Via Evolving Thoughts, this article about Ann Coulter's misrepresentation of the Dover case is just too good for me not to link to also. Best excerpt:
One part of her latest book that's getting little notice is the part that deals with Dover and what is purported to be the "debate" over evolution.
She begins her screed by saying that liberals have contempt for science.
What?
She offers as proof that liberals support stem-cell research.
Yes, I know, I don't get it either.
Lots of conservatives also support stem-cell research. Nancy Reagan, for one. Arnold Schwarzenegger, for another. Gov. Arnold has even supported increased funding for stem-cell research in California, after the federal government, kow-towing to the religious right, cut off money to explore this vital area of scientific research.
"Liberals," Coulter writes, "just want to kill humans."
Moving on, she then says liberals worship the theory of evolution.
Which is science.
Which she says liberals hate.
Well it makes sense in Idiotville.
Really, thanks Ann for giving all the credit to Dembski, Behe and Berlinski for your knowledge (I shudder to think you might have gotten this information from reading an actual book on the topic), and especially thanks to Bill for gleefully accepting this most dubious honour. By your union you have each managed to make a creature with less credibility than the sum of its parts. Who knew that was even possible? Congratulations!
I do enjoy the fact that Ann has tied them (Dembski, Behe and Berlinski) all together with her so that they too can sink with this pile of burning shite she calls a book.
One can only wonder if there's a line she could cross, beyond which people won't follow. Sadly, I don't see evidence she's there yet. Her book has been #1 on best-seller lists, and her rabble continue to support her. It's amusing and somewhat reassuring, however, to see that PZ's challenge to those supporters has so far gone unmet.
Speaking from outside the US, of course, Ann Coulter looks like just another freak, until you realise that
(a) It appears that a significant number of Americans agree with her,
(b) These people have the vote, and
(c) President Coulter would have access to sufficient nuclear warheads to wipe out most of the rest of the planet.
So at what point should we launch a pre-emptive war?
She appeared on BBC1 Newsnight last week - I was expecting shrapnel and fumes from the confrontation between Coulter and Jeremy Paxman, but the degree of mutual incomprehension seemed to keep it from really taking off.
Mind you, she took about 20 seconds to begin each answer, as if every question astonished her. A lot of gaping, in short.
"I was expecting shrapnel and fumes from the confrontation between Coulter and Jeremy Paxman, but the degree of mutual incomprehension seemed to keep it from really taking off."
That's disappointing - I'd have expected Paxman to shred her, although Paxman might have been thrown off his game by trying to figure out whether she was as deranged as she seems or just delusional.
Mind you, she took about 20 seconds to begin each answer, as if every question astonished her. A lot of gaping, in short"
I think being questioned by someone as sharp as Paxman would throw her: American interviewers are mostly sycophants, which Paxman emphatically is not.