse is merely an excuse for Muslims to revert to their default mode: rioting and setting things on fire. These people have a serious anger management problem.
So it's not exactly a scoop that Muslims are engaging in violence. A front-page story would be "Offended Muslims Remain Calm." ...
Perhaps we could put aside our national, ongoing, post-9/11 Muslim butt-kissing contest and get on with the business at hand: Bombing Syria back to the stone age and then permanently disarming Iran.
It is Miss Coulter's long-accustomed habit to put things in strong terms. But ... but she is merely saying in her sarcastic way what many other observers of Islam have said: The Islamic world, apparently suffering from some kind of inferiority complex because of the vast wealth and power of the West, has taken to walking around with a chip on its shoulder. Some examples: Sirhan Sirhan, Munich Olympics, the 1973 oil embargo, the 1979-80 Iran hostage crisis, the Achille Lauro, the Intifada -- the list could be extended almost indefinitely, but you get the point.
As a Southerner, I can relate. The Islamic world seems to be going through a drunk redneck phase. In any honky tonk in Alabama about midnight on Saturday, you'll find some old boy whose life resembles a country music song: Lost his job, his wife left him, they repossessed his truck, etc. He's feeling like a loser with nothing left to lose, and if he's had enough whiskey, you don't want to look at him sideways, because going to jail for assault would be like a vacation to him. That seems to me the best analogy for what the "Arab street" has been up to lately.
Now, to my fellow Tuborg-buying friends in the pro-Dane blogosphere, let me ask you a question: Haven't the Muslims told you that those cartoons are an INSULT? Hint, hint. Which is more insulting to Muslims, publishing the Danish cartoons or calling them "ragheads"? Well, I haven't noticed any Islamic mobs burning any truck stops in Oklahoma where, I guarantee you, the average patron isn't interested in what Ann calls a "Muslim butt-kissing contest."
Q. What does an Oklahoma truck driver call a Muslim?
A. Anything he wants to, especially if the price of diesel is over $2.10 a gallon.
The "Arab street" is burning Scandanavian embassies because they know Scandanavian diplomats are a bunch of cowardly socialist wienies who won't fight back. If the "Arab street" decided to go after a truck stop in Oklahoma, it would be a suicide mission, because Oklahoma truckers don't take no crap, y'hear?
By insulting the Iranian president, Ann is doing nothing more offensive (according to the "Arab street," anyway) than Michelle Malkin did in posting the Danish cartoons.
In amplifying the insult from her CPAC speech as she does in her latest column, Miss Coulter is really doing the same thing as the Arab street: She's double-dog daring her nicey-nice blue-state GOP critics to do something about it. By comparison, I'd say she has more to fear from Scandanavian diplomats. And THAT, gentlemen, is her point.