ANN COULTER'S ASS-CENDANCE, or,
being an asshole means never having to say you're sorry

This week, TIME Magazine decided to feature mendacious Right-Wing liar, prevaricator and smear-meistress Ann Coulter as their cover story. And how did Coulter, whose stock-in-trade is responding to all arguments with distortions and the gratuituous insult, respond to this cultural canonization?

She was ANGRY that a wide-angle lens was used, making her FEET look gigantic. She was snotty that TIME Magazine OBVIOUSLY was making her like a fool (and NOT that TIME wasn't gilding the limburgher (sic) -- which the brown-nosing article surely was -- pretending that Coulter's lies were truth, and that her ordure -- or "reasoning" if you would be that bold -- actually smelled like spring lilacs).

I can understand how such a PLAIN girl as Coulter would be necessarily touchy about anyone making her potentially look even LESS attractive than she actually is.

[*She has garnered enough press in the Right Wing to convince herself that she's a "babe." Sadly, any quick peek at a billboard, or the SPORTS ILLUSTRATED Swimsuit Edition will put this proposition in the mendacious light it deserves. Coulter, while not immediately suggestive of a Ken-L-Ration diet, is remarkably plain. Take it from a former men's magazine editor: that's my professional judgment. Would we have accepted nude photos of Ann? Don't make me laugh. And we were pretty -- small 'c' -- catholic in our standards for acceptable naked chicks, most times. Woof.]

I guess there's no pleasing some hate-meisters. On her website, as of a couple days ago, she'd posted photos of TIME's photo editor, and a cover featuring Hillary Clinton, both distorted using a fisheye lens -- probably in PhotoShop.

When the representative of the photographs' copyright holder wrote to note that Coulter (an attorney) has violated their copyright ... well, let's just quote what she said, in her own, inimitable style ...

April 20, 2005, 8:12 PM

AT LEAST I DIDN'T DO SOMETHING REALLY MEAN LIKE PUT IT ON THE COVER OF TIME MAGAZINE

- Dear Ms. Coulter,
I represent renown (sic: Coulter's website) photojournalist David Burnett who licenses his work through our photo agency, Contact Press Images, an agency he helped found nearly 30 years ago. You are featuring his copyrighted photographs of TIME magazine photo editor Maryanne Golon on your web site and in addition, have altered the aforementioned image. According to our records you do not have permission to make use of these images nor have you paid fees in connection with their use. Had these photos been licensed properly you would have been made aware that we do not permitted the alteration of our photographs under any circumstance.We ask you to remove these images at once and be in touch with our office regarding the payment of fees for the use on your website.

Sincerely -
Jeffrey D SmithExec. Director

*
April 20, 2005, 10:13 PM In Response...

- Dear Sirs:

Thank you for your letter. Here's your fee for a permanent license, far exceeding the photo's economic fair value.

Love,
Ann

(photograph of a Canadian Beaver Nickel -- Freud himself would have said nothing, and neither will I, except, perhaps, to order another cigar.)

Let me see if I get this right: because she doesn't like the TIME cover, she insults the photographer? Suggests his work is worthless and distorts the faces of two other women (one of whom has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Ann's little tiff)?

Oh yeah, and the ATTORNEY Coulter pisses on copyright laws, and is fundamentally non-responsive to a legitimate request to NOT distort the photographer's work. I look forward to the legal settlement. After all, Coulter's a trust fund baby from Connecticut and probably doesn't expect that the law actually applies to her -- obviously a lawyer.

A typical contemporary conservative, now that I think of it.

Here's the cover they SHOULD have run [CLICK HERE]

By their snits shall ye know them -- to paraphrase.

Meantime, here was what was happening today in 1865, 140 years ago:

Sunday, April 23

Long lines of the general public began forming by 5:00 A.M. At its greatest, the double line was 3 miles long and wound from the Delaware to the Schuylkill. Philadelphia officials estimated 300,000 people passed by Mr. Lincoln's open coffin. The wait was up to 5 hours.. So many people wanted to view Mr. Lincoln's body that police had difficulty maintaining order in the lines; some people had their clothing ripped, others fainted, one broke her arm

.

RECOVERED!

Have recovered what remains of brain from tax season. New post soon!

Meantime, keep your powder dry. You might need it.
.