Rational Header
RR Logo
Flag Ribbon

Page Curl
Page Curl

The Jersey Girls and Other Sacred Cows

<br /> JersyGirls.txt copy<br /> I very much liked Ann Coulter’s recent intervention on the American victim racket. Unimpressed by the Naked Emperor, she has spoken critically about the subsequent political activities of four women who lost their husbands in the 9-11-01 attack on America. The women, all from New Jersey, became a high-profile clique of political activists very soon after the WTC tragedy occurred, prompting official investigations into their pleading question, “Why did my husband die?” One widow even appeared in a presidential campaign, hurling accusations and angry, political invective aimed at helping the candidate of her choice to get elected. It’s significant that the same campaign also used a man in a wheelchair, a double-amputee at that, who assaulted the political opposition.

In one, fell swoop, Ann Coulter defied the victim racket and violated the sanctity of victimhood itself. “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much,” Coulter writes of the Jersey Girls in her new book,Godless…. Ann Coulter has dared to tread on the sacred victim, and it has howled in pain and rage. An outpouring of public anger ensued after Coulter’s candid observation, as talkshows took up the cause of the Jersey girls. The horror seemed shared across the political spectrum. Hillary Clinton lashed out, and even Bill O’Reilly canned Coulter as “a radical bomb-thrower.”

The Jersey girls are protected by strong, cultural taboos against criticizing victims of any kind. In their aggressive, political activism, they claim immunity from vigorous challenges to their messages — immune, that is, until Ann Coulter came along. It was implicit, according to popular culture, that the messages of victims carry a premium of credibility, and that certainly they should not be counter-attacked in the tradition of American politics.

The principle of using victims as human shields against crtiticism has accelerated since that ill-fated campaign. Take note of Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in the Iraq War. She suffered grief, attracting the mainstream media, and in a short time became an itenerant war protester. Whatever merit her views may have had was lost in the aura of her victimhood, so that she, rather than the content of her complaints, became the message. She plucked the heartstrings of a nation that accepts innocent suffering as verification of truth and immunity from criticism. Her pathos gained her more media attention than her radical sponsors could buy. Even Sheehan’s most obvious personal faults and deficiencies, including her apparent low intelligence, were sweetly overlooked by victim-centric mainstream media and the American public. The subliminal message had become, “Look upon my suffering, and believe my words!”

When victims talk, their very words seem justified by the pain of victimhood, and anyone who would challenge them is a bad person, a sick person, or mentally unbalanced. Adam Lisberg, writer for the N.Y. Daily News, describes Coulter as “…a very disturbed, unraveled person.” If Ann was disabled and wrote from her wheelchair, however, would Mr. Lisberg likely make the same comments? Frankly, I hope he would, but I suspect he gets tongue-tied at the sight of disability and explains it as “sensitivity.” How anyone can accept pity as a tribute or some form of respect is beyond me, but the Jersey Girls and their cheering — no, weeping! — section apparently do just that. Ann Coulter has paid the Jersey Girls the highest degree of respect by assuming that five years after their husbands’ deaths they can play two-way hardball politics, on a level playing field, without crying or having others cry for them.

Anyone can see that the four WTC widows, catapulted to fame as political activists, are now enjoying the celebrity status resulting from their husbands’ deaths. They appear on the covers of Vanity Fair and other household magazines, move on the talkshow circuit, and are now enjoying their new, social roles as political personalities. They obviously love what they’re doing — meaningful political expression! —regardless of the circumstances that bring them to public attention, regardless of whatever grief they have. They are passionate in their mission to affect the course of history by exercising free speech, and by engaging in political activism.

Exercising her freedom and her rights.

The Jersey girls are as American as apple pie, and I love the system that brings them to speak in spite of their baggage of victimhood. I also love Ann Coulter for her bare-knuckle honesty, calling out the politicos who use victims as human shields for their political agendas. Neither party will likely resort to that tactic in the near future, but I think the victimhood racket will continue in many other forms until its source is identified and understood. We will continue to be appalled at the rapid pace of change in our society, as cherished values and traditions fall one-by-one to new, progressive ideas that sound good in some ways but go against common sense.

The Roots of the Victim Racket
About everyone agrees that in recent decades there’s been a radical shift in mainstream thinking and social policy. In many respects America 2006 is essentially an inversion of America 1956. Social taboos ran deep in the 1950’s, but with little emphasis on special protections of the speech of victims. Victimhood was quite the opposite; for example, FDR knew that his victimhood was far from an asset, politically speaking, so he cleverly concealed his paraplegia from the public. The disabled were much admired for their accomplishments and the merits of their speech, and not for their frailty of misfortunes, but in spite of them. Far from being a political asset, victimhood has always been a political liability, as well it should be.

I think the Jersey Girls are enjoying protection carried over from a new privileged class in America, people suffering from the mysterious disease of addiction. For example, once a problem drinker is baptized “an alcoholic,” he is no longer a perpetrator of emotional mayhem, but an innocent, disease victim. His problem drinking is thereby converted to chronic addiction, and as a perpetual alcoholic, he reserve the privilege of getting drunk under certain conditions known as “relapse.” His self-anointment as “an alcoholic” amounts to a windfall of yummy relapses bestowed upon him by genetic fate and by the imagined failures of his family system since conception.

A large portion of our national budget is devoted to protecting and serving former problem drinkers and drug addicts in that delicate, unassailable condition known as, “in recovery.” They are protected from the natural consequences of their preposterous, even criminal, conduct by various schemes that divert them from swift, effective justice. A surgeon wielding the scalpel while under the influence of alcohol really ought to be led off in leg-irons, but ironically, a co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous, Dr. Bob Smith, was provided alcohol by his cohort, Bill Wilson, so that he wouldn’t shake too much during the operation.

Society’s foundation of common sense has been rotted out by the victim racket, so much and for so long, that no one intuitively knows what is best to think, say or do, when a substance abuser is running amok. Much less, do we know how to set social policies that protect families from the ravages of drunks and junkies. (Note, I didn’t say, “…ravages of addiction.”)

If my neighbor drinks, that’s his business. If he hurts people when he drinks, that’s everybody’s business, my business, your business. The sharpest, most effective intervention for that person is a confrontation, “Hey, buddy, I know what you’re doing and your drinking makes you dangerous. You know right from wrong, so knock off the drinking, for good!” No paper slippers, no recovery groups, no one-day-at-a-time sobriety, no sponsors. Just knock it off, or else.

To demand that problem drinkers simply cease and desist from the use of alcohol, or else, rather than drinking behind the shield of addictive disease or the drunkard’s holy grail, “moderation,” would raise such an outcry of indignation that the “wets” and the “drys” of the Prohibition Era would re-convene and new laws would be created defending addicted people from such intolerance. Indeed, such laws are already on the books, at all levels of government, forming the vast, legal foundation of the addiction treatment industry. Some of the loudest complaints would come from the defenders of the Beast of addiction, addiction treatment specialists, and others engaged in the victim racket.

Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-MA) and his grateful recovering (for 25 years) sponsor, Rep. James Ramstad (R-MN) both work toward legislation that grants equality between real diseases (cancer, diabetes, Altzheimer’s, etc.) and addictive disease for health insurance purposes. Instead of demanding that both of these screwballs guarantee the public in writing that they will never drink again or step down from elected office, they will campaign for millions of voters to help them perpetuate the victim racket.

Pat K and Jim R

No nation, not even the cornucopia of the ages, the United States of America, could afford the bill for their infamous scheme. The Mental Health Parity Bill, co-authored by Ramstad would have funneled untold billions of dollars into addiction treatment, rehabs, and the recovery groups. Fortunately, the parity bill was defeated in 2001, but we are sure to hear from this deceptive duo in future administrations naturally friendly to the victim racket.

No matter how much Kennedy and Ramstand believe they suffer from a malady that has caused them to intoxicate their brains, and no matter how many professional guilds endorse that self-serving, lucrative proposition, there is no such known disease, few physicians actually believe addiction is or is caused by a disease, and few scientiests believe one will ever be found.

Judge Not?
Most will agree that addiction expands into the tolerance that surrounds it. The recovery group is infinitely tolerant of self-intoxication. So is their ersatz deity, the one-dimensional, “love only, please,” God-as-you-understand-him. Regardless of what antisocial or depraved act one may have engaged in earlier in the day, the lush, or drunk, or junkie is warmly welcomed by the recovery group. Never does a grouper “take someone else’s inventory,” i.e., render judgment of another grouper.

It is as if “Judge not that ye shall not be judged,” is a commandment from recovery doctrine, always ready on the lips of addicts-in-recovery, rather than a teaching of Jesus that amounts to, “What goes around comes around.” One might ask, “Well, didn’t Jesus suffer? Isn’t he a victim? Isn’t his word sanctified by his victimhood?” As the account goes, Jesus wasn’t a victim. His suffering was voluntary. He suffered aggressively.

There is no holy writ that we must not or should not render moral judgments, spoken or unspoken, of others! Nor is there any basis in common sense for passive acceptance of the speech, values, character, behavior, and political opinions of victims of any kind, whether they have merely stubbed their toes or suffered catastrophic, painful losses. Indeed, it is our capacity for moral judgment, of ourselves and of others, that differentiates us from animals. “Judge not…” merely states the obvious, that when we do judge others, we may be held to the same moral standards we apply to others. So what’s the big deal? Obviously, if we judge not, the guilty won’t be judged! I, for one, don’t think it’s wise to defer judgment until Judgment Day.

The result of our failure to morally judge our victim-addicts is that the addicted homeless and repeat drunk drivers now roam the streets and highways of every community, and families are destroyed by their beloved victims. It is as though problem drinkers and other substance abusers are sacred cows, a species protected by religious taboo and victim-protection laws.

Are her words validated
by her grief?

The Jersey Girls are truly innocent victims, whereas addicted people categorically are guilty of violating their own morality and common decency. None of us can know the Jersey Girls’ grief, but they are nevertheless exploiting their own victimhood and allowing themselves to be exploited as sacred cows, sancified and immunized against criticism by attitudes wafting over from the recovery group swampland.


There’s another view, much different from the meanstream viewpoint on addiction and recovery, available through the corrective lens of Addictive Voice Recognition Technique® (AVRT®). A note of caution, addicted people and formerly-addicted people will probably catch on more quickly to AVRT® than never-addicted people. It’s surprising, however, how very, very common addiction is, and how simple recovery is, once the mysteries of recovery doctrines are dismissed, especially the disease concept of addiction. Welcome to Rational Recovery, and to a better world through self-restraint.

21 Responses to “The Jersey Girls and Other Sacred Cows”

  1. Jim Heckel

    I always knew I was/am responsible for getting rid of my nicotine dependency. Now it’s gone, and I feel much better. My Nicobeast used to rule me, now I rule it. If the politicians cannot muzzle their Beasts, let them be removed from office.

  2. kaye

    I have never seen such a dangerous website! You, sir, are not God, and if you had 2 brain cells you wuld know better than to print such idiotic BS!

  3. sam magill

    I really hope RR does not condone the dangerous fascism of ann coulter!!!!!!!!!!
    This woman is a traitor, and my first thought was to have nothing to do with RR. But, I have a strong desire to become sober forever, so I thought better of it. I think politics should have NO PLACE here on this website at all. I am thoroughly offended!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    [Sam then called me to complain, and then sent this email. — Jack Trimpey]

    Mr. Trimpey, I am glad I just spoke with you on the phone. Now I know that you are merely a front group for the radical right. I feel used and abused. Thank you so much!!!!!!! Goodbye.

    [Will Sam continue his addiction? I wish him well. - JT]

  4. jen

    Why are you congratulating Ann Coulter? Don’t you know that in her spare time she haunts houses and eats children? I know with her emaciated figure and gaunt face, many people find her attractive, but we must not be fooled by what she really is: a troll.

  5. Jim Heckel

    I don’t think that Trimpey was endorsing Ann Coulter’s ideology in general, so much as he was praising her for having the guts to strip away the “victim” label from those who would abuse it. Good on her for taking that stance (and I’m a liberal Democrat saying that!) and I hope she has the courage to stick by her comments on that ONE issue.

  6. finally_done

    Go Anne Coulter!!! Finally someone who speaks the truth. Thank’s for this GREAT post.

  7. Jen

    I didn’t think he was endorsing her ideology–I’ve just been waiting to use that line about “she haunts houses and eats children” ever since I heard it a couple of weeks ago:) And yeah, I hate that perpetual victim stuff too, because it makes you feel powerless and that’s not productive at all. But why hasn’t she called President Bush out for using 9/11 as a political platform? The Jersey Girls are using it as a platform and so is the President. She didn’t point out the Jersey Girl’s agenda because she feels that what they’re doing is morally wrong or deceiving, she pointed it out because she knew it would put her in the spotlight and THAT is what I find terribly, terribly wrong with pundits/politicians from both the left and the right.
    I want to add that I’m glad not everyone out there thinks alcoholism/addiction is a disease. I stopped drinking on my own and always felt the disease theory was an excuse to continue unhealthy behavior. I was watching Oprah a week or so ago and I found out that now kleptomania is also a disease…according to a “recovering” kleptomaniac (who participates in a 12-step program) Oprah was interviewing. Where will it end? Does that mean my love of painting is a disease? I mean, I find myself needing to paint, craving it, sometimes I can’t stop thinking about it for days. I spend A LOT of money on paint and brushes and canvasses. I think I have to go and start an Artists’ Anonymous support group. You know, for my disease.

  8. Alan Cilley

    Great site. I too quit drinking on my own on March 8th of 2006 after 30 years of escalated drinking. I went to meetings with a friend of mine in the late 90′s and was scared to think that one day I would have to resort to trading my drinking dependency to meeting dependency. I finally got to the point where I just quit. I hate to ay it but it started as one day at a time but it soon became clear to me that it was easy to quit on my own. I go to bars and socials with the biggest time being my golf league and have water or soda. Anyone can quit because it does come from within. We all have that power to “Kill The BEAST”. After finding and reading the information on this site I know now that I will also quit smoking!!!!!!

    Thanks for articulating what I felt inside: Al Cilley

  9. Anne Harwell McFerguson

    “Fred was not a gambler: he had not that specific disease in which the suspension of the whole nervous energy on a chance or risk becomes as necessary as the dram to the drunkard;”
    George Elliot’s “Middlemarch” – Published 1872

    Too bad Trippy is so uneducated about history. Freud published his book in 1899 … Jung published about 14 years later. About 15 years after that Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob “founded” AA, AFTER breaking from an ultra-conservative religious group that offered no LASTING help for their illness.

    Addiction isn’t being a “Victim”. I dare anyone to tell me they even know anyone that says “I was a ‘victim’ of cancer/diabetes/AIDS et.al.” Who in AA claims to be a ‘victim’ of alcoholism? They ‘treat’ their disease with the help of other sufferers from the same disease. They are the first to DENY “victim-hood” mentality and the whole process of actually working the 12 steps is to OWN UP TO YOUR SPIRITUAL/MORAL DEFECTS OF CHARACTER!

    I did find this site ‘interesting’, but know feel nauseated.

    Trippy – Join Rush Limbaugh, you already seem to be deaf, (just plain) dumb, and obviously blind.



    All members of AA claim to be victims of addictive disease. Just in this blog, three public figures are featured, all pleading innocent by disease, Patrick Kennedy, Rep. James Ramstad, and Mel Gibson.

    Jack Trimpey

  10. Jen

    “I dare anyone to tell me they even know anyone that says ‘I was a ‘victim’ of cancer/diabetes/AIDS et.al.’”

    Why would you say this? Are you trying to say alcoholism is a disease like cancer or AIDS? Please stop–please. I’ve lost loved ones to both cancer and AIDS and I find it really offensive when someone tries to compare alcoholism to a disease like cancer or AIDS. People can’t stop their bodies from rotting with cancer or deteriorating from all the sicknesses and disease that attack their bodies because of AIDS (if one can’t afford insurance or medication this is bound to happen to someone with AIDS). People can, however, PUT DOWN THE BOTTLE. Just like I did, four years ago…I feel I’ve gained more confidence by once again proving that I can do it all on my own. I know that I am not powerless, that I don’t have to have a higher power make me quit, that I DON’T have a disease. That it was in me all along to just…let it go :)

  11. CTMS

    The greatest thinkers of day once thought the world was flat. There was no scientific evidence of this; it was accepted as fact by the masses and held in place by superstition. Our knowledge and understanding have evolved throughout history and this will also be true in the area of “addiction”.

  12. J.D.

    This entry was difficult to read. I am neither a conservative or a fan of Ann Coulter, and I am deeply opposed to some of the political viewpoints implicitly and explicitly expressed here.

    That said, Jack Trimpey’s political views do not affect the validity of AVRT, which is what Rational Recovery is all about. Even though I know this, my Beast was sorely provoked by this article – it was screaming, “Run, run, run.” But thanks to AVRT, I understand that it was not screaming “Run, because you disagree strongly with Jack Trimpey’s political views.” Rather, it was screaming “Run, because this is the best excuse I’ve seen yet to drop this whole AVRT thing.”

    Well, too bad, Beast. It’s a free country, and Mr. Trimpey has the right to his politics, just as I have the right to mine. And I have even worse news for you – if I can stick to AVRT after this, you’re in big trouble.

    But Ann Coulter? Wow…

  13. Robert xxxxx

    Mr Trimpey
    AVRT is a great thing. It can and will help many of us. Ann Coulter is an opportunist who wants to sell her secondrate book. If you want to maintain your credibility and continue to help people, then keep the politics out of this. You will only damage your reputation and this great venue by bringing politics into it. I think AA does much harm, but one thing that is not discussed at their meeetings is politics. So, in closing I suspect that your political views would put me off, as mine would you, so lets us try and keep this forum focused on what we are here for – keeping our Beast at bay using AVRT.

    Also, your reply to Sam Migell ([Will Sam continue his addiction? I wish him well. - JT]) was uncalled for and petty.

    I was and still am interested in attending your seminar, but reading some of your comments, well, I have to wonder. Please try to keep things in perspective and on focus.
    Thank you


    AVRT is your missing moral conscience, which you exchanged for your addiction long ago. You may restore your moral conscience at this link, and recover independently, without the inconvenience and expense of seminars, addiction treatments, rehabs, etc.

    AVRT® is shockingly political. Your wish to suppress AVRT® is no different from Mr. Migell’s, and just as insolent. My commentaries will continue without restraint by sensitive readers. A sizzling, AVRT-inspired, political commentary has just been posted, one that might really get under your skin. Perhaps I should say, “…under your Beast’s skin,” but that is for you to decide.

    Take it from me, the best/worst is yet to come on the political side of things, so if you or your Beast finds that kind of commentary offensive, then tune out.

    Cheers, really,

    Jack Trimpey

  14. Rick B

    Citing anything from Ann Coulter to support your point takes your credibility into negative territory.

  15. Harry Onara

    Ann Coulter is just a mean-spirited b*tch. How could anyone aspire to emulate such a truly miserable human being such as she is beyond reason.

  16. JD

    Right! Come on then….lets add a wee bit of controversry to the mix then shall we?

    [Here, JD has entered a long list of quotes from prominent officials and experts casting doubt upon the 911 Commission’s version of the WTC disaster. Although that material is off topic, he added the poem below, some inspired writing which might bring strengthened conviction for some readers. — Jack Trimpey ]

    …So I ask the question and comment in regard to addictions:

    you’re keeping in step in the line
    got your chin held high and you feel just fine
    ’cause you do what you’re told
    but inside your heart it’s black, it’s hollow and it’s cold

    just how deep do you believe?
    will you bite the hand that feeds?
    will you chew until it bleeds?
    can you get up off you knees?
    are you brave enough to see?
    do you want to change it?

    what if this whole crusade’s a charade?
    and behind it all is a price to be paid
    for the blood, on which we dine
    justified in name of the holy and the divine?

    just how deep do you believe?
    will you bite the hand that feeds?
    will you chew until it bleeds?
    can you get up off you knees?
    are you brave enough to see?
    do you want to change it?

    so naive…
    i keep holding on to what i want to believe
    i can see…
    but i keep holding on and on and on and on and on…

    will you bite the hand that feeds you?
    will you stay down on your knees?
    will you bite the hand that feeds?

    Thanks, JD!

  17. clark gable

    You sir are an imbecile. People do not drink for pleasure they drink to escape from pain. Of course pleasure is a painkiller anyway but that is beyond your comprehension. You only know how to pimp your product like the whore you are. You are not a philosopher or scientist or much of anything at all except a capitalist. Your concept of the beast is nothing more than religion. You criticise others religion while promoting your own, that is nothing new. You are a hypocrite and opportunist posing as savior to addicts. You perceive all criticism as wrong and misguided as do all religious fanatics.

  18. Joel

    To Clark:
    You sir are an imbecile. People drink for pleasure not to escape from pain. Of course dulling pain is pleasurable anyway but that is beyond your comprehension. You only know how to pimp your 12 step program like the whore you are. You are not a philosopher or scientist or much of anything at all except an addict. Your concept of the higher power is nothing more than religion. You criticise others religion while promoting your own, that is nothing new. You are a hypocrite and opportunist posing as savior to addicts. You perceive all criticism as wrong and misguided as do all religious fanatics.

  19. Harry

    I used to drink because I had an allergy (an abnormal and/or pathological reaction to a substance) in the way “The Doctor’s Opinion” of the big book explains it. I’m not trying to push that view on anyone, it’s just how I reacted to it.
    If Jack Trimpey or anyone else stays sober and happy some other way, I can only wish them the best of luck.


    Every word we say, from birth to death, is an attempt to push our views, opinions, and desires on others. Your pitch is simply a little more obsequious than most.

    Jack Trimpey

  20. Harry Onara

    Jack, look up up “self-seeking” in the dictionary. It would be good for you.


    OK, here is some data:

    1. (adj) concerned only with one’s own activities or needs and usually tending to self-assertion or self-satisfaction
    (synonym) egocentric, egoistic, egomaniacal, egotistic, self-absorbed, self-centered, self-concerned, self-interested, self-involved, selfish, self-serving
    (see also) pompous
    (related) conceited, narcissistic, self-affected, self-applauding, self-conceited, self-concentered, self-indulgent, self-loving, stuck-up, vainglorious, megalomaniac

    2. (noun) a concern for one’s own welfare at the expense of or in disregard of others
    (synonym) selfishness, self-centeredness, self-concern, self-hood, self-interest, self-regard
    (related) egoism, egotism, self-absorption, self, selfism, selfness, autotheism, self-worship
    (contrast) self-denial, selflessness, self-sacrificing, benevolence, charity, generosity
    (antonym) unselfishness

    There. I have a feeling that does more good for you than for me. I know how I appear to 12-steppers including you, and that is fine. It cannot be otherwise.

    Cheers, Jack Trimpey

  21. bruce werner

    I personally enjoy anyone, (such as Ann Coulter) who will expose people in print who make it a career to destroy the United States. Ann’s book, “Godless”, has shown me facts concerning the actions of countless people, especially in government, who are less than honorable or even traitorous, that was not visable to me before. All of her books expose rottenness, (which I appreciate), the newspapers of the country expose nothing. Our government is a cauldron of corruption, thankfully Ann Coulter speaks up about it.

© Copyright, 2019, Rational Recovery Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.