Last week, someone very close to me sent this opinion piece by "Legal Affairs Correspondent" Ann Coulter. The piece -- which is one of many she has written for Human Events (a publication billed as the "Headquarters Of The Conservative Underground," though it often publishes writing from very-much-not-underground television stars Chuck Norris and Pat Sajak) -- accuses the New York Times of "treason" because it fails to cite what she sees as relevant statistics comparing murders committed by non-combatant U.S. military service people to those committed by U.S. civilians. She says high crime rates are not specifically a military problem, but a problem with males in the United States. More to the point, she says males born to single mothers are the trouble. Then she cuts the shit and says the problem is really just single motherhood: "Think I'm being cruel?" she asks. "Imagine an America with 60 to 70 percent fewer juvenile delinquents, teenage births, teenage suicides and runaways, and you will appreciate what the sainted 'single mothers' have accomplished."

I guess I'm not plugged into the latest trends in "sainted single mothers," but, in addition to a host of other ethical questions (like: what is she advocating, exactly? State-sponsored eradication of all single mothers and their children? State-required marriages? State-required church attendance? Dear god, extended abortion rights? More access to birth control?) her logic falls victim to a simple chicken and egg problem. By that I mean: which came first? The irresponsible son or the single mother?

Anyway, here's another article about a different but also mortally significant problem in military ranks -- suicide.

This report is from the Associated Press -- not the New York Times -- and it specifically mentions a comparable civilian rate to the rising military suicide rate: "Officials calculate the deaths at a rate of roughly 20.2 per 100,000 soldiers -- which is higher than the adjusted civilian rate for the first time since the Vietnam War, officials told a Pentagon news conference." One wonders if, in Coulter's opinion, suicide is also caused by single motherhood.

Now. The person who sent me Ann's recent treatise -- and who in fact sends me pretty much every column Ann Coulter writes -- often asks me why I get that crazy look in my eyes when I hear Ann Coulter's name. I normally just shrug, not wanting to enter into an argument (I'm generally pretty submissive when it comes to political debate, probably because I'm not a very good debater), but the real reason -- the reason why I seethe when I hear or read opinions from Ms. Coulter -- has to do with the ad hominem fallacy -- "in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

I dislike Ann Coulter's public opinions (and those of her counterparts) because they approach very complicated sociological (and often personal and psychological) issues and then simplify them in absurd ways and then resort to ad hominem attacks -- whether it's implying "Liberals" (whatever those happen to be) are responsible for the World Trade Center attacks, or saying, "extemporaneously," that "the [second] strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is ... owning a Dennis Kucinich bumper sticker" (har har har), or blaming single motherhood for high crime rates. (Coulter is 47 and has never been married, in case you wondered. No children.)

In truth, single motherhood should be addressed. The statistics she cites are relevant. But is the best solution to poke mean-spirited fun and make outrageous implications? And is single motherhood really the issue we need to address? Or is it something deeper, further ingrained in our collective (perhaps unraveling) American fabric?

And so the irony here is that I am not writing to you about why military suicides are on the rise -- or even really addressing the issue of single motherhood -- but rather writing to you about why Ann Coulter only distracts people like you and me from issues that never get solved -- and will never get solved unless discussions rise above petty bullshit like hers, and petty discussion about why some kinds of free speech are way more harmful than they should be. I'm saying Ann Coulter's punditry is an unneeded distraction; it is one of many very visible roadblocks to civility and progress in this nation, and I'm saying it's a problem. Why I dislike her even more is that I think she knows all this very well and chooses to stand in the way of productive conversation just because she can -- because she knows people like me will get visibly irate and because her imprecise attacks and clouded vision attract attention, and not because she believes in freedom or whatever else she wants to claim.

And so yes. Who's the ad hominem attacker now? I guess it's me. Easy target you might say. I'd say I just can't help myself. I've just been so distracted recently. Off center. Maybe it's something I contracted from the Times.

----------

Related:

1) "Why the well-intentioned effort to reclaim the word 'liberal' is doomed"

2) And David Denby's Snark. Which I guess says the same thing I'm saying here, but without the swearing and less toward Ann Coulter and more toward competitive bloggers. Haven't read it, though. For what it's worth, I have nothing against competitive blogging (and the language of competitive blogging). What I dislike is using snark obliquely and dishonestly and under the guise of solving society's problems. Which is what I believe Ann Coulter does. Maureen Dowd, too.

3) God, no!