More Ann Coulter

On her latest book tour...

 

9/11 commissioner criticizes Coulter

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press WriterFri Jun 9, 3:53 PM ET

A member of the Sept. 11 commission on Friday lashed out at conservative pundit Ann Coulter for a "hate-filled attack" in saying the widows whose husbands died in the World Trade Center used the deaths for their own political gain.

In her latest book, Coulter criticizes the four New Jersey widows who pushed for an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The women also backed Democrat John Kerry's presidential candidacy in 2004.

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," Coulter wrote.

Former Rep. Tim Roemer, D-Ind., a member of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, called Coulter's "hate-filled attack on the patriotic heroes of 9/12 — the widows of 9/11 — reprehensible and undignified."

Roemer urged people not to buy her book. "Americans shouldn't contribute to her profiting from these vicious remarks."

Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, D-Ill., said Thursday on the House floor that Coulter is a "hatemonger" and called on Republicans to denounce her: "I must ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Does Ann Coulter speak for you when she suggests poisoning not Supreme Court Justices or slanders the 9/11 ... widows? If not, speak now. Your silence allows her to be your spokesman."

Among Coulter's previous statements, she advocated the invasion of non-Christian nations after Sept. 11 and the deportation from the U.S. of "all aliens from Arabic countries." She said American Taliban John Walker should be executed to show liberals what happens to traitors. And she said the only real question about President Clinton was "whether to impeach or assassinate."

Among the most quotable Coulter:

_"To expiate the pain of losing her first-born son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch. ... After your third profile on 'Entertainment Tonight,' you're no longer a grieving mom; you're a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show," Coulter wrote in her TownHall.com column on Aug. 18, 2005.

_"Even if corners were cut, (Iran-Contra) was a brilliant scheme. There is no possibility that anyone in any Democratic administration would have gone to such lengths to fund anti-communist forces. When Democrats scheme from the White House, it's to cover up the president's affair with an intern. When Republicans scheme, it's to support embattled anti-communist freedom fighters sold out by the Democrats," she wrote in 2003's "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism."

_"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building," The New York Observer quoted her as saying on Aug. 20, 2002. She clarified those remarks with RightWingNews.com: "Of course I regret it. I should have added, 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters.'"

_"After all other suitable office space in Manhattan had dried up — and also after spending the weekend golfing at an all-white club in Florida — Clinton announced he would take an office in Harlem. ... As one of my friends remarked, that should be nice: Having escaped a mugging on the way to work, Clinton's female employees will then have to face an accused rapist in the office," Coulter wrote on Feb. 19, 2001.

_"(Liberals) are always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let's do it. Let's repress them. ... Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment," Coulter said during an Oct. 21, 2005, speech at the University of Florida.

_"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war," Coulter wrote in a column published by the National Review Online on Sept. 13, 2001.

_"The portrayal of Senator Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism. Liberals weren't cowering in fear during the McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the nation's ability to defend itself while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to blacken McCarthy's name. Everything you think you know about McCarthy is a hegemonic lie. Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis," she wrote in "Treason."

_"Mostly the Witches of East Brunswick wanted George Bush to apologize for not being Bill Clinton," she wrote in "Godless." She was referring to the New Jersey town where two of the Sept. 11 widows live.

_"We need somebody to put rat poison in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," Coulter said in a Jan. 27 appearance at Philander Smith College in Little Rock, Ark., regarding Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. She later explained she was joking about the justice, whose votes have upheld Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision legalizing abortion.

_"You want to be careful not to become just a blowhard," she said in The Washington Post on October 16, 1998.

 

coulter is an over the top polemicist

she is offensive in the same way that lenny bruce was offensive

she is what she is.

i think her comments about the widows were disgusting

 

So what are your thoughts regarding the content of her most foully composed rhetoric?
In case you missed it totally- something close to this:

It sucks that Liberals have been using spokes people whom are so protected in their Political Vulnerably that for one to challenge their statements is only a guarantee to shoot oneself in the PC foot?

 

Thank God for Ann Coulter

Jun 9, 2006

Review by Ben Shapiro

"Liberals love to boast that they are not ‘religious,’ which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion,” writes Ann Coulter at the beginning of her new tour de force, Godless: The Church of Liberalism.

Coulter backs up her provocative thesis with her usual biting wit and cutting humor. Instead of focusing on the presence of leftist bias in the media (Slander) or the left’s rewriting of history in pursuit of its oft-treacherous ends (Treason), Coulter hones in on the basic ideals inspiring the ideology of liberalism. As Coulter strips liberalism down to its bare essentials, it becomes evident that, as she puts it, liberalism “is no longer susceptible to reduction ad absurdum arguments. Before you can come up with a comical take on their worldview, some college professor has already written an article advancing the idea.” Liberalism is indeed a Godless religion—and, as Coulter demonstrates, the secular religion of the left is a religion bereft of moral fiber.

It’s not that the atheism of the secular left makes Coulter unhappy. It’s that they lie about their religion. Jews don’t pretend that Judaism is a scientific theory; Christians don’t pretend that Christianity is provable in a laboratory. Liberals, however, pretend that their religion is provable and intellectually superior, while at the same time labeling the traditionally religious backwards buffoons. “I don’t particularly care if liberals believe in God,” she writes. “In fact, I would be crestfallen to discover any liberals in heaven. So fine, rage against God, but how about being honest about it?”

Coulter jumps into her expose with alacrity. Her second chapter, “The Passion of the Liberal: Thou Shalt Not Punish The Perp,” reminds us that Coulter isn’t simply a terrific writer who makes it impossible to drink while reading her work (this produces the famed “Coulter milk-out-the-nose phenomenon”). She’s also a legal scholar.

Coulter gives a brief and compelling history of Supreme Court idiocy with regard to criminal law. The absurd 1961 Supreme Court decision Mapp v. Ohio, announcing that the “exclusionary rule” barring evidence obtained “illegally” by police had to be applied on the state level, is one well-deserved target of her pen: “In order to vindicate the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the criminal goes free … This would be like a rule intended to reduce noise during an opera that mandated shooting the soprano whenever anyone in the audience coughed,” Coulter writes.

Coulter continues her devastating evaluation of liberalism’s cult of criminality with her in-depth discussion of the Willie Horton case. Willie Horton, as all political science majors know, is trotted out routinely by leftists in order to show that Republicans are truly racists. (I was treated to a showing of the famed “Willie Horton” commercials by Professor Lynn Vavreck, Political Science 40, UCLA, February 26, 2002.)

The real story is somewhat different.

Willie Horton was a convicted first degree murderer sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole (known as LWOP in legal circles). Michael Dukakis, then the governor of Massachusetts, “lustily” backed the weekend furlough program designed to re-introduce criminals to society. As Coulter points out, LWOP convicts have no need for such re-introduction, since they should never re-enter society. Dukakis felt differently, and under his watch, 82 first degree murderers were furloughed, including Horton.

Horton took off to Maryland, where he proceeded to sadistically torture Maryland resident Cliff Barnes and rape and torture Barnes’ fiancée Angela Miller.

Naturally, this became a campaign issue (first raised by Al Gore) in the 1988 presidential election. Liberals, however, insisted that this issue was only an issue because Horton happened to be black. “The only reason the Democrats cried racism over the Willie Horton ads was that it was one of the greatest campaign issues of all time,” Coulter writes. “Horton was the essence, the heart, the alpha and omega of liberal ideas about crime and punishment, to wit: Release the guilty. Willie Horton showed the American people exactly what was wrong with liberal theories about crime.”

Then there’s the liberal theory about life: it only matters if we’re talking about convicted murders (no, please don’t fry them!), not if we’re talking about unborn innocents (suck ‘em into a sink). Abortion for liberals, as Coulter explains, is “The Holiest Sacrament.” “No matter what else they pretend to care about from time to time—undermining national security, aiding terrorists, oppressing the middle class, freeing violent criminals—the single most important item on the Democrats’ agenda is abortion,” she avers.

There is no doubt that she is correct. Democratic politicians have abandoned every group they purport to support at one time or another—except for feminists who proclaim that abortion-on-demand is a godless-given-right. The Democrats’ undying and unwavering support for abortion-on-demand would condemn them to electoral damnation time after time, so Democrats simply lie about their policy positions.

That’s why liberals require that every single judge pay homage to the “holy writ” of Roe v. Wade, the most ridiculous legal decision in American history. Here’s Coulter: “There’s no there there—there’s nothing to talk about in Roe. Denounce, laugh at, ridicule, attack—yes. Discuss—no.”

Chapter 6 discusses the left’s worship of public school teachers. “Attack the Boy Scouts, boycott Mel Gibson, put Christ in a jar of urine—but don’t dare say anything bad about teachers,” writes Coulter. Coulter concisely explains the salary structure for public school teachers, who make more per hour than architects, civil engineers, mechanical engineers, statisticians … and the list goes on. At the same time, the quality of our public education system has been consistently declining for decades. “With public schools like this, students are going to learn, if they are going to learn, because of their parents, not because of any inspiration they get from schools,” Coulter rightly states. But because public school teachers’ unions are sacrosanct, the education system must not be reworked; to even suggest reworking the system would imply criticism of public school teachers.

 

(continued)

The remainder of the book is dedicated to Coulter’s refutation of the left’s ad hominem and utterly hypocritical attack on the “non-science” of religion.

Religion isn’t science, Coulter says, but neither is liberalism. Liberalism is a religion, pure and simple: “Listening to liberals invoke the sanctity of ‘science’ to promote their crackpot ideas creates the same uneasy feeling as listening to Bill Clinton cite Scripture. Who are they kidding? Liberals hate science. Science might produce facts impervious to their crying and hysterics.”

Measuring IQ (except when liberals have high IQs), mentioning that AIDS almost primarily affects homosexuals and bisexuals (and their spouses), preventing frivolous lawsuits based on junk science (see Edwards, John), DDT use; using adult stem cells (embryonic stem cells are favored, though); breast implants are (well, except for use in pornography)—all are nonsensically opposed by liberals.

Most dear to me, as a Harvard Law student, is Coulter’s take on the bizarre liberal attack on deposed Harvard President Lawrence Summers, who had the audacity to suggest that differences between men and women might not be caused by society, but rather—gasp!—by nature: “These delicate hothouse flowers [female Harvard professors] have a completely neurotic response to something someone else says—and then act like it’s Summers’s fault. Only a woman could shift the blame this way. If I hit you with a sledgehammer, that is my fault. But if I propose a scientific idea and you vomit, I think that’s really more your fault.” Hear, hear!

After compiling the evidence of liberal catechism, Coulter finally turns her bazooka on the foundation of liberalism itself: Darwinism. Coulter systematically picks apart the studies cited in support of species-to-species evolution, which are often religiously-adhered-to forgeries or speculative exercises. “These aren’t chalk-covered scientists toiling away with their test tubes and Bunsen burners,” she writes. “They are religious fanatics for whom evolution must be true and any evidence to the contrary—including, for example, the entire fossil record—is something that must be explained away with a fanciful excuse, like ‘our evidence didn’t fossilize.’”

But evolution isn’t just a religious theory, Coulter states. There’s a reason that Marx and Hitler relied on Darwinism to bolster their horrific worldviews. Coulter quotes Hitler’s Mein Kampf, in which he proclaimed that his goal was “to promote the victory of the better, the stronger, and to demand the submission of the worse and the weaker … [in accordance with] the eternal will that rules this universe.” When you take God out of the picture, says Coulter, man becomes just another animal, fighting for survival of the fittest.

Naturally, Godless has provoked liberals to the point of apoplexy. Instead of fighting the main argument of Coulter’s book, liberals (and some conservatives) have latched onto page 103, in Coulter’s fifth chapter. The basic point of the chapter is that Democrats cannot win the battle of ideas, and so have chosen to send “only messengers whom we’re not allowed to reply to. That’s why all Democratic spokesmen these days are sobbing, hysterical women.”

Coulter specifically takes to task the so-called “Jersey Girls,” four liberal partisan widows whose husbands were murdered on 9/11. Here’s the inflammatory passage, in relevant part: “These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them … These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.”

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) responded to this passage thusly: “Perhaps her book should have been called ‘Heartless.'" 2004 Democratic presidential candidate (and Jersey Girl-endorsed nominee) Senator John Kerry (D-MA) likewise stated, “we owe all the 9/11 families Ann Coulter slandered so much more than just outrage. We owe them thanks. And we also owe it to them to put the focus where they originally put it when, in the middle of their grieving, they stood up to demand answers and action from a government that invoked their husbands’ memories for political reasons …”

Really, now. I understand that Hillary doesn’t want to read Godless, and I understand that John Kerry owes a debt of gratitude to the Jersey Girls for cutting him some campaign commercials. Nonetheless, reading the context of the quote might be worthwhile. Clearly Coulter isn’t claiming that the Jersey Girls popped champagne as the planes hit the Twin Towers – she’s claiming that they have taken advantage of every available microphone to pose as national security experts, then claimed the sanctuary of victimhood when attacked politically. There is no doubt that this is absolutely true. Kerry proves Coulter’s point when he blabbers on about the debt of gratitude we owe to the Jersey Girls for selflessly subsuming their grief to rip the Bush Administration. Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal has made the exact same point as Coulter (OpinionJournal.com, April 14, 2004): “Nor can anyone miss, by now, the darker side of this spectacle of the widows, awash in their sense of victims’ entitlement, as they press ahead with ever more strident claims about the way the government failed them.” Yes, Coulter’s language is more direct than Rabinowitz’s. But that’s why Coulter is Coulter. And that’s why Godless is so deliciously good.

Liberalism has run out of ideas, so it seeks to shut down debate. Criminals must be freed because the courts say so. Abortion on demand must be provided because (1) women say so, and you’re not a woman, or if you are, shut up, you haven’t had an abortion and (2) the courts say so. Public education may not be fixed because if you want to fix it, you hate teachers. With regard to AIDS, the environment, stem cell research, and the origins of life, liberals label their own views “science” and those of their opponents “religious bigotry.” And with regard to national security, liberals trot out victims who agree with their point of view – and if you don’t agree, you need to shut up. Ann Coulter won’t shut up. Thank God.

 

June 12, 2006
David Carr
Deadly Intent: Ann Coulter, Word Warrior

ONCE again, Ann Coulter has a book in need of flogging, and once again, people are stunned by what a "vicious," "mean-spirited," "despicable" "hate-monger" they say she is.

Ms. Coulter, who seems afflicted by a kind of rhetorical compulsion, most recently labeled the widows of 9/11 "harpies." It is just one in a series from a spoken-word hit parade that seems to fly out of her mouth uninterrupted by conscience, rectitude or logic.

But Ann Coulter knows precisely what she is saying. Her current book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," is heading to the best-seller lists in part because she has a significant constituency and in part because no other author in American publishing is better at weaponizing words. With five books and more than a million copies in hardcover sales, she plays to win and is happy to take hostages along the way, including the women she calls "The Witches of East Brunswick."

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much." That typical Coulter sortie was hardly a misstep on some overamped talk show. That doozy of a sentence was written, edited, lawyered and then published. By now, she, along with Crown Publishing, have come up with a dexterous formula for kicking up the kind of fuss that sells books. It looks something like this:

She did not come out of the gate with such ruthless aplomb. As published at the height of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal in 1998, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" reflected her background as a lawyer and was fairly scholarly, considering what came after it. But once her lethally blond franchise became part of public consciousness, or at least the lower stem of it that feeds off cable talk, she quickly learned that hyperbole is best sold by the ton.

She has since suggested wistfully that Timothy McVeigh should have parked his truck in front of The New York Times, joked that a Supreme Court justice should be poisoned, and said that America should invade Muslim countries and kill their leaders. And she recently admitted that she is "no big fan" of the First Amendment that allowed her to say all of that.

"She is so smart that none of it is by accident," said Adrian Zackheim, the publisher of Portfolio, a business imprint, and of Sentinel, a conservative political imprint. "She knows that a few things she says are bound to get attention. She just probably doesn't know which one."

But once attention, negative or otherwise, turns toward her, she is all knuckles and know-how. When Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested that her attack on the widows was "vicious," Ms. Coulter went casually nuclear, saying that the senator "should talk to her husband, who was accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick."

The second-stage rollout — picking a fight with Senator Clinton is a way, as they say in politics, to "activate the base." Only the returns will be financial, not political.

"Every single book she has done has become an instant best-seller," said Bob Wietrak, a vice president for merchandising at Barnes & Noble. "Her fan base is phenomenal and she is in the media constantly. When she is in the media, it creates more media coverage. And every single day, the book sells more."

You get the idea. Wagging tongue, wagging fingers and before you know it, soon enough you have hundreds of hits on Google News for days to come (this column among them).

And just when things threaten to slow down, Ms. Coulter will saw into Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son in Iraq, describing her as "a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show," or accuse a disabled Vietnam vet she was arguing with on a talk show of being part of the reason the United States lost the war there. Her attacks on the maimed or the bereft engage the thermodynamics of the media marketplace to send her to even loftier heights.

An explosive device is now baked into every book. For "Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (333,000 in hardcover sales, according to Nielsen Bookscan), she called Katie Couric "the affable Eva Braun of morning TV." We all tuned in for the ensuing cage match, in which Ms. Couric maintained both the higher ground and the upper hand. (That interview came to mind last week when Ms. Coulter, back on a Couric-less "Today" program, treated Matt Lauer like a cat toy.)

When she was pushing "Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism," (almost 400,000 in sales), it was all about the misunderstood genius and patriotism of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. In "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)", she let readers in on the playbook: "You must outrage the enemy. If you don't leave liberals in a sputtering impotent rage, you're not doing it right." And her sales of 301,000 for what was basically a collection of columns seem to indicate that she has mastered the form.

"Godless," which is already doing gangbuster business according to the folks at Barnes & Noble, suggests that liberalism "is the doctrine that prompts otherwise seemingly sane people to propose teaching children how to masturbate, allowing gays to marry, releasing murderers from prison, and teaching children that they share a common ancestor with the earthworm."

Does she believe any of this stuff? I doubt she even knows. When I profiled Ms. Coulter a few years ago, I never figured out the line between her art and her artifice. She picked at her plate of lobster ravioli before serving up Fred Flintstone-size slabs of red meat. For the duration of the media opportunity, she was playful and on point, other than fibbing about her age, because she cares deeply about the franchise.

Her sincerity is beside the point as long as people keep taking the bait. Mrs. Clinton, who is the perfect foil for Ms. Coulter — ambitious, allergic to irony, loathed by the people who will line up for "Godless" — simply added fuel to a fire that she was presumably trying to douse. All manner of televised talkfests, including "Today," welcome Ms. Coulter's pirate sensibilities back aboard whenever she has something to peddle, in part because seeing hate-speech pop out of a blonde who knows her way around a black cocktail dress makes for compelling viewing.

Without the total package, Ms. Coulter would be just one more nut living in Mom's basement. You can accuse her of cynicism all you want, but the fact that she is one of the leading political writers of our age says something about the rest of us.

 

Liberal infallibility: Why Ann Coulter is right

Jun 11, 2006

by Kevin McCullough

Liberals in America have been staging a new strategy on winning public policy debates. Simply provide spokespeople that no one is allowed to respond to. Ann Coulter had the gall to challenge that and let loose with some direct observations in her newest best-seller "GODLESS" and true to form liberals have been fomenting in response.
The reason they do is not because it breaks some sacred respect that one should have for a grieving mother, wife, or relative. Rather the reason they are so outraged by this is because it simply stabs through the heart the strategy of hiding behind spokespeople who 'can't be criticized'.

Matt Lauer, Hillary Clinton, and Alan Colmes have been laughable in the trumped up outrage that they share for the statements Coulter makes in GODLESS in reference to the 'Jersey Girls'. The Jersey Girls are four wives who lost their husbands on 9/11, they jumped into the 2004 election debate early on, they cut commercials for John Kerry, and they are on record for saying some rather hideous remarks about Condoleezza Rice and Karl Rove, not to mention President Bush.

In recent years liberal spokespersons have grown infamous for self destruction when they are put into arenas where free debate, give and take response, and actual dialogue take place. As Ann argues rather convincingly in her new book, this sets up the structure of "liberal infallibility." In other words liberals use of victims of tragedies would never be criticized. So the plan is to find as many victims to become the mouthpieces for the left as possible.

An interesting point, when the GOP invited widows of 9/11 to participate in their national convention, the memes went up from the left of "pure political posturing." Yet any observer of those who participated would be hard pressed to know of a single critical thing they said about the President's opponents. The presentation they made dealt with the need for America to remain strong in its stand against terrorism. Kerry's name was never even invoked. And their involvement in the public debate ended that night.

The Jersey Girls on the other hand have consistently spoken out and advocated on behalf of leftist interests through the 9/11 Commission’s findings, to the operation of the global War On Terror, the elections of 2004, etc. In other words - they chose, or the liberal Democratic Party chose for them - to enter the fray, to don the gloves, and to mix it up.

But what if they're wrong? What if, even in as much pain as they have endured at the hands of terrorists, the substance of what they argue for is as loony as the day is long? Even if Cindy Sheehan lost her heroic son in the War on Terror - does that now mean that everything Cindy Sheehan says is correct?

Which is Ann's point.

Ann's criticism is legitimate - if liberals in America wish to truly have a debate on the issues that we all have strong emotions about - then stand and make the point, but don't hide behind those who are ineffective, unskilled, and often wrong in their views, simply because they're a victim.

For the last few weeks Congressman Murtha has been criss-crossing the television pundit circuit criticizing the brave marines who fell under attack via an improvised explosive device and as a result tragically some women and children ended up dead. The marines claimed that they were then fired upon and that those firing upon them did so from behind women and children being used as human shields. The jury is still out - but thus far Murtha has yet to present evidence that contradicts the marines' account.

Liberals are using the exact same tactics today. Firing upon people of faith, who believe in God, who believe God's model for marriage is what society should promote - but they do so from behind victims that they believe no one would fire back to. People like the Jersey Girls, Joe Wilson, Cindy Sheehan, and Jack Murtha. They do so knowing that they would lose on substantive, equitable, fair debates.

Coulter's critics have tried to turn her book into a verbal Haditha. Hillary Clinton was excessively unwise in doing so. Coulter decided to do the brave thing and do something that nobody else would. In doing so she is again undergoing every ounce of scorn and vehemence that the left can pour out, but she is doing so for the well being of political discourse in general.

By paying the price for us she also challenges us to not be so timid, to fight for the integrity of substance, and to not fall for the idea that a victim can never be disagreed with.

What a twisted world it would become otherwise...

 

I wonder if you tell her that you had a relative who died in the towers whether she'll add a little something while signing the book.

 

There's the problem. Right there. How one leads to the next, I will never know. You believe in goblins? Fine. Just keep it to yourself. Leave me out of your fantasies.