…and this is a 
This new book by Ann Coulter is going to be full of delectable idiocy, isn't it?
Coulter devotes the last 80 pages to her full-scale attack on the theory of evolution and the utter dishonesty of what she calls the "Darwiniacs" and their refusal to face the fact that evolution is a patent absurdity, according to Coulter, credible only to those who will find any reason to deny the existence of God.
Great. Virtually every biologist in the world must be an atheist, then. Good for us! I'm sure this is going to be a bit of a shock to the readers of this weblog who understand and accept the evidence for evolution, but think they're also Christians. You can all stop going to church now!
"The fundamental difference between our religion and theirs is that theirs always tells them what they want to hear," Coulter declares.
"Darwinism never disappoints the liberals. They never say Well, I'd like to have cheap meaningless sex tonight, but that would violate Darwinism.' They can't even say I'd like to have cheap meaningless sex tonight with a goat, but that would violate Darwinism.'
This is true. Neither does Coulter, though. She also doesn't get to refuse to screw goats because it would violate Boyle's gas law. Is this a surprise? Evolution doesn't pretend to be a set of moral rules. It's a description of how populations of organisms behave over time, not how individuals should behave.
Why, without Ohm's Law to restrain her, what's to prevent Ann Coulter from indulging her wanton, bestial lusts?
If you have an instinct to do it, it must be evolved adaptation.
What if we don't have an instinct to do it? I note that I seem to be lacking the instinct to have sex with goats. Unlike Ann.
Liberals subscribe to Darwinism not because it's science, which they hate…
<spit take>
What?
…but out of some wishful thinking. Darwinism lets them off the hook morally."
Actually, I use the Nernst equation to justify my immoral behavior. I reserve Darwinism for those nights I need an excuse to go dancing.
As fun as this book looks, though, I'm not going to buy it unless I can find it used. I hope the pages aren't going to be stuck together.
Comments
Posted by: Bronze Dog
|
June 6, 2006 4:15 PM
I would imagine the bull[poo] would make them quite sticky.
Posted by: David Harmon
|
June 6, 2006 4:26 PM
Get it from the library, or better read it there! That way, it doesn't get to lie around your house, stinking up the bookshelves and molesting your textbooks. :-)
Posted by: brodie
|
June 6, 2006 4:28 PM
I've never been able to figure out how someone can be so hateful and lie so much.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 6, 2006 4:28 PM
Darwinism, "Darwiniacism." So what? Why isn't she (or anyone else on the Right) going after the Theory of Magnetism? "Opposites attract." Uh oh.
Accept that, and you've got the perfect excuse for abandoning all your conservative principles. Pandemonium. Dogs and cats, sleeping together. Maybe even Conservatives and Liberals. Anethema.
Posted by: fusilier
|
June 6, 2006 4:35 PM
What IS it with anti-evolutionists, particular fundie anti-evolutionists, and bestiality?
I don't recall de Chardin, Collins, Vavilov, Mayr, Gould, Eldrdge, or any other biologist talking/writing about stuff like that. It's kinda like the stories the local police chief used to tell when he'd sit on our porch with a cup of coffee: the real perverts (child molesters, and so forth) just talk about their sick stuff all the time, because they can't figure out that the rest of the world isn't like that.
James 2:24
Posted by: george.w
|
June 6, 2006 4:36 PM
It seems I lack the instinct to ever have sex with Ann Coulter. This must come as a tremendous relief to her.
Posted by: slpage
|
June 6, 2006 4:42 PM
"It seems I lack the instinct to ever have sex with Ann Coulter. This must come as a tremendous relief to her."
What - you kean you have no evolution-adapted desire to forcefully copulate with an androgenous pig?
Posted by: Craig Pennington
|
June 6, 2006 4:48 PM
I'm going to steal it. After all, nowhere does Fermat's Little Theorem assert that I should respect property rights.Posted by: Kristine
|
June 6, 2006 4:58 PM
"Liberals subscribe to Darwinism not because it's science, which they hate..."
Um... Did she just say that "Darwinism" (whatever that word means--probably whatever it means when Dembski uses it) is science? So is "Darwinism" science or is it not, Ann, and if liberals hate science, does that mean that you love it (Darwinism/evolution)? 'Fess up, m'dear--you're talking out of both sides of your two pie-holes (on each of your two faces).
I've never see anyone use so many words to say nothing. Except perhaps Dembski himself. (Behe?)
Posted by: Gerard Harbison
|
June 6, 2006 5:18 PM
Ann Coulter hates America. Consider the following...
and then, in the very next sentence
Now, as anyone with even a smattering of biology knows, the bald eagle was one of the two or three species most threatened by DDT. So Coulter has called our National Symbol 'vermin liberals are always trying to save' and compared it to a rat.
I despise America-haters. If she's going to disparage our most important national icons like this, maybe she should just leave.
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans
|
June 6, 2006 5:25 PM
Why, without Ohm's Law to restrain her, what's to prevent Ann Coulter from indulging her wanton, bestial lusts?
The folk wisdom about never sleeping with anyone crazier than you.
In Ann's case, that leaves her trolling for dates at the local loony bin.
Posted by: frank
|
June 6, 2006 5:29 PM
The fundamental difference between our religion and theirs is that theirs always tells them what they want to hear."
Really? I thought that a scientist with a hypothesis searched for evidence that supported it. If the evidence were to show that the hypothesis is in error, his "religion" is certainly not "telling" him what he wants to hear. He won't be able to publish his paper and has to start over again. Her religion, on the other hand requires no such checks and balances.
Posted by: MNDarwinist
|
June 6, 2006 5:45 PM
PZ, I never knew you had such a sense of humor. I think next time I am making a charitable donation I will base it on the law of connecting vessels.
Posted by: archdruid68
|
June 6, 2006 5:49 PM
I like to take all the books by Coulter, Malkin, Horowitz, etc., from their place at the local library and reshelve them in the science section. That way they're out of my sight and effectively quarantined from those who might actually buy into the garbage between the covers.
Posted by: rrt
|
June 6, 2006 6:04 PM
Well, at least this will lend more credibility to evolution amongst the liberal base.
And, perhaps, the sane conservative base.
Wherever he is.
Posted by: MattXIV
|
June 6, 2006 6:04 PM
I don't know - Hooke's law once briefly stopped me from having sex when I fell off an unexpectedly springy mattress.
Posted by: The Bad Astronomer
|
June 6, 2006 6:07 PM
Why, without Ohm's Law to restrain her, what's to prevent Ann Coulter from indulging her wanton, bestial lusts?
Ah, you liberal atheist scientist you, the answer is obvious:
Resistance.
Posted by: Gr8wight
|
June 6, 2006 6:09 PM
You guys (and girls) don't actually think Coulter believes a single word she says, do you? As far as I'm concerned, she has made a career for herself by simply saying the most outrageous things that come into her head. I think she deserves props for recognising that America was ripe for a newer, hipper, skinnier version of Rush Limbaugh. Ann Coulter goes to bed at night laughing at the people who buy her books, and laughing at the people who get so worked up about what she says and writes. She is nothing more than an Internet troll who has found a way to make that schtick work in the real world.
Or she's batshit insane. I can't decide.
Posted by: Zeno
|
June 6, 2006 6:19 PM
Funny you should say that, Paul. I had lunch with a friend today and we talked about Coulter's latest broadside against the evil forces of liberalism. I told him I thought it was all schtick. Unless she is, as you suggested, actually as insane as she accuses Gore of being, Ann Coulter is just an amoral opportunist who sniffed out the road to riches. If she decides at some point that there is more money to be made by turning her coat, watch for a quick-change artist routine. More likely, however, she will be content to milk the gullible wacko right forever.
Posted by: zohn smith
|
June 6, 2006 6:23 PM
Paul, you are wrong. Here's a part of the transcript of her appearance on the Today show with Matt Lauer:
LAUER: Do you believe everything in the book or do you put some things in there just to cater to your base?
ANN: No, of course I believe everything.
More at http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/06/coulter-911/
Posted by: Bill
|
June 6, 2006 6:27 PM
Once she becomes boring like Limbaugh that will be the end of her. Coulter has skated by on free interviews and banal books.
Did I say "once she becomes?" Sorry, my mistake.
Posted by: Ian B Gibson
|
June 6, 2006 6:43 PM
Biologists now think that Coulter's skin contains enough toxins to kill at least 2000 men, and even being in the same room you run the risk of involuntary vomiting; I know I always feel nauseous just from looking at the bitch..
Posted by: Denny
|
June 6, 2006 6:46 PM
Whether Coulter believes her own puerilia is beside the point. Her blather functions very well as a distraction from immoral wars and tax cuts.
Anyone reading the news this week? It's the exact same ploy Bush is using to great effect with his anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment. The transparency is so disgusting I'm practically beside myself. He pointedly talks about how only heterosexuals can raise kids (to become faithful IDiots, presumably).
There's another, extremely effective political strategy in the anti-gay amendment. Even though no one thinks that amendment can win, the process of putting it to a vote baits Democrats: vote no on bigotry and the GOP can paint you as a fag lover. So of course most Democrats, having misplaced their spinal columns some time ago, will vote yes.
Coulter and Bush are two fat mouths for the same bunch of thugs. I continue to be disheartened that the blogosphere, even this illustrious corner of it, doesn't see that the antievolutionists are also homophobes. And they will use homophobia even more effectively than intelligent design to win elections--municipal, regional and national elections.
--Denny
Posted by: Ian B Gibson
|
June 6, 2006 6:50 PM
Yes - that proves it!
Posted by: Mike
|
June 6, 2006 6:51 PM
"I note that I seem to be lacking the instinct to have sex with goats. Unlike Ann."
I do hope you're not indicating an instinct for having sex with Ann Coulter. Better to do the goats. You'll feel cleaner.
Posted by: Amanda
|
June 6, 2006 6:51 PM
I am beginning to think she's an Andy Kaufman-esque performance artist. She actually managed to mock a religion for having a belief in the imminent return of a once-human savior in Human Events Online. Blogged it here:
http://pandagon.net/2006/06/06/the-post-in-which-i-begrudgingly-envy-ann-coulter/
Brilliant.
Posted by: Gr8wight
|
June 6, 2006 6:58 PM
Zohn,
I had a look at the video at the link you provided. As far as I'm concerned, Coulter was only just barely able to supress a smile when she said, "of course I believe everything." It looked to me like a herculean effort.
Posted by: paperwight
|
June 6, 2006 6:59 PM
ANN: No, of course I believe everything.
I think either option is bad. Either she's hate-filled and evil and believes everything she says, or she's mercenary and hypocritical and evil and doesn't really believe any of it.
Neither speaks well of her or the people who applaud her and give her a platform for her bile.
Posted by: Ian B Gibson
|
June 6, 2006 7:03 PM
That's the salient point. Concentrate your criticism on the Dems; don't waste your time moaning about what the GOP are doing. As long as the Republicans are allowed to set the terms of the debate and the Democrats simply react (instead of setting their own terms), things will continue the way they are. The first thing they need to do is stop reading opinion polls and also ban focus groups. Take the initiative.
Unfortunately, as the commenter alluded to, this would require some vertebrate Democrats, and so looks like a non-starter..
Posted by: Russell
|
June 6, 2006 7:12 PM
Believers project their own failings onto the rest of us. They believe that if their god exists, that he automagically determines morality. Overlooking the fallacy of that, they then make the same mistake with regard to evolution.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
June 6, 2006 7:14 PM
The Young Turks are busting on dear Ann's NBC travails at the moment. They played the NBC-Matt Lauer segment, and it was typical of my expectations of, um...her.
Seriously people, it's time to stop getting animated about every word she says. She is the living embodiment of the boy who cried wolf. She will eventually wear her own manufactured image out the more her ilk are proved wrong by current events.
Cooler heads prevail, especially the ones based in logic. Liberals need not worry on the science aspect as true science is most definitely in their corner on just about everything.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be some sort of moral outrage expressed against her and her falderal, but publicly, a skillful debater can dress her down in a matter of minutes with facts. Let the radio talk shows stomp her out. Al Franken has done it, so have, and will, many others. The pressure needs to be kept on the right, and indeed the fake-christians that prop people like her up.
PZ, thank you for vowing (or rather abstaining?) to not buy the book new. Although, I might even go so far as to say don't waste your time reading her book and disproving each point. For one thing, it'll take years to cover every single absurdity she's no doubt enscribed.
We already know what she's going to say and how unoriginal and wrong it is.
Posted by: OGeorge
|
June 6, 2006 7:26 PM
Who's Ann Coulter?
Posted by: zohn smith
|
June 6, 2006 7:52 PM
Paul, You seem to be a good man who seems to seek out and only look at the best in everybody...whether it's real or just in your imagination. I've watched the video a couple of times, and all I can see is the self-righteous smirk and the look of someone who is totally sure of herself and her beliefs. If at all she seems to be suppressing an urge to smile widely because she seems to feel that she won that round of back-and-forth with Matt Lauer.
Posted by: biomajor75
|
June 6, 2006 8:26 PM
Just a note, I am both a biologist and a Christian and I feel it very sad that there are biologists out there that are criticizing anyone for their beliefs. After all, science is NOTHING but theory. And that includes Darwinism.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 6, 2006 8:33 PM
And a very well informed biologist you are, too.
Posted by: Ian B Gibson
|
June 6, 2006 8:55 PM
Well us godless can't possibly be as non-judgmental as you Christians, can we? That's what the delightful Ms. Coulter is trying to point out.
Posted by: Chance
|
June 6, 2006 9:07 PM
Actually made me laugh out loud. Biomajor it says. Wow, that was some rank ignorance. Top to bottom. Just wow.
Posted by: davehog
|
June 6, 2006 9:08 PM
You guys are nuts! Are you seriously saying you wouldn't lay some pipe on ol' Ann given the chance? She is SMOKIN' hot (with the sound off). Tell me you haven't had tons of fun with women nearly as crazy as her ;-) As an added bonus, I'd wager it's the only time she shuts up.
Posted by: davehog
|
June 6, 2006 9:10 PM
DOF said:
You guys are nuts! Are you seriously saying you wouldn't lay some pipe on ol' Ann given the chance? She is SMOKIN' hot (with the sound off). Tell me you haven't had tons of fun with women nearly as crazy as her ;-) As an added bonus, I'd wager it's the only time she shuts up.
Posted by: mndean
|
June 6, 2006 9:31 PM
Davehog-
Poor naive boy - you really think Anytime Annie shuts up during sex? That harpie NEVER shuts up. Ever.
Posted by: Tom
|
June 6, 2006 9:31 PM
"I use the Nernst equation to justify my immoral behavior."
I prefer the second law of thermodynamics, but then I live a dissipated lifestyle.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 6, 2006 9:38 PM
I'm more the polarizing type. But at least I've got potential!
Posted by: Paul Riddell
|
June 6, 2006 9:44 PM
I've asked this before about Ann Coulter, but I'll ask it again: where the hell are Sigourney Weaver and a forklift when you need 'em?
Posted by: davehog
|
June 6, 2006 9:59 PM
Apologies for my previous double post, I would blame it on TypeKey, but it's really just my being impatient... ok, and a little bit dumb.
mndean said:
Due to the juvenile overtones of my post, I'll accept the "naive boy" label, but just this once. Naive, always; boy, well, only most of the time.
I can honestly say that despite the vacuous bile dribbling from her complain-hole, Ann completely turns me on; I am so ashamed.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough
|
June 6, 2006 10:00 PM
Despite my occasional disagreement with PZ about religion, I'll proudly stand on the side of atheism against Ann Coulter.
But I actually agree with Paul and Amanda: I don't think she believes what she is saying for one second. My guess is that if she believes anything at all, she is a Straussian. To quote AlterNet on Strauss and the neocons:
Posted by: Stanton
|
June 6, 2006 10:04 PM
I'm a little confused, does Miss Coulter fill you with anticipation, or constipation?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 6, 2006 10:07 PM
That would be extraordinarily sad. Living a life where one's public persona is nothing but a lie seems like a tragic waste of that life, to me.Posted by: Stanton
|
June 6, 2006 10:09 PM
PZ Myers said
That would be extraordinarily sad. Living a life where one's public persona is nothing but a lie seems like a tragic waste of that life, to me.
Are you sure that isn't her Botox talking for her?
Posted by: Graculus
|
June 6, 2006 10:52 PM
As an added bonus, I'd wager it's the only time she shuts up.
That depends on what's in her mouth.
Hmm, I think this thread just hit bottom.
Posted by: PD
|
June 6, 2006 11:23 PM
I think that Anne Coulter is a clever liberal plot to give real conservatives a bad name. No really, tell me this book is a spoof. No one is that far removed from reality, ummmm right?
Posted by: Karey
|
June 6, 2006 11:24 PM
What liberals use the term Darwinism or subscribe to it, as she says over and over? Does she cite them I wonder? I thought its a term coined by conservative christians, IDers, and used exclusively by that lot. I would think Darwinism is a whole beast different from evolution too, since Darwinism says your grandmother was a monkey and mosquitos interbred with them. I certainly don't think most liberals subscribe to such explanations.
Posted by: Molly, NYC
|
June 6, 2006 11:37 PM
That would be extraordinarily sad. Living a life where one's public persona is nothing but a lie seems like a tragic waste of that life, to me.
This is rapidly aging, would-be sex-pot with quite a few personal problems, no family, no man (or woman), probably a lot less in the bank than the people she hangs with, and the only marketable thing she's got is a penchant for public displays of insanity every other year or so, which become less and less interesting each time, so she has to act more and more crazy to make a living, which means her career's on the clock. And she knows it.
And that's all independant of whether or not she believes all that crapola she espouses. She is quite aware that the yokels she depends on to buy her stuff do believe it. So she has to play along--it's her job.
"Extraordinarily sad"? Gee, ya think?
Posted by: Bob O'H
|
June 7, 2006 12:37 AM
That's rather close to Karl Marx, isn't it?
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H
|
June 7, 2006 12:40 AM
That just makes me want to buy a goat, and call it Darwinism.
It would have to be a cheap goat, though.
Bob
Posted by: Dark Matter
|
June 7, 2006 12:43 AM
Daryl McCullough wrote:
Straussians= Bene Gesserit.
Posted by: Jessica Guilford
|
June 7, 2006 1:22 AM
Before anybody gets hold of the Coulter book, please remember to review and follow standard safety procedures for reading Coulter:
1) Persons with known sensitivity to hypocrisy, dishonesty, or blatant opportunism should consult a physician before use.
2) May cause skin and eye irritation. Gloves and safety goggles should be worn at all times when handling Coulter's writing or [shudder] body.
3) Keep out of reach of children twelve years of age and younger. Older children should use only under attentive adult supervision and should not exceed ten pages in a twenty-four hour period.
4) Adults should not exceed thirty pages in a twenty-four hour period. Potentially life-threatening side effects may result.
5) Read in a well-ventilated area. Do not mix with other conservatives: potentially deadly fumes may result.
6) For external use only. If ingested, dilute with copious amounts of Tbogg and contact a physician.
7) Discontinue use and contact a physician immediately if any of the following symptoms develop: fever, muscular aches, inchoate rage, despair, nausea, or vomiting.
Safety first,
Jessi
Posted by: Chris Clarke
|
June 7, 2006 1:26 AM
In me, or in her? Because I'm betting she's got the rage and despair going on, and the vomiting thing isn't out of the question either.
Posted by: steve s
|
June 7, 2006 1:27 AM
I don't think it's necessarily sad. Say that by 2008 she's accumulated $10 million from her books and whatnot, and reveals that she's liberal all along, and all her fans are mouth-breathing suckers. She then gets to do a victory lap of appearances on tv shows where she tells anecdotes about how she thought up all these idiotic things, and she laughs her ass off. She gets to say things like "It's sooooo easy to write like Sean Hannity. Just pretend you lost 50 IQ points in a car accident, and start babbling. I graduated from Michigan, for chrissake. You think I'm really idiot enough to believe those things?"
Posted by: Crusher
|
June 7, 2006 1:31 AM
DaveHog sez: "You guys are nuts! Are you seriously saying you wouldn't lay some pipe on ol' Ann given the chance? She is SMOKIN' hot (with the sound off). Tell me you haven't had tons of fun with women nearly as crazy as her ;-) As an added bonus, I'd wager it's the only time she shuts up"
I wouldn't hump her even with someone else's schlong
Posted by: Babbler
|
June 7, 2006 2:03 AM
"Darwiniacs": it sounds like an awesome band.
Posted by: Jessica Guilford
|
June 7, 2006 2:12 AM
Chris Clarke: In me, or in her? Because I'm betting she's got the rage and despair going on, and the vomiting thing isn't out of the question either.
Well, I meant in you. Though discontinuing use wouldn't be a bad idea either way.
Posted by: bad Jim
|
June 7, 2006 2:29 AM
I'd like to credit Cole's law for discouraging me from participating in conceptual orgies with goats, Coulter or calamari.
Posted by: G. Tingey
|
June 7, 2006 2:58 AM
Will someone, PLEASE say, in public ...
"Ann Coulter is a deliberate public liar, and in her latest book (Godless - The church of Liberalism) she consistently lies about science and scientists, and their beliefs and actions."
Remember, by Coulter's definitions, the Archbishop of Canterbury is an atheist!
Posted by: G. Tingey
|
June 7, 2006 3:04 AM
Second thoughts...
Everybody pick-up the link oin the review, and e-mail news-max - either the editor or the reviewer, and tell them what a crock of shit Coulter is.
I have just done this.
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans
|
June 7, 2006 3:18 AM
I'd like to credit Cole's law for discouraging me from participating in conceptual orgies with goats, Coulter or calamari.
So you don't engage in sex with capra, cephalopods or cretins because of - thinly sliced cabbage?
Posted by: archgoon
|
June 7, 2006 3:39 AM
Biomajor75 wrote:
Just a note, I am both a biologist and a Christian and I feel it very sad that there are biologists out there that are criticizing anyone for their beliefs. After all, science is NOTHING but theory. And that includes Darwinism.
That is a very odd argument to make. Yes, science contains theories, but these theories are not chosen at random.
Science, in addition to being about theories, is also a process that attempts to sort through various theories and select the one that best accounts for the current data and makes additonal predictions that can be tested. Thus your statement "Science is nothing but theory" is not true if taken literally. If you mean that it's about theories, then okay, but as noted before, since science is about trying to find the best theory, it's absurd not to criticize other theories. Criticizing theories, and underlying beliefs/assumptions of those theories, is how science figures out which theory to use.
Posted by: T_U_T
|
June 7, 2006 3:53 AM
Want to get rid of coulter ? Spray her with a large dose of holy water... I'm sure she starts burning and dissolving...
Posted by: bad Jim
|
June 7, 2006 4:40 AM
[concerning Cole's Law']
It's raining inside a big brown moon
Now how's that mess your baby up?
Late last night eating a
Reuben sandwich with sauerkraut
Don't stop now baby
Let it all hang out
Posted by: Lya Kahlo
|
June 7, 2006 5:56 AM
*yawn* Since She clearly is more interested in whoring herself out for publicity than even remotely trying to comprise an logical argument, who cares? The only people who will buy this tripe are the people who already do.
*yawn* She bores me.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
June 7, 2006 6:05 AM
I'm sorry, but ethically, I simply cannot make any effort toward debunking Coulter's screed. The potential ramifications are just too dreadful, now that I think about it.
I mean, imagine what would inevitably follow if someone were actually to convince her of the error of her ways, here. Insofar as she has effectively said that, if she were ever to realize that evolutionary biology is good science, she'd... she'd...
I'm sorry. I just can't say it. It's just too horrible. The poor things.
But I ask you: what have the goats ever done to deserve that?
So please, won't someone think of the goats? Let's just leave her delusions as they are.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough
|
June 7, 2006 6:23 AM
Bob O'H says: That's rather close to Karl Marx, isn't it?
Marx: Religion is the opiate of the masses.
Strauss: You say that like it's a bad thing.
Posted by: Mike
|
June 7, 2006 8:03 AM
"Want to get rid of coulter ? Spray her with a large dose of holy water... I'm sure she starts burning and dissolving..."
Ordinary water might do. I've heard her personal hygiene isn't all it might be.
If I'd never read or heard any of Coulter's insane ranting, she might be attractive, but I've had the experience of chatting up a very attractive girl only to have her come out with something blatantly racist and find her attraction gone in an instant.
Posted by: Keith Douglas
|
June 7, 2006 8:12 AM
Gerard Harbison: Drawing logical consequencees of what someone like that says and expecting them to endorse them is a fool's mission, alas ...
zohn smith: Of course, asserting that she believes everything could itself be part of the act ...
Ian Gibson: Of course we can't be - we don't attend that special place that Mrs. Flanders did ...
Bob O'H: Marx says (paraphrase) "religion is the opium of the people - get rid of it to free yourself and others"; Neocon/Straussian says (pharaphrase) "religion is the opium of the people - let's drug 'em up good! They need it or will become unmanagable."
Posted by: jrsmiley
|
June 7, 2006 8:45 AM
Well, thankfully, no-one should ever have to think seriously about what Ann Coulter has to say ever again. She's now in the category of people like Fred Phelps and some particularly evil KKK members. Her comments about the victims of 9/11 are extremely hurtful, not only to the widows, orphans and victims. It's also hurtful to those who didn't lose anyone, but remember seeing the people die on television. (Or anyone who has any compassion at all.) I remember watching people jumping out of windows, seeing them fall to their deaths. It will haunt me for the rest of my life. For some psychopath to tell me that the victims have no right to speak - its anathema. Ann Coulter's writing has a place in this society, but it is now limited within fringe hate-groups like Westboro Baptist Church.
She's written herself into that corner, and I think she should stay there, whether she believes what she wrote or not.
Posted by: Gr8wight
|
June 7, 2006 9:13 AM
I may just be a naive Canadian, but my opinions about Coulter are influenced by her statements about us. I find it hard to believe that any college graduate, anywhere, could express the opinion, "they're lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent as us," and be serious. Are there truly educated Americans who could make a statement like that and mean it?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 7, 2006 9:19 AM
There are many Americans who worship her for saying things like that. One reason I don't buy the argument that she's just putting up a schtick and couldn't possibly really believe that crap she says is that there is no shortage of people who do.
Posted by: Gr8wight
|
June 7, 2006 9:24 AM
Me:
PZ:
Sure, the redneck masses, but college graduates?
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
June 7, 2006 9:42 AM
Sadly, yes. I work with a couple of 'em. Needless to say we don't discuss politics much...
Posted by: davehog
|
June 7, 2006 10:15 AM
Paul said:
I don't think that meaning it has anything to do with it. When you get to the depth of factual-manipulation and spin that the religious right is at, personal beliefs are completely irrelevant. I can't only speculate on Ms. Coulter's motivation for saying things like her statement about Canadians, but it is obvious that ethnocentrism is big business, and she certainly is making money hand-over-fist off of this type of drivel. So, instead of wrapping herself in the flag, doing Ford commercials and writing songs at the fourth grade level ala Toby Keith, she makes her fortune by wrapping herself in the flag, getting dolled-up and making anti-intellectuals believe she is oozing with profundity.
Posted by: mark
|
June 7, 2006 10:17 AM
I haven't read the book--can anyone tell me how often Ann Coulter has cheap, meaningless sex with goats? Does she say what laws she violates when she has cheap, meaningless sex with goats? Does Ann Coulter have cheap, meaningless sex with any other animals besides goats? With any large invertebrates?
Posted by: rrt
|
June 7, 2006 10:26 AM
Sure, the redneck masses, but college graduates?
I don't really understand why college education would matter much in regards to this, but I can second Steve's observation. Consider two of my college graduate friends: One is a fervent Coulter/Ted Nugent conservative who holds political office, the other is an (extremely intelligent) evangelical Christian who honestly believes liberalism is the work of the Devil.
Posted by: MikeM
|
June 7, 2006 10:31 AM
Ann Coulter is a very sick person, and she provided further proof of that this morning.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/06/07/entertainment/e070803D31.DTL
Sick, sick, sick. I bet even Rush was disgusted.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison
|
June 7, 2006 10:49 AM
Well, I read chapters 7 though 10 (I won't say where I got it, to protect the guilty, but no money or monetary equivalent was given to Coulter in the process). And however bad y'all have been predicting it is, it's worse. Way worse. I've been arguing with FReeper creationists for 3 years, and this is like a giant amalgamation of their worst lies, half-truths, and distrortions ever produced. She quote mines Colin Patterson (don't they all?). She quote mines Jerry Coyne. She claims evolution says that whales come from bears that fell in the ocean. And then, at the very end, after sh'es thrown this incredible load of !@#$ at evolution, in the vain hope that some of it will stick, she then says, well even if evolution is true, Godidit!
My brain wants to take a shower.
Posted by: Will Error
|
June 7, 2006 10:53 AM
Well, the book I'm waiting for is Richard Dawkins's.
Posted by: Halfjack
|
June 7, 2006 11:21 AM
I think it's now obvious that Andy Kaufmann faked his death, had a sex change in Tijuana, and restarted his edgy comedy career as a political satirist under the new persona of Coulter. These books are clearly intended as comedy. We like your Bill O'Reilly too -- very funny stuff.
Posted by: CCP
|
June 7, 2006 11:21 AM
Jeez, PZ, the Nernst equation? The Nernst equation is for milquetoast wussies.
If you're serious about your degenerate, immoral, debauched, saturnalian, and depraved behavior, you MUST ramp on up to the Goldman equation. Three or four ions at once, same and opposite charges included, differential permeability, even Donnan equilibrium? Hoo-wee!!
Posted by: Bronze Dog
|
June 7, 2006 11:21 AM
My brain needs a wash after all the comments about Coulter and goats. I want to forget, but I can't!
Posted by: Erox
|
June 7, 2006 11:39 AM
Oh man that last line of your post about the pages being stuck together had me laughing my head off (I guess you know the Ann Coulter fans all to well). The vision of Ann having sex with goats now... ew. *runs off to wash his eyes out with bleach*
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 7, 2006 11:42 AM
Goldman? My dog, man, what kind of criminal libertine are you? You can do anything with Goldman. It's like a license to depolarize, and repolarize, and depolarize again.
Posted by: Karey
|
June 7, 2006 12:13 PM
"She claims evolution says that whales come from bears that fell in the ocean." Not evolution, DARWINISM. (Although I haven't read it but from the article it appears she applies fervent usage of this alternate term.) Its really quite helpful to our side the way they lump all their lies about evolution into this whole new field called Darwinism and argue endlessly with it. I'm all for bagging on darwinism. Fortunately the evolution textbooks in schools have none of Darwinism's "your grandmother was a monkey" crap, so if we just tell them we don't teach darwinism, which we don't, then haven't we all won.
Posted by: PaulC
|
June 7, 2006 1:32 PM
There's nothing in F=ma that says I can't call Ann Coulter a crazy-ass skank-ho. So when you ask who's responsible for the sad state of political discourse these days, you should place the blame squarely on the Newtonists.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
June 7, 2006 1:37 PM
I think you need to work "crack" in there somewhere as well. (The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology made me say that.)Posted by: MikeM
|
June 7, 2006 2:06 PM
Just reading about Coulter's "thoughts" on evolution, and now with the comments on "The Witches of Brunswick", whom she names in person, I would urge everyone to not borrow this book, even as a joke.
Hillary Clinton's comments today about this bitch (people who read my comments know I hardly ever resort to cussing) are 100% right on. Those four women from Brunswick should sue Coulter for every penny she "earns" from sales of this book.
I am really, really mad.
Please; don't even borrow this book from the library. This is right down in the gutter with "The Bell Curve," another book I wouldn't borrow to save my frikkin' life.
Posted by: No One Of Consequence
|
June 7, 2006 2:35 PM
Are those male or female goats? I've always got the impression that the more homophobic someone was, the less secure they were in their own sexuality.Posted by: No One Of Consequence
|
June 7, 2006 2:38 PM
Side note, does anyone else use the ideal gas law as an excuse to fart?
Posted by: Bill
|
June 7, 2006 3:25 PM
My dog's name is Boyle.
Posted by: Bacon Eating Atheist Jew
|
June 7, 2006 5:11 PM
I wonder what Anne thinks about me. An Atheist, who knows evolution is a fact, and who also is supportive of the Iraqi invasion as I know that Islam needs to reform or it will either be us or them.
PS, I'd rather see Muslims converted to Christianity than stay Muslims too, but it is just a whimsical thought.
That being said, I'd like to do her from behind. I'll bet she screams like a chimpanzee.
Where is the best place to screw a goat you might ask? At the edge of a cliff. They push back harder.
Posted by: thoughttheater
|
June 7, 2006 5:22 PM
See a tongue-in-cheek visual that depicts the new "War on Terror: Afgh-Ann-A-Skank"...here:
www.thoughttheater.com
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans
|
June 7, 2006 5:27 PM
Bob O'H: Marx says (paraphrase) "religion is the opium of the people - get rid of it to free yourself and others";
The longer quote is "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
Posted by: Bill
|
June 7, 2006 6:05 PM
PZ!
Farts, goats, gas chemistry, religious zealots...
This is the greatest thread ever! As PT Cephalopod said, "There's a sucker born every minute." (Thought I'd toss that in for the science.)
Posted by: Chet
|
June 7, 2006 6:21 PM
What is it about Ann Coulter that turns otherwise normal people into chauvanists? Look, she's an idiot, and bashing her is all in good fun (and [deity] knows she deserves it) but the sexist slurs and threats of sexual violence that so easily pour forth at the mention of her name give me great pause. Men have long used sexual violence and threats of same to keep "uppity" women in line.
If she's just saying things that are ridiculous and stupid, why do we have to bring her gender into it? I think that demeans us.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 7, 2006 6:30 PM
I've got to agree with that. She's dumb as a stick, focus on that. I don't care if she has an adam's apple, since I've got one, too; and even if she is an evil-minded poseur, that doesn't justify sick fantasies of sexual abuse.
Posted by: Foggg
|
June 7, 2006 6:58 PM
Wait 'til the Newsmax wingnuts catch Coulter's footnote on page 3 of her new book:
Why not call Jews and Muslims Christians? Mazel tov! Allah Akbar!Posted by: PaulC
|
June 7, 2006 6:59 PM
Chet:
I was gonna attribute it to [fill in your favorite irrelevant scientific principle] but, seriously, this is part of her strategy. Her whole gig is to provoke with ad hominems and make her opponents angry. When her targets get angry enough they start throwing back their own ad hominems at her. Then she gets to claim that her opponents are the unreasonable ones.
Superficial anti-Coulter attacks are counterproductive, but I'm not sure what to do about it. She's a truly unsavory character (that's my balanced assessment, not a smear) and it's pretty difficult just to sit back and let her spew hatred on TV without wanting to let off some steam.
I think there's enough substance to attack without commenting on her appearance. If Coulter were, in fact, a transvestite with a visible Adam's apple, but showed up with, say, reasonable suggestions for port security based on serious research then I'd listen to her with interest and at most make a discreet aside to close friends that she's quite unusual looking.
BTW, Greg Palast was on KQED forum today (a Bay Area radio show). Say what you want about Palast, he made a great point.
The host (substituting for Michael Krasny) suggested that he might be taken more seriously in the US media if he stated the same views in a measured, objective tone. Paraphrasing, but his point was basically: Yeah, if I just expressed myself in a measured, objective way like Ann Coulter, they'd put me on the Today show, right?
Why is it that sounding like a conspiratorial nutjob is actually an asset if you're rightwing, but only considered a liability for liberals?
Posted by: Chet
|
June 7, 2006 8:20 PM
Her whole gig is to provoke with ad hominems and make her opponents angry.
No, I get that. She's as bad as Michelle Malkin and Sean Hannity in terms of displaying over and over again the odious debate habits that they constantly describe, without example, to liberals.
It's just, I've never heard anybody, in a criticism of Michelle Malkin, be sexist. Even when I myself criticize MM to friends etc. it's all about how she's a hypocrite and a hack. Gender-neutral terms. But there's something about Ann Coulter that makes me want to bring her gender into to it. Use sexist put-downs that I eschew as a rule. I won't repeat the language that I used in her direction last night while watching Keith Olbermann. I've never read any domination/humiliation Michelle Malkin sex fantasies, but there's at least two about Ann Coulter that I can think of.
I dunno, it's just weird. There's Something About Ann, I guess.
Posted by: John
|
June 7, 2006 8:52 PM
DOF sezs:
"It seems I lack the instinct to ever have sex with Ann Coulter. This must come as a tremendous relief to her."
It sure comes as a tremendous relief to me. I suspect it should be the same for you.
Posted by: PaulC
|
June 7, 2006 9:04 PM
Chet: I think it's the steely gaze and the vaguely androgynous features, which some men may find threatening even if their liberal ideology tells them they shouldn't (blame Darwin!). Combine that with the fact that she dresses as if she thinks she's a supermodel, but besides getting the anorexic bit down and the long blonde hair, it just isn't quite happening.
In short, she's disturbing and vaguely threatening in appearance. I don't think that domination fantasies are an appropriate response to this, but I can sort of see how they come more easily than imagining Sean Hannity in leather pants with the zipper on the back.
Posted by: Chet
|
June 7, 2006 11:14 PM
I don't think that domination fantasies are an appropriate response to this, but I can sort of see how they come more easily than imagining Sean Hannity in leather pants with the zipper on the back.
I guess I see Hannity as more of an "assless chaps" kind of guy.
Posted by: Orac
|
June 8, 2006 8:22 AM
For an idea of what you'd be missing, check out these links.
Frightening.
Posted by: PaulC
|
June 8, 2006 10:44 AM
BTW, I know for a fact that I'm not the only one to have independently imagined Karl Rove in a re-enactment of the "squeal like a pig" scene from Deliverance. So it's just not true that violent anti-Republican fantasies are intrinsically sexist.
Posted by: thwaite
|
June 9, 2006 12:00 PM
Even the San Francisco Chronicle can't make this stuff up (they're quoting from the A.P. which seems to have taken up the topic of Coulter):
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/06/09/national/a020247D56.DTL
Coulter Draws Fire for Bashing 9/11 Widows
By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer
Friday, June 9, 2006
[ this includes a selection of other Coulter quotes ]
Their earlier article links to a lovely portrait of the lady (note the subject of the adjective):
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/07/entertainment/e070803D31.DTL
Ann Coulter Lambasts Some 9/11 Widows
Wednesday, June 7, 2006
Posted by: Auntsnow
|
June 9, 2006 3:32 PM
Foggg posts a Coulter quote: "Throughout this book, I often refer to Christians and Christianity because I am a Christian and I have a fairly good idea of what they believe..."
Doesn't that sound to you like she's distancing herself from being a Christian? Even on the face of it, it's a weird thing for a true believer to say --- I'm an adherant to this religion and I have a "fairly good" idea of what "they" believe. If you're a self-professed Christian, you should know exactly what YOU believe, in a pretty well-defined way.
It certainly makes me doubt her faith, as well as her sincerity.
As PZ points out above, though, what kind of life would a person have if their public persona is a lie?
Posted by: rrt
|
June 9, 2006 4:01 PM
Hey Thwaite:
That Philip Elliott article certainly does end interestingly, doesn't it? The list of outrageous Coulter quotes ending with:
"You want to be careful not to become just a blowhard," she said in The Washington Post on October 16, 1998.
Posted by: steve s
|
June 9, 2006 7:09 PM
She went to Cornell and U Mich law school. She doesn't live like a conservative christian. She's figured out how to make millions saying easy hysterical things. And on the eve of her new book, she played the media such that everybody in the country is talking about her.
She doesn't believe what she says, but she does believe it gets her 7 figures.
Posted by: deejaypear
|
June 12, 2006 1:35 PM
Maybe if we just ignore her she'll disappear.