Where's Ripley when you need her?

Where's the IPU when you need her?

In New York, no one can hear you scream.

Check out Alien Loves Predator. Abe the alien and Preston the predator share an apartment in New York, with Jesus as an occasional roommate.

"Did you get Jesus anything for his birthday yet?"

"Does he even celebrate Christmas? I mean, I read somewhere that he's Jewish? Or at least used to be?"

"I remember he used to complain about you listening to Sabbath. But was that on Saturdays or Sundays?"

I have always said I just do not get why folks think Ms Coulter is attractive...

I have always said I just do not get why folks think Ms Coulter is attractive...

what about sadomasochism ?

george:

I have always said I just do not get why folks think Ms Coulter is attractive...

I think it's an application of rule-based logic. She's blonde, thin, tall, and wears skimpy dresses. I agree that taken together, it doesn't gel. My conclusion is that some people have really limited intuitive perception, and really do apply this kind of static checklist.

I have always said I just do not get why folks think Ms Coulter is attractive...

Agreed. I'm not going to take the typical attack psoition and bag on what she looks like, but taken objectively, she does nothing for me. She has a pair of hands though, that would befit an NBA all-star. Not an attractive thing IMO, though her politics preclude any thoughts I have on her looks.

But why does the alien in the comic have *eyes*? Did they evolve them, Pinkoski-style since their last cinema outing?

Wonderful take-down by Argento. I note with pleasure that he managed to work "breathtaking inanity" into the first paragraph. Granted, it's not hard to use that phrase when discussing ID/Creationism -- in fact, it's frequently hard not to -- but it's good that he's referencing the Great Literature on the subject, and helping it pass into the popular lexicon.

The cartoonist is giving the alien a bad name.

Mommy? Are you buying another Coulter book? Oh, Mother! (It must be a case of political Alzheimer's.)

Umm, okay, so Coulter uses looks to forward her case? So what, any artist does, including scam artists.

I wish there were some analog to Godwin's law - as an online discussion about a female grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving looks approaches one. And that would shut the thread up.

I understand why some men--all neocons--find her attractive. If she wasn't such a loon, we would too (not just because her beliefs wouldn't be so ugly, but also because the stress of promulgating them--and the desperation of trying to come off as as a 30-something hottie--wouldn't show in her face, as it does now).

It's easier to understand why her relationships haven't worked out. Among other things, she's got one of those "I'd never join a club that would have someone like me as a member" things going on--which, considering the sort of men she probably attracts, is perfectly valid.

I have to confess that I find Michelle Malkin pretty cute. She'd be better if she weren't constantly pulling CRAZY PERSON GOOGLY-EYE FACES during her many foam-at-the-mouth rants. Or sneering, as on her blog. Yeesh, talk about punchable.

I suppose I should be glad I've avoided memorizing her appearance. She's just a few profoundly stupid lines of text to me. Though they could use a little tweaking in appearance to match their content.

Okay, I'm not saying anything about Coulter's looks. What I don't understand is why the IDers don't sue her for mangling their creationisms.

For example, she says: "What the fossil record shows is sudden bursts of all manner of animals, modest change, and then sudden and total extinction. Dinosaurs appeared, lived for 150 million years, and then disappeared, only to be quickly replaced by mammals. Neither the creation or extinction of dinosaurs was accomplished by a gradual process of any sort (215)."

What? I don't think even Dembski asserts that every single dinosaur appeared at the same time and lived out those 150 millions years. There was significant modification among "the dinosaurs" during this long expanse of time. She's confusing her creationist arguments! It would appear that she's referring to the "Precambrian explosion" assertion, being that she doesn't seem to understand that there were mammals co-existing with dinosaurs and who expanded to fill the niche left by the dinosaurs' extinction, which of course wasn't instantaneous (or total, of course). She's thinking of the "explain the fast formation of all the major phyla" argument and applying it to the Mesozoic Era ("dinosaurs appeared"?) and the critic is forced to untangle all this (thus highlighting her stupid assertions), and only then can one answer them. It's pathetic!

CAT FIGHT!!!!

Kristine, the ID'ers dare not sue Coulter simply for the sake of "the big tent". One ID'er cannot ever contradict another in public, even though their ideas are often mutually contradictory.

The reason for this is simple: for one ID'er to apply standards of logic and reason to another ID'ers argument is to invite such scrutiny upon their own ideas. And that cannot ever, ever be allowed to happen.

So the "big tent" of ID/creationism is content to just be a patchwork collection of random loonies, each with their own peculiar "theories" of how the Grand Old Designer works, toiling away in virtual isolation on their pet ideas. Having an umbrella organization gives them more (undeserved) credibility to their followers -- who, let's be frank, aren't the sort to be critically analyzing ANY ID "theory"; as long as the conclusion is the correct one (Goddiddit!), there's no need to look any deeper and see that what Coulter says doesn't jibe with Dembski, which doesn't jibe with Wells, which doesn't jibe with... etc.

Kristine, the ID'ers dare not sue Coulter simply for the sake of "the big tent". One ID'er cannot ever contradict another in public, even though their ideas are often mutually contradictory.

The reason for this is simple: for one ID'er to apply standards of logic and reason to another ID'ers argument is to invite such scrutiny upon their own ideas. And that cannot ever, ever be allowed to happen.

Pretty much the same reason why most psychics, quacks, newage (rhymes with sewage) nutbars and so forth don't contradict one another.

I agree, minimalist, and you're right, but even William Dembski has to clean the cat box once in a while, no matter how much fresh kitty litter he keeps dumping in to cover the smell (an apt analogy, since they are so fond of quoting the Second Law of Thermodynamics). Besides, Dwimr, Coulter is really a mouse. She is not going to last.

I have to confess that I find Michelle Malkin pretty cute. She'd be better if she weren't constantly pulling CRAZY PERSON GOOGLY-EYE FACES during her many foam-at-the-mouth rants. Or sneering, as on her blog. Yeesh, talk about punchable.

I agree. And Debbie Schlussel is also a fairly attractive woman. Just goes to show you can be batshit insane on the right and still not show it on your face like Ann Coulter does. No accounting for taste though. I once saw a documentary on Prince Charles and some creepy old guy was going on and on about how sexy Camilla was. My skin was a crawlin' that time!

Oh, look. Plagiarism. This idea originated with a Jay Leno joke during his monologue the last time Ann appeared on the Tonight Show.

Stealing a joke isn't quite plagiarism.

Here's a piece of illogic that always baffles me when women trash 'liberals' and 'feminists': Without the gains made by the feminist movement, conservatives would never have allowed Ms. Coulter (or, in those days, something like "Mrs. Mike Brown") to leave the kitchen, get a job, wear revealing dresses or be an independent woman, let alone write a book!

Does she really yearn for the 1880s?!

"Does she really yearn for the 1880s?!"

Maybe the 1830's -- South of the Mason-Dixon line...

"Oh now Miss Scarlett you come on and eat juss a little honey!"

It doesn't matter what Coulter looks like -- you miss the point (and honestly, piss off a lot of fellow liberals with your implicit sexism -- why do you criticize Coulter for her appearance but not the various male conservative idiots?). She writes; evaluate her on her writing.

And her writing is noxious, idiotic, and, to my knowledge, not once yet factual. Plenty of grist to chew there without worrying about her appearance.

As for the 1880's and 1830's discussion: I hope it's abundantly clear to everyone here that an unstated plank of the Republican party's platform is to repeal (at least) the 20th century.

If you'd like to do something about that, donate money or time to:

Dean's DNC and the 50-state strategy
Webb in Virginia
Carter in Nevada
Tester in Montana

They're all in this thing for the right reasons: to end the Republican Nightmare and to restore the American Dream.

Correct that people should go for the ball, not the man, but male conservatives do get insulted for their appearance too. Most of them seem to be pale, pudgy men in bow ties - fish in a barrel.

I hope it's abundantly clear to everyone here that an unstated plank of the Republican party's platform is to repeal (at least) the 20th century.

No, they are much more ambitious.

They want to repeal the entire Enlightenment.

True. And it has not escaped their notice that the United States Constitution and the type of government it prescribes is a product of the Enlightenment.

Thus, the current efforts toward establishing a monarchy.

JV: Have you ever heard of "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot"? Exactly what do you think "big" and "fat" refer to in that title?

I generally prefer not to engage in that sort of ad hominem at all, but clearly conservatives and liberals of both sexes do get targeted with it. "Sexism" does not mean "being mean to a woman".

It doesn't matter what Coulter looks like -- you miss the point (and honestly, piss off a lot of fellow liberals with your implicit sexism . . .

JV--Unlike the conservatives, we liberals don't have a "party line." (If we did, we'd have the Right's enviable cohesion.) So if I've pissed off other liberals with my opinions, TS.

I myself think Coulter's appearance is noteworthy because it's abundantly clear that she herself, and her followers think so as well. She puts an enormous amount of effort into looking like the extremely narrow standard of beauty (blond, skinny, etc.) the Right has--certainly as much effort as she puts into her writing and probably more. It's not just a matter of genes or random inclination--it's part of her shtick.

The fact that age is making such considerable effort increasingly ludicrous; and that, despite her famous beauty and her adherence to traditional "family" principles, she has had no apparent long-term traditional relationships (marriages, engagements, even a boyfriend she'd admit to in public), seems to point up the unreality and/or hypocrisy of her world view.

So, yeah. worthy of comment.

"Correct that people should go for the ball, not the man, but male conservatives do get insulted for their appearance too. Most of them seem to be pale, pudgy men in bow ties - fish in a barrel."

I've often maintained (half-jokingly) that right-wing, authoritarian ideologies are a symbiotic meme to enable the reproduction of unappealing men.

(That's a future cartoon entry that unfortunately I don't have time to do right now.)

Bronze Dog's: "Pretty much the same reason why most psychics, quacks, newage (rhymes with sewage) nutbars and so forth don't contradict one another."

Ah, an allusion to bOING bOING writer Gareth's brilliant Newage (rhymes with sewage) article? I've used the phrases "Newage / rhymes with sewage" and "it involves spraying obscene quantities of liquefied wheatgrass up your butt" as often as possible. Nice.

I originally picked it up from Randi's weekly commentary while playing catch-up (was kind of weird "counting down" Sylvia Browne's stalling) when I first visited his site.

But I think I have a new guy to catch up on, now, if you'll pardon me. :)

male conservatives do get insulted for their appearance too.

Hinderaker gets insulted for his icon. At least, I assume that and his name is where "assrocket" comes from.

Okay, some male conservatives do get attacked for their pudgy, pasty exteriors, but just go look at, say, the most recent Coulter post and the most recent Limbaugh or O'Reilly post and categorize the comments into appearance-related and not. I think we all know how that would turn out.

We're fighting an imaginary class-war here (fake "regular gal/guy" Republicans vs. fallacious "elite snob" Democracts), and the only edge we have is that we are right and they are wrong. Half the politicians in DC are on their second or third or more spouse. Crying hypocrisy isn't working -- let's get back to the facts at hand:

They are wrong. We are not.

And besides, the median of the US electorate is best described and pudgy and pasty white. We aren't winning any votes talking about anyone's appearance (female or not) or even their hypocritical position on drug or alcohol abuse.

Hypocrisy is not the end all, be all of evil in the world. But willful ignorance and corrupt, short-sighted intentions might very well be at the source.

Hasn't anyone caught the big fat irony sitting in front of their noses here?

Coulter and her ilk are simply cartoonists who can't draw. Instead, they use words. Editorial cartoonists "say" outrageous things all the time in their works -- just look at the above cartoon. Yet editorial cartoonists rarely reap the attention or become media personalities like their more verbose counterparts.

http://purplekoolaid.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/06/on_being_a_trol.html