1524 Barr Avenue, #2, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15205

History Articles
Humor Only
Television Archives
Contact Al

Home arrow Columns

There are 223 Ann Coulter replies, political, humor, nostalgia and tribute columns

Choose the column type BELOW

Your selections will appear BELOW

You've Chosen


 Ann Coulter Reply


 July, 2007


 Ann Coulter - Debunking an Ann Coulter Book "Review"

Ann Coulter: Liar, Liar Pants on Fire!

By Al Owens
What’s the word? Thunderbird! What’s the price? 3 dollars and 20 cents twice! (I had to adjust that poem for inflation)

Yep, I used the word inflation because that’s the extent of my knowledge of economics. And it’s my way of saying that I’m not equipped to furnish a point-for-point rebuttal of Ann Coulter’s “review” (not column) of a book from a noted economics professor this week.

I use the word “review”, because that’s the word Ph.D. John Lott, Jr. uses on his own web site http://www.johnrlott.com about Coulter’s fawning treatment of his new book, Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don't.

Lott, whom I’ll deal with at length later, was so impressed by Coulter’s uncharacteristically (for her) kind words, that he personally posted her “review” with an enthusiastic “Thanks, Ann!” on the end of it.

I think he’s just pleased that she didn’t call him some nasty name or publicly wish his cat dies, or something. She uses passages from his book, "Remarkably, it looks as if virtually all felons are Democrats," to make over-broad, Ann Coulter points like, “Felons vote Democratic.”

Move over Democrats. Make room for Scooter Libby, I guess.

When she claims, “Women shouldn’t vote,” she deliberately draws questionable conclusions from Lott’s real statement, "What changed ... that explains the growth of government? The answer is women's suffrage."

But Coulter doesn’t appear to be the least bit concerned about taking things out of context. Especially since a conservative leaning economist might give her a little free publicity on his web site.

As it turns out, he posted her column on his web site at (or before) about the time she posted her column on her OWN web site. Do you think maybe this was some kind cheesy Quid Pro Quo thing?

Lott’s credentials, a degree in economics from UCLA, and various positions at the University of Chicago, Rice, Yale University, Stanford, Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, seem solid. It’s his character that can be easily attacked.

His two previous books, More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns (I can’t find the Ann Coulter “reviews” of those) were met with some criticism. There were even questions about the research he used to write them.

Some of that criticism made its way to the internet, where detractors frequently posted their disagreements about Ph.D. Lott’s conclusions.

It wasn’t Ann Coulter who jumped to his defense online. It was Mary Rosh. Rosh followed the critics around the internet, and she energetically defended Lott. "It was very interesting reading and Lott writes very well. He explains things in an understandable commonsense way,” she gleefully once wrote.

Problem is, Mary Rosh was really John Lott! Lott had made up a name and answered his online critics as if he was a devoted fan. Lott (as Rosh) even loved the classes he took from himself at the Wharton School. “There were a group of us students who would try to take any class that he taught. I have to say that he was the best professor I ever had."

But an enterprising writer figured out that Rosh was really Lott. When confronted online about the fakery he denied it, claiming his son and wife had gone online and used the name.

The Washington Post heard about Lott’s fictitious devotee, and he finally admitted he’s a liar.

That he’d created Mary Rosh out of thin air, and that he’d blamed his wife and son for trying to defend him.

I know it’s a little harsh calling Ann Coulter’s hero a liar, but he admitted it the Washington Post, "I'm sure I did that. I shouldn't have done it."

Too bad lying doesn’t make you a felon. Lott could change his party affiliation.

Coulter uses the liar’s supposed conclusions from his latest book to set the record straight (unless some enterprising internet sleuths get involved) that “felons are Democrats.”

She should never put the words felons and Democrats in close proximately to each other in a sentence. (Especially in the state of Florida)

That’s the state where, in 2000, thousands of non-felons (mostly African-Americans) were wrongly prevented from voting thanks to “free enterprise.”

Florida had become the only state in the country that hired a private company to ensure that the voting rolls were purged of people who shouldn’t vote. The company, Database Technologies, botched the purge. It violated the voting rights of non-felons and probably non-George W. Bush supporters all over the state.

There’s been no proof there was any illegal intent involved in the faulty purge. PERSONAL NOTE: I can’t help it, but I still have my suspicions!

If Ann Coulter’s assertion that “felons are Democrats,” can be taken seriously, then I’m wondering what her take is on non-convicted felons.

Ironically, Hank Asher, the guy who founded Database Technologies is an admitted cocaine smuggler. (He was forced out of the company before the 2000 elections, when his nefarious past came to light)

Non-convicted felons just may not be Democrats. When presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani was the mayor of New York City, he’d talked about how drug dealers were really “murderers.”

Curiously, Giuliani made a 2 million dollar exception for Asher. That’s how much Asher once paid to Giuliani’s lobbying firm to represent his company. Drug smuggler or not, "I have a great admiration for what he's doing," said the ex-drug smuggler lover-in-chief Giuliani at the time.

Too bad Asher hadn’t been convicted of a felony. The Democrats could use that kind of money.