I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Ann Coulter's new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"

Ann Coulter's best-selling new book unfortunately has a title that makes it sound like a fundamentalist screed: "Godless: The Church of Liberalism." However, the book might be interesting reading for those on both sides of the evolution controversy, because -- according to Uncommon Descent -- almost half of it is devoted to science and evolution. An ad for the book says --

Coulter uncovers the essential truth about Darwinism that liberals won't confront: It is bogus science.

After a century and a half of examining the fossil record, Coulter states, evolution's proponents have failed to substantiate its claims, and instead one supposed piece of evidence after another has been exposed as a hoax.

But liberals cling devotedly to Darwinism, Coulter says, because they desperately need to disprove the possibility of God's existence at any cost -- and will accept no challenges to their "official religion."

I am really surprised to find myself on the same side as the fundies in this debate over evolution. And I certainly strongly disagree with Ann Coulter's support for school prayer.

Ed Brayton's blog Dispatches from the Culture Wars attacked Coulter in an article titled, "Ann Coulter Crosses the Line":

I didn't think it was possible for me to despise Coulter any more than I already did, but a friend just emailed me a link to this article from Media Matters wherein she compares herself to H.L. Mencken. And that just crosses my line..... Mencken is the finest essayist America has ever produced. Coulter is a carnival barker on the midway of right wing politics. She's not fit to sweep up the ashes from his cigar.

However, I think that Ed is the one who has crossed the line here. Coulter was not the one who initiated the comparisons to other well-known people -- the interviewer did that when he called her the "opposite of Michael Moore," the well-known Academy Award winning documentary filmmaker. And Ed wanted to show off that he is so-o-o-o sophisticated that he knows that "Mencken is the finest essayist America has ever produced." Ed, Ann Coulter has at least become a #1 best-selling author on eBay, which is more than can be said of you.

Also, the book has aroused controversy outside of science and evolution -- an article titled "Hillary lashes out at Ann Coulter" says:

Coulter writes in a new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," that a group of New Jersey widows whose husbands perished in the World Trade Center act "as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them."

She also wrote, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

Coulter appeared Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show, and reiterated her stance, saying the women used their grief "to make a political point."

Her criticism was aimed at four New Jersey women whom she dubbed "The Witches of East Brunswick," after the town where two of them live.

They have spent the years since the 2001 terror attacks supporting an independent commission to examine government failures before the attack, and in the 2004 presidential campaign they endorsed Democrat John Kerry.

Calling for an independent commission to examine government failures before the attack hardly sounds like they were "enjoying their husbands' deaths." I think that Coulter did cross the line this time, and unfortunately those remarks may hurt her credibility. There is a proposal to ban her book in New Jersey. Her attacks on the 9-11 widows are further discussed here.

18 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

No WMD. No ties to al-Qaida. Saddam has nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. http://www.downingstreetmemo.com

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:21:00 PM  
Anonymous setting record straight said...

< No WMD. No ties to al-Qaida. Saddam has nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. >

See http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50621

and http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591454042

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 6:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Equalizer said...

> No WMD <

Why did Kerry and Edwards insist that there were? Wasn't Edwards on the intelligence committee that came up with this claim?

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 6:41:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

setting record straight said...

>> < No WMD. No ties to al-Qaida. Saddam has nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. >

See http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50621

and http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591454042 <<

WoldNet, you're using WorldNet as a reference? I would barely trust WorldNet to tell me what year it is, and I'd still want independent verification.

As to Sada's book. What do you actually think it proves? Since he wasn't actually involved in any of what he said happened and is, in fact relying mostly on hearsay, his words sort of fall short on the truthometer. It doesn't hurt that there is no physical evidence supporting him. So, what we're left with is second and third-hand stories claiming that a crime has occured with no victim present and no one having been reported as missing.

Nice sources.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 2:50:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

Equalizer said...

>> > No WMD <

Why did Kerry and Edwards insist that there were? Wasn't Edwards on the intelligence committee that came up with this claim? <<

Could it be because they were being mislead by cooked intelligence?

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 2:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Equalizer said...

> Could it be because they were being mislead by cooked intelligence? <

Kerry could make that claim. John Edwards could not. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, he would have to admit incompetence to do it.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:37:00 PM  
Anonymous setting record straight said...

< you're using WorldNet as a reference? >

Yes, WorldNet has some problems. They even had "news" articles a while back about purportedly finding Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat (that particular thread seems to have mysteriously evaporated). They can engage in wishful thinking as well as anyone. And I have often sent emails to Mr. Farah urging him not to zap his credibility by pushing creationism. But what you are asking me to do is apply an ad hominem standard. I believe Farah wants to present the truth, and is able to do so quite well in areas where he has some personal experience. So yes, I do cite WorldNet often.

Similar considerations apply to Ann Coulter and her latest book. I am declining to buy "Godless" because I think it sets up a strawman, which I find irritating. She does not describe me very well. But she does describe some people. I thought she was "over the top" in her comments about the "witches of East Brunswick" (and still find the remarks somewhat offensive). However, when I read the context in which she said them, they made more sense.

< As to Sada's book. What do you actually think it proves? Since he wasn't actually involved in any of what he said happened and is, in fact relying mostly on hearsay, his words sort of fall short on the truthometer. It doesn't hurt that there is no physical evidence supporting him. >

There are satellite photos that show heavy truck traffic to Syria prior to the Iraq invasion, which is a little hard to explain otherwise. There was also an airlift to Syria with a dubious cover story. And, Sada was in a position to either be involved himself or to hear about people who were. And finally, a lot of questionable stuff was found in Iraq, such as "pesticides" (potential chemical weapon precursors) stored in ammo dumps, and reference strains of bacteria under scientists' houses. And it was true that Iraq sent a trade delegation to Niger (chief export: uranium). And there was the assassination of many scientists who dared to talk.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 4:33:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

setting record straight said...

>> < you're using WorldNet as a reference? > <<

>> Yes, WorldNet has some problems. They even had "news" articles a while back about purportedly finding Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat (that particular thread seems to have mysteriously evaporated). They can engage in wishful thinking as well as anyone. And I have often sent emails to Mr. Farah urging him not to zap his credibility by pushing creationism. But what you are asking me to do is apply an ad hominem standard. I believe Farah wants to present the truth, and is able to do so quite well in areas where he has some personal experience. So yes, I do cite WorldNet often. <<

It's not ad hominem to say that a source that has proven unreliable in the past should not be counted as reliable in the future.

>> Similar considerations apply to Ann Coulter and her latest book. I am declining to buy "Godless" because I think it sets up a strawman, which I find irritating. She does not describe me very well. But she does describe some people. I thought she was "over the top" in her comments about the "witches of East Brunswick" (and still find the remarks somewhat offensive). However, when I read the context in which she said them, they made more sense. <<

Ah yes, the usual refrain of the Coulter Apologist (which is funny because I didn't even mention Coulter), she's just "over the top." Yeah right, it was just over the top to say the 9/11 widows enjoyed their husbands' deaths. She's a twit and a media whore and nothing more. She's yet another in a long line of "I'm going to be as offensive as possible, but when I'm called out I'm just a poor little entertainer." And she whines a lot ("They made me look like the Wicked Witch, blah, blah, blah."), which is another trait common among her ilk.

>> < As to Sada's book. What do you actually think it proves? Since he wasn't actually involved in any of what he said happened and is, in fact relying mostly on hearsay, his words sort of fall short on the truthometer. It doesn't hurt that there is no physical evidence supporting him. >

>> There are satellite photos that show heavy truck traffic to Syria prior to the Iraq invasion, which is a little hard to explain otherwise. There was also an airlift to Syria with a dubious cover story. And, Sada was in a position to either be involved himself or to hear about people who were. And finally, a lot of questionable stuff was found in Iraq, such as "pesticides" (potential chemical weapon precursors) stored in ammo dumps, and reference strains of bacteria under scientists' houses. And it was true that Iraq sent a trade delegation to Niger (chief export: uranium). And there was the assassination of many scientists who dared to talk. <<

Not seeing anything here that rises above the hmmm range. And nothing at all that make the book any less based on hearsay from unnamed and third-party sources.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 9:18:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

setting record straight said ( 6/14/2006 04:33:44 PM ) --

>>>>>I thought she was "over the top" in her comments about the "witches of East Brunswick" (and still find the remarks somewhat offensive). However, when I read the context in which she said them, they made more sense.<<<<<<

For more perspective on her remarks about the "witches of East Brunswick," I recommend the article I linked at the bottom of my opening post.

I hope that her opinions about the evolution controversy are judged on their own merits and not on the basis of her remarks about the 9-11 widows.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 9:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Equalizer said...

> I hope that her opinions about the evolution controversy are judged on their own merits and not on the basis of her remarks about the 9-11 widows. <

She was right about the 9-11 widows. They have been exploiting their husbands' deaths. She was way out on her support for the ID superstition.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:12:00 PM  
Anonymous setting record straight said...

< It's not ad hominem to say that a source that has proven unreliable in the past should not be counted as reliable in the future. >

Can you cite an instance where WorldNet has proved unreliable (other than assuming Biblical literalism)? (And BTW, everyone makes mistakes sometimes.) This is a serious, not a "trick" question -- I would like to know of any (would appreciate links). Seems to me they've more often gone against the conventional wisdom -- which is hard -- and been right.

< (which is funny because I didn't even mention Coulter) >

Title of this thread: "Ann Coulter's new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"". Gee, an actual on-topic post -- how about that! :-)

< She's a twit and a media whore > (true) < and nothing more > (not true).

< I hope that her opinions about the evolution controversy are judged on their own merits and not on the basis of her remarks about the 9-11 widows. >

Actually, both tend to undermine her credibility even on matters where she does know what she's talking about.

Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

I would weigh in with Equalizer here. While she has some wacky fundamentalist ideas, Ann Coulter is far from being a twit. She is extremely intelligent and is much better debater than any politician that I have seen in recent times. It is a shame that she has picked the wrong side on this issue.

As far as the 9-11 widows exploiting the deaths of their husbands, they definitely have. Sympathy goes only so far. These are not noble women. They are opportunists like Cindy Sheehan who has been using the death of her son for her own ends while probably qualifying for dead last in any Mother of the Year contest.

Thursday, June 15, 2006 8:21:00 AM  
Blogger jujuquisp said...

Ann Coulter=Horse-faced anorexic

Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Ann Coulter said...

I am just a gutter whore with a poor education and marginal intellect that spews nonsensical garbage as compensation for my low self esteem. Bill Clinton rejected my attempts to fellate him so now I will exact my revenge. Furthermore, my bassitone voice and awkward body mechanics reveal my obvious shortcomings and will never attract the type of man I truly wish to fill my gaping vaginal maw. In fact, my cavernous love canal could probably never adequately satisfy any man. If only I had taken my penicillin, I wouldn't now be suffering from the cruel effects of tertiary syphilis.

Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Ann Coulter said...

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention----I really am talentless and my crotch smells like Cool Ranch DoritosĀ®

Thursday, June 15, 2006 2:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Bill Carter said...

Gee Larry, I thought that you were the only idiot on this blog. It looks like there are others.

Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:02:00 PM  
Anonymous geoff metcalf said...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/6/12/115041.shtml

Bingo!

-- Dave

Friday, June 16, 2006 11:33:00 AM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

His other articles are pretty good as well:

http://www.newsmax.com/pundits/Metcalf.shtml

Friday, June 16, 2006 11:51:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home