A strange thing, after I clarified my Coulter challenge and requested that her fans get specific and tell me what they supported and why in her book…the e-mail from them all dried up. Pffft. Gone.
Maybe they just got bored with me, but it’s sad that no one has even tried to suggest a single good paragraph in all of Godlessssss. It’s as if they’re willing to play mindless cheerleader, but actually committing to thinking and supporting specifically a single thing she says…well, that’s just not going to happen.
I think their logic goes pretty close to your one emailer: liberals don’t like it so it must be good. Critical reading skills doesn’t seem to be their strong suit.
At least give ’em a chance to read it. It’s going to take weeks and there’s much tongue protrusion involved.
I think Unstable’s second sentence would be no less true if the word “critical” were removed…
It was really cruel of you to try to trick them into thinking. There could have been massive injuries . . .
To steal from Joe Lansdale, that crowd moves its lips while reading the centerfold in Playboy: it’s probably the staples that threw them.
There’s a guy who goes to Harvard Law School who has written a very supportive review of Godlesssssss.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/books_entertainment/reviews/benshapiro/200642.html
Here’s what he has to say about Ann’s attack on Darwinism:
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.
You gave them a five or six step procedure. Word is they’re busy setting up research on how to count beyond three.
No doubt from her own keepsake copy with the gilt-edged pages and satin bookmark.
Coulter quotes Hitler’s Mein Kampf,
Hitler was also a Creationist.
Birds of a feather.
Has everyone seen the footage of Coulter running, arms akimbo, hands flapping in fear, away from that thrown pie? (Not that I advocate throwing things at speakers, mind you.) I guess that’s what her defenders are doing now–bravely running away.
To be fair, you know, the Coulterites are very, very devout. How can they count beyond three when they always try to obey holy scripture?
Funny, Zeno. After reading Kristine’s comment I was think “brave Sir Robin.”
Digby also has a post up from a troll who sent a long defense of Coulter.
I’m dismayed at the insults in the comments. I don’t see how they help, and (as with Coulter’s insults) they detract from the underlying message.
“Coulter finally turns her bazooka on the foundation of liberalism itself: Darwinism.”
I find this one of the most bizarre things about it: the idea that Darwinism is the foundation of liberalism. Surely liberalism has no more to do with Darwinism than conservatism… It’s frightening to think that science itself is being allied with one side of politics or the other.
There’s a reason that Marx and Hitler relied on Darwinism to bolster their horrific worldviews.
Because it can’t be repeatd often enough:
Publication date of The Communist Manifesto: 1848
Publication date of On the Origin of Species: 1859
Dear Dale,
Giving credence to Gupta, Zeno and Kristine is blanket endorsement of the modest university standards they’ve taken for an education. At least Coulter had no qualms about quoting from Mein Kampf, banshee that she is. That means she reads sometimes. They grow bored when they try to read. C students and party animals who have but one rule. Cheap shot.
Over at Arianna’s blog some of the others thought they had Ann’s number: calling her a tranny, a man, a beast with an Adam’s-apple; you know. Constructive criticism. Nobody had any rebuttal of her outrageous opinions. Just diatribe and vituperation.
last i checked, social darwinism was the exclusive preserve of conservatives. i mean, how can the “fittest” get ahead if they have to pour their energies into propping up the queens of the welfare state?
darwin would have been a card carying republican then, right?
well, maybe social darwinism is a bit of a misnomer…
Kristine, I hope that you know “arms akimbo” means with hands on hips. At least you didn’t say “arms and legs akimbo,” which I have seen.
As I see it, Social Darwinism and eugenics are to evolution as Quantum Chakra Colon Cleansing is to Quantum Mechanics.
Here is an idiot who likes Coulters book.
tumbler:
I love the irony of accusing someone of engaging in ad hominem by insulting them.
Did you actually do that on purpose, or do we have a bit of a self-awareness problem?
Ahem: Akimbo–
adj. 1. Placed in such a way as to have the hands on the hips and the elbows bowed outward: children standing with arms akimbo.
2. Being in a bent, bowed, or arched position: “There he remained, dead to the world, limbs akimbo, until we left” (Alex Shoumatoff).
I guess “limbs akimbo” would rather be like “arms and legs akimbo,” but I’ve never said that ever. ;-)
Are you seriously expecting that? Constructive criticism in the comments of a blog that already provides enough criticism? I can’t help but wonder what your point is. Are you saying that random commenters haven’t done much more that comment randomly (surprise! and welcome to the Internet), or are you saying the because goofballs from around the world say goofy things nobody has provided any real criticism of Ann Coulter? (Psst! The comments are preceded by the actual posts. And welcome again to the Internet. You’ll find that it’s nothing like your strange assumptions. Also that there’s lots of porn.)
Dear me, I’ve been outed as a party animal! I have to share this with my tiny group of friends, who will be much amused. Anyway, tumbler is totally wrong: I was a B student! At Caltech. (Yay! Party school!)
Coulter (bravely or misguidedly) appeared on the BBC’s Newsnight last night and was interviewed by Jeremy Paxman, a notoriously confrontational interviewer. Clearly flabbergasted, Paxman allowed Coulter to confirm the unsupported ridiculousness of her views. Best was when he asked her about her views on evolution. She couldn’t come up with a meaningful sentence other than spluttering incoherently about Darwinists this, Darwinists that in a totally unconvincing way. Anyway, if you’re quick, you can catch the whole programme at ‘http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm’ (sorry don’t know how to post links yet) THe Coulter item is aboult 10 minutes in. Watch and enjoy – or wince.
Zeno:
I know you went to Caltech and all, so I feel compelled to clear this up:
“We deliver kegs” on every store within two miles of campus (including stationers and TV repair places): Party School.
30-year-old D&D games continuing under Fleming: not so much.
“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
I’m confused. Would it be better if I covered myself in chalk the next time I go down to the genetics lab?
“Just diatribe and vituperation. ”
I love when Coulterites whine about being insulted. The hypocrisy is down right tasty.
As Ann reaps, so shall her fans sow.
Not so fun when the shoe is on the other foot, huh.
Welcome to the club, Zeno, for I’ve been outed as a party animal malapropist with a C average. News to me, and to my transcripts.
BTW, I have read Mein Kampf. All English Lit party animals have to. I will admit that it put me right to sleep.
Let us get this straight. Just because Ms. Coulter quotes Mein Kampf, that absolutely does not mean she has read it. She is the quote miners quote miner. If a snippet of text, totally out of context or not, will fit her thesis, she will use it.
Evolution is the founding principle of liberalism? Jesus wept. That’s like arguing that selling oil is the founding principle of Christianity because it’s something George W. Bush, a Christian, happens to do, or that vegetarianism was the founding principle of The Third Reich, and so on.
It’s like someone’s taken a big book of logical fallacies and edited out everything but the examples.
These days, liberalism has an exclusive alignment with the so-called reality-based community, which subscribes to scientific rationalism and evolutionary theory. So it’s an epiphenomenon, not the basis, of liberalism.
DouglasG: Note that she overlooked something in that passage (emphasis added):
“… [in accordance with] the eternal will that rules this universe.”
I have no idea if that’s in Mein Kampf or not, but if it is, it does say almost unequivocally that Hitler was not an atheist.
Not necessarily–he may have meant Nietzsche’s Wille zur Macht (will to power).
(Which still has nothing to do with evolution, unless you’re willing to conflate philosophy and biology in a lunatic way.)
Keith Douglas:
I wouldn’t equate “eternal will” with a god necessarily, but it clearly suggests a teleological viewpoint. Evolution is entirely independent of teleology; it’s just an observed process in nature that doesn’t require any assumptions about purpose.
I would speculate that if there could ever be a political movement or philosophy inspired by evolution, it would go further and actually reject teleology entirely. That alone separates it from Nazism and Soviet-style Totalitarianism, both of proclaim which some kind of inevitable and purposeful natural order. To link these with evolution makes absolutely no sense.
TychoC:
I thought the Paxman interview was lame. Paxman just kept asking her if she really believed what was in her book and Coulter just kept replying in a bored voice that yes, she did believe what she wrote. He allowed her to state there was no evidence for evolution, without asking her to justify that statement at all. Sad to say, but I think Paxman lost on points.
I can’t remember if that statement was in Mein Kampf (groan); I was practically comatose afterward. To this day I don’t know whether Hitler was an atheist or not–Hitler worshipped Adolf Hitler most of all–but I can state with confidence that he did not accept evolutionary theory, being that it places all human beings within one subspecies, whereas Hitler often confused the concepts of genus, species, and subspecies (or “race”).
Refuting a few paragraphs of Mein Kampf (the infamous “white race achieved everything” passage), took me a good five pages. When a text is chock full of logical fallacies so that there are multiple falsehoods in a single sentence, one has to do much more work as a critic than the author of the original “argument.” And with Godless, while I haven’t read the whole thing yet, it’s beginning to look like one must first untangle Coulter’s mixed creationist metaphors before one can even begin to refute them, so the problem is compounded!
Was Hitler a theist? Probably, although anything concerning Hitler is obscured by his eccentricities and sociopathy. The plain-text Gutenberg Project edition of Mein Kampf allows us to see that he frequently cited “gods”, “Gods”, the “Goddess of Fate”, and “God”. Most of these references appear to be merely rhetorical, but some suggest a belief in a fairly traditional concept of God:
As I said, not definitive but certainly suggestive of belief. And now I really need a hot shower.
P.S.: Back in his younger days as a reporter, Alan Cranston (later a U.S. Senator from California and Barbara Boxer’s predecessor in office) published a pirated English edition of Mein Kampf to warn the West about Hitler’s intentions. Unfortunately, people didn’t pay much attention to it.
I have decided that the best way to deal with Ann Coulter is to make fun of her fans. You know, the ones with the little car decals that have a Jesus fish eating a Darwin fish, showing that they believe in Social Darwinism, but not Darwinism. The ones that will spend their lives in minimum wage jobs, supporting politicians who are devoted to reducing the minimum wage, and dedicated to the idea that one should beware of new ideas.
In other words, prey.
I thought Paxo did a good job with Coulter: he let her hang herself nicely. The point of the interview was not to debate her book, but to show the British intelligensia who she is. The message that comes over loud and clear is that she doesn’t care about serious political debate: she just makes silly insulting comments in order to sell books.
I loved the first question: (roughly) “I’ve read your first chapter. Does it get any better?”. Quite simply, they weren’t taking her seriously.
Bob
I’m dismayed at the insults in the comments. I don’t see how they help, and (as with Coulter’s insults) they detract from the underlying message.
There once was a ninny called Dale,
Who spying derision did wail,
“Oh heavens to Betsy!
My undies are wetsy!
My sensitive bladder has failed.”
BZZZT! Nope, sorry, thanks for playing.
The foundation for liberalism includes references in scripture to a speech by a guy named Jesus, usually called the Beatitudes.
I have no doubt Coulter would like to bazooka Jesus and the beatitudes, but so long as she doesn’t have a clue about where the philosophy of American government and spirit come from, I’m not going to tell her. Had she been alive during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s she might have figured it out, or had she ever attended church — but her ignorance just lends oodles of entertainment value to her rants. Since that’s the only value there, I’ll leave it alone.
Bubba, my dismay is not due to my sensitivity. It’s about practicality. I think insults work against the insulters’ interests. They definitely work against mine. I would be happy to see Coulter discredited. I think insults get in the way of discrediting her.
Perhaps I misunderstand the insulters’ interests.
How do insults serve you?
I’m sure I have the greatest respect for Ann Coulter :-) :-) ; but I don’t think her supporters can count beyond three.
BTW, Greetings, Zeno, I too was a Caltecher – a graduate student, though.
I can’t call myself a Coulterite, but I’m liberal enough to put some anti-Coulterites here down. These are the diversity set; in favor of all diversity except Republicans and Christians. They’ll defend my right to say something when they really hate what I say. –Not.
She’s a piece of work. No, I haven’t yet read Godless: But every Thursday she has her column featured in Drudge, and I love to read that. Makes me happy because she’s on my side, at a comical tangent. Tons more clever than Doonesbury, whose work is certainly insensitive. Was she shocking; about the Jersey Girls, etc., –? ? ? A little. George Clooney made light of another man’s Alzheimer’s diagnosis (Chuck Heston) and there was no Liberal hissy-fit. He makes more money, and has many admirers. I like George. Cool Ann is entitled to some money and fans for her tactless barrages.
Oh, a Tech grad student! Arun, I humbly make obeisance before my master and render the sign of the Big T. ;-)
My, my, my; tumbler is wrong again. Card-carrying ACLU member here, buddy. I staunchly defend your right to say any silly-ass thing you wish to say (unless you’re keen to offer sectarian prayers at a public school graduation, in which case, screw you). Defending your right to speak whatever you like, however, is not the same thing as agreeing to refrain from pointing out its silly-assness.
P.S.: About that “Not”, buddy. The post-fix negation operator is so over.
Zeno, Cranston was sued by Hitler’s publisher, in 1939, for copyright infringement. The American judge ruled in Hitler’s favor! This stopped the publication of Cranston’s version (which was also abridged and annotated, although he claimed higher accuracy than the earlier abridged version distributed in America) after only 500,000 copies were sold.
Dear Zeno:
I wasn’t accusing the ACLU, of not caring. The defenders of diversity (It makes us strong) is who Um talking about. Have I said a silly-ass thang? I never say much else. But take it for what it’s worth. I defend your right to undress too. Ugh.
That’s right, Kristine. Cranston used to brag that he had been sued by Hitler. Too bad that half a million copies didn’t have more of an impact than it did, but most people didn’t see the urgency that Cranston did.
I didn’t know that about Cranston. Those were the days, huh, when you could have a scoop on Hitler. It’s very impressive that he tried and sad that almost nobody listened.
Admiration of fascism was fairly common in the US and UK at the time. I don’t know the exact percentages, but it is not too hard to find an issue of Life magazine from the later 30s that paints a very favorable picture of Mussolini’s Italy. I looked it up once in the library, but I don’t remember the exact year, maybe 1937.
While Coulter and her ilk are quick to portray everyone they disagree with as “soft on Hitler” in some vague metaphorical sense, the fact is that plenty of American conservatives admired Hitler. I’ll allow that maybe they would not have gone along with genocide, but it’s easy to imagine Coulter in an earlier day gushing over parades of those “wholesome” young people in Italy and Germany. My imagination is not equivalent to reality, but I honestly thinks she digs this kind of thing.
I had no idea that Cranston actually bragged about the case. I was going to comment about how much has changed in the media, that such courtroom antics as presented today would have brought plenty of attention to Cranston’s message, but I think Paul just rebutted that with his own comment. I think it’s correct to say that, while people reject genocide, they do long for the establishment of the equivalent of Ordnung in America.
I cannot remember the quote, but Eric Hoffer once stated that those who rebel against a “tyrannical” authority are rebelling against its weaknesses, rather than its strengths, in an attempt to impose their own tyrannical authority. That’s Coulter, I agree.
By the way, Coulter was interviewed on the BBC’s Newsnight programme on Tuesday night. Starts off on “Darwinism”. It’s on YouTube here:
Jeremy Paxman is a notoriously tough interviewer, but he’s surprisingly gentle in this case. I think the approach works actually. Coulter usually thrives on heated arguments (slanging matches, essentially). Instead, Paxman just asks quite vague questions which require her to explain herself at length, at which she fails pretty miserably; she was made to look a blathering fool. It probably wasn’t what she expected. Rather than interrogate her, Paxman seemed genuinely bemused.
Considering that she’s virtually undeard of in Britain, she should’ve taken the opportunity to explain clearly what she’s all about. She was obviously quite unprepared.
The present-day Democrat party numbers many demagogic members like Kristine; always purloining somebody else’s wisdom (Hoffer) in order to smear you. It’s just a wonder she’s not laying genocide, in fact, at Cool Ann’s doorstep. But it’s enough for now to say, ”That’s Coulter, I agree.” This is called a lock-step to that old party-line.
It’s past her to identify the left she upholds now as Lenin’s useful idiots of old-timer’s Life mag.
Speaking for myself, I admire the Soviet society that lived under a despot, consumed by fear that the children in their own house would denounce them to the NKVD. It actually happened, and so did gulags. Thanks to Reagan’s bold negotiations and John Paul II’s spiritual leadership in Poand, better times arrived for them. In fact, religion, which the Comintern thought was cooked forever, is reborn in that society. (Must be caused by the next stage in evolution of the species.) I like to contemplate these events as I do here now. I’ve been listening to Shostakovich’s Leningrad Symphony as I surf Kristine’s erudition; conducted by, of all musicians, a German born in the late 30’s.
Anyway, Coulter and I do not deserve being associated with Hitler’s or Mussolini’s crimes. We’re Americans. And we have the first ammendment to keep us safe from demagogues’ futile finger-pointing.
I most certainly did not associate you with Hitler, tumbler, and I would advise you to be very careful how personal that you decide to get in this forum.
Dear Dylan,
I thank you for sending me a link to the interview by Mr. Paxman. I enjoyed that.
Ironically, my considered opinion is, Yes; he was never aggressive or antagonistic with Ann Coulter. I even appreciated his Brit pronunciation of Coulter; using my own preferred style. I call her Cool Ann and Paxman says Cool-tair. Obviously to my taste.
But for someone to say he disparaged her, or made her seem a fool; and ”she was unprepared–” isn’t remotely true. Her replies showed NO qualms, no hesitation and were even startling in their relentless calm.
You say she’s hardly known in Britain. But if her book moves, and it will, it’ll explain clearly what she’s all about. Considering that England is much more a reader’s country than ours, where nobody likes anything but bodice-busters –the public will appreciate Coulter. I know I do.
Dear Kristine:
You yourself only agreed with PaulC. He went far along those demagogic lines, or maybe I’m over-reacting. All he says is, ”Maybe they would not have gone along with genocide, but it’s easy to imagine Coulter in an earlier day gushing over parades of those “wholesome” young people in Italy and Germany.” To which you say, ”Yeah. That’s Coulter.”
You know it’s a weasel’s way of defaming Coulter and her ”ilk” –as others around here say, –as Neo-Nazis. Her American style, popular enough today everywhere, is made to seem outrageous and fascist. Only Coulter isn’t at war with liberalism as much as she’s satirizing it. People like Whoopi Goldberg and Chris Rock and a few others do it every day. They do it to Republicans, religious Americans, and talk show hosts. These are your gang; folks Ann calls Godless. And many are. Not all, but VERY many.
“Being associated” is such a vague term that I’m not sure anyone can escape it. The GOP’s favorite comic Dennis Miller never lost an opportunity a few years back to associate people like me with Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement and indirectly Hitler’s invasion of Poland. I mention him rather than Coulter only because I don’t have any handy citations from her comparing Iraq war opponents to Chamberlain, whereas it was a well known part of Miller’s schtick.
Speaking of what the first amendment actually does as opposed to what you think it does, its effect is to keep Miller safe from any repercussions to making this kind of “association” whether I deserve it or not. And that’s a good thing. I’m not sure what part of the constitution you think keeps us safe from demagogues; the Bill of Rights allows demagoguery because suppressing it would hurt other forms of political speech. The first amendment is not a scapular that one wears to ward off those pesky demagogues, but a very brave declaration that rights will be upheld even when they cause us inconvenience.
Obviously, neither you nor Coulter is responsible for the rise of Hitler. For that matter, I think very few people that have ever lived (including Ann Coulter) would be able to countenance Hitler’s crimes with full understanding. It is, however, a matter of historical record that a lot of people rationalized the worst bits away at the time and admired the parades, the industry, and up to a point the anti-semitism. Before the US joined WWII, there were all too many Americans among them. So declaring oneself an “American” is no protection from being associated with Hitler. The fact that Coulter, myself, and probably you were not alive at the time is sufficient protection.
Note: there were many foolish people on the left who admired Stalin and were willing to soft-pedal the atrocity that was China’s cultural revolution under Mao. Again, I wasn’t alive and don’t “deserve” to be associated with them. Oddly, that doesn’t seem to stop Coulter from somehow linking everything she does not like to “Darwinism” in her latest opus.
I dare say that Nietzsche’s will-to-power is a god by another name, though perhaps a mad, idiot god, like Lovecraft’s Azaroth. But I won’t argue the point further. It is certainly a transcendal mental attribute, so at the very least reflects idealism.
PaulC: And here in Canada, I’m embarassed to say. There’s a church in a traditionally Italian-origin part of Montreal that to this day has a (displayed) painting of Mussolini. The French speaking elites in Quebec (including the Catholic church) were also generally fond of Hitler for a while, too, or at least were brazenly antisemitic. On the other hand, eventually Canada outlawed both the Nazi party and the Communist party, which seems to basically be outlawing their names, as we still have a Marxist-Lennist party somehow.
Very good rationalzations, Paul;
OK– you’re clearly a man whom I could trust. If you conceded such a trait to me, you’d be half-way to understanding Ann Coulter. The fact you don’t understand her, and have cast her in the meanest possible mold, leads me to think you find evil traits sticking out all over us conservatives.
I find conversing here with you, above-average intelligent as you seem, very stimulating. You’re entitled to your prejudices. Ann Coulter is also entitled. I am almost 70 years old now, and have a great depth of experience to share; as well as an above average way of understanding. And it’s mainly because I recall as a 7 yr-old, the pressures upon our country which WWII exerted. I remember Pearl Harbor; and my mother sending a box of fudge to my uncle in the Solomon Islands, etc., –and so–
I’m amused at Coulter stating balls-out, ”Invade their countries, kill and conquer and convert them to Christianity . . .” She speaks like a brat without fear. It’s funny!
Just like referring to W as ”chimp” and ”shrub” is meant humorously. It also descends into stupidity as we hear many Dems and Libs saying vile things about Barbara Bush, or making it appear we went to Iraq only for OIL. It hasn’t even an appearance of good humor to say the things they all say at Huffingtinpost Blog. Every fourth word filthy and filled with loathing. (And, yes. They’re protected by the 1st ammendment. But they AREN’T amusing, as Ann Coulter is amusing. They’re dirty.)
Bubba, my dismay is not due to my sensitivity. It’s about practicality. I think insults work against the insulters’ interests. They definitely work against mine. I would be happy to see Coulter discredited. I think insults get in the way of discrediting her.
Perhaps I misunderstand the insulters’ interests.
How do insults serve you?
Our Dale is a delicate flower,
And mocking a fool makes him sour.
What value are jokes?
What is it Dale smokes?
Sixty suckers are born every hour.
You’d like to see Coulter discredited?
As if witless ideas could be edited!
She’s wrong time and again
But attention’s her friend
So she’ll ask that our friends be beheadited.
But derision subverts the attention
And brings giggles along with her mention
It’s best if it’s true,
And it is, so if her crew
Is collateral damage it’s wrenchin’.
I’m amused at Coulter stating balls-out, ”Invade their countries, kill and conquer and convert them to Christianity . . .” She speaks like a brat without fear. It’s funny!
HA! Even funnier when you’re invading two such countries and planning for a third! Funnier even after a buncha marines slaughters innocents!
As I was saying when you tuned out, song-writer:
Her reaction was to the invasion of our homeland by zanies; and the way to treat them, if there were any justice on earth. Just as America reacted in the 40’s to Pearl Harbor. With some sign of outrage; not what your liberal teachers taught you. To bend over & grasp your righteous ankles. (I know you weren’t taught to write good poems or songs.)
Who says Marines were slaughtering ”innocents”–? I could call the Iraqi terrorist class many things, but not innocent. YOU are something of an innocent, Bub.
As I was saying when you tuned out, song-writer:
Those’re limericks, gramps, one of the most well-known forms of poetry there is. I make no claim to greatness in writing them, but I know what they are.
Her reaction was to the invasion of our homeland by zanies; and the way to treat them, if there were any justice on earth. Just as America reacted in the 40’s to Pearl Harbor. With some sign of outrage; not what your liberal teachers taught you. To bend over & grasp your righteous ankles. (I know you weren’t taught to write good poems or songs.)
Silly me, I thought, from what you wrote above, that she was kidding. Turns out she’s seriously outraged. Why haven’t we jammed all the Muslims into camps like the Japs? Have we gone soft?
Who says Marines were slaughtering ”innocents”–? I could call the Iraqi terrorist class many things, but not innocent. YOU are something of an innocent, Bub.
I read the papers. Aren’t there a few murder investigations going on? Not all Marines, of course, but share the wealth and all.
What, pray tell, is the Iraqi terrorist class?
Let go your ankles and I’ll try to clue you, Bubba.
Whatever you may think of Coulter, this is no accomplishment: ”Even funnier when you’re invading two such countries and planning for a third! Funnier even after a buncha marines slaughters innocents!”
Murder investigations are happening without end. You’re innocent until proved guilty. And Marines deserve our respect; they put their lives on the line daily so you can do your crambo writing with lofty insouciance.
As for our ”invasions” and that virtue you’re preening in, like your mirror; save it for a new book about Kofi Anan. He can use that material against us. He’s shown the same scruples about the U.S. that you feel. Dirty America; good for nothing except paying the bills around here. All while embezzling the Food For Oil accts slated for the kids of Iraq who were suffering for the sins of Saddam. And still would have been if not for the ”invasion” you deplore now. Oh, wait–Kofi’s innocent until proved guilty, Tumbler! Get a life Tumbler, right-wing fanatic!
It seems to me this thread has strayed very far from PZ’s original intent; he wants a Coulter fan (that eliminates me) to offer up a passage from chapters 8-11, and then show why he/she supports said passage.
Here’s your opportunity, tumbler. I humbly suggest that you have your chance, right here and now, to show us.
I cannot do so, because in spite of reading 10 or so books a year, I refuse to buy a Coulter book.
Let’s right this ship and allow tumbler to defend Coulter in the manner PZ described. That’s what this thread is all about, right?
Let’s right this ship and allow tumbler to defend Coulter in the manner PZ described. That’s what this thread is all about, right?
Quite right. Money, mouth, etc.
Good point. I thought it was a fairly straightforward request, yet Tumbler babbles on and never makes the effort to address it.
Holy cow;
I haven’t bought a single one of Cool Ann’s books. I only read her out of a weekly column on Thursdays.
Why do I have the sneaky feeling this is a big BREAK for youse guys? For P.Z., apparently a person of integrity and good instincts; who had expected nobody on earth could save Cool Ann from his dissecting skills. Just bring it on! Now that I–Moi, cannot deliver her creepy character up for him to carve up, –off the page, as it were–
Coulter can’t be touched. Unless another reader can supply PZ with the material. I hope so; in order for me to play referee while she’s tag-teamed in this Pharyngular match.
Tumbler, you are incoherent; you are deranged; you are making random noises.
If you haven’t read Coulter’s book, shut up. Trying to defend her when you haven’t read it is just obnoxious.
Just for you, though, you could try citing something from those articles by her that you read for free. Extract some of her ‘science’ and defend it–but keep up this vapid twittering about nothing and yeah, I’ll ban your butt.
I’d just like to add another thanks for that BBC link. I’ve had a bad week, and it was a bright spot of cheer. This seems to be to be a good way to deal with these kinds of people – don’t ignore them, but treat them with the same sort of beumused detachment used for a five year old talking about his imaginary friend and add a dash of disbelief that they could really be serious. Farley Mowat claimed that this was the method used by the Inuit tribe he studied regarding agitators; they don’t have a real point, so coddle and overtly *humor* them until they’re embarrassed enough to stop, and if they don’t, they’re obviously mentally incompetent and should be treated as such.
I’m younger than Ann Coulter by enough that she could have been my babysitter (perish the thought), and even I know that “My book is a #1 bestseller in the US” is an argument that won’t convince Brits of any intrinsic worth in her arguments; quite the contrary. That was a laugh out loud moment in the interview.
Carlie sounds more and more like a pharynguloid:
”they’re obviously mentally incompetent and should be treated as such.”
You serve, then he volleys, then you fire the ball back into the net. That makes him mentally incompetent. –Surrrre.
Professor:
Here’s the latest from Ann Coulter (in part) and though I could go into the archive looking for something quasi-scientific (I admit to her amateur status) this seemed a fair entry.
Remember, it’s an excerpt:
”Liberals were afraid of a book that told the truth about IQ (“The Bell Curve”) because they are godless secularists who do not believe humans are in God’s image. Christians have no fear of hearing facts about genetic differences in IQ because we don’t think humans are special because they are smart. There may be some advantages to being intelligent, but a lot of liberals appear to have high IQs, so, really, what’s the point? —
After Hitler carried the secularists’ philosophy to its grisly conclusion, liberals are terrified of making any comment that seems to acknowledge that there are any differences among groups of people — especially racial groups. It’s difficult to have a simple conversation — much less engage in free-ranging, open scientific inquiry — when liberals are constantly rushing in with their rule book about what can and cannot be said.”
I will say this in rebuttal. Not only Liberals take political correctness to the edge of madness. Many centrists and even so-called right-wingers play paper-bag-over-the head in our society; for fear of being spurned & reviled. Orwell was proved correct. Good is bad. Bad is good. (1984)
This as well: ”Christians have no fear of hearing facts–” This is arguable. But overall, it really is a Liberal mentality she’s holding up to scorn. PC is something we can easily trace back to the university. Mainly faculties, who caved altogether when radical leftist ”students” broke their resistance.
I thought you were supposed to post a scientific issue? All you posted was an accusation that liberals don’t want to hear the truth because it scares them.