Ann Coulter Attacks 9/11 Widows

Well, it is certainly possible that Coulter is this stupid. Ideologues get lots wrong because they cannot think past the cliches and uninvestigated assumptions of the ideology. "Jews start all the wars", "the Muslim faith is murderous", "the universe is some 6000 years old", "America is the greatest and most noble nation ever", etc.

On the other hand, she might not believe this at all. Let's consider the thesis, advanced earlier by tico and finn etc that Coulter is merely an "entertainer". Truth, accuracy, honesty...none of those qualities are necessary if the task to hand is entertaining. Often the opposites of those terms are more applicable...you tell things that didn't happen or aren't true, you exaggerate, etc. An entertainer's role - the product offered - is simply saying or doing something which an audience finds entertaining. In exchange, if they "entertain" acceptably, they get money and kudos, prestige, etc from the audience. Coulter is quite explicit as regards how happy she is to be a millionaire as a consequence of her "entertaining".

And it is clearly worthwhile thinking about just who, in a general sense, Coulter's audience is. A borscht-belt comic wouldn't do very well if he were to let on during some interview that he was a member of Stormfront or the Ohio Proud Trailer Park Nazis With Bazookas. For Ann's audience, you can't go around admitting you are an atheist or a Muslim or a Whirling Dervish. You gotta be a Christian, and a particular sort of Christian (note how commonly the radio talk people and the rightwing pundit types manage to fit into their spiels "And by the way, I am a Christian"). And you are going to have a view about Darwin that doesn't violate your audience's ideas and values.

So, who knows what is going on in this creature's noggin?

Nobody knows, but one thing's for certain .... you're awfully concerned about it.

Entertainment for the weak minded who are also fiscally irresponsible by paying one dime for any of her books. You really think anyone on this forum has actually bought her books?

dookie -- Someone on another forum thinks that the elimination of geography from the elementary school curriculum invited in all sorts of errors, of the Darwinism is crap variety.

No one who'd admit it....

I checked out one of her books at the library.

My wife bought one though.

One? Not so impressed, heh?

How many books has 45 year old Coulter written?

I may have checked out two.

Checked out two is it now? I guess it's a woman's right to change her mind. Sorry, just as laughable.

By LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS
Published: August 15, 2006

Voters in Kansas ensured this month that noncreationist moderates will once again have a majority (6 to 4) on the state school board, keeping new standards inspired by intelligent design from taking effect.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Did Humans Evolve? Not Us, Say Americans (August 15, 2006)
Readers' Opinions
Forum: Human Origins

The Evolution Debate
Go to Complete Coverage »

This is a victory for public education and sends a message nationwide about the public's ability to see through efforts by groups like the Discovery Institute to misrepresent science in the schools. But for those of us who are interested in improving science education, any celebration should be muted.

This is not the first turnaround in recent Kansas history. In 2000, after a creationist board had removed evolution from the state science curriculum, a public outcry led to wholesale removal of creationist board members up for re-election and a reinstatement of evolution in the curriculum.

In a later election, creationists once again won enough seats to get a 6-to-4 majority. With their changing political tactics, creationists are an excellent example of evolution at work. Creation science evolved into intelligent design, which morphed into "teaching the controversy," and after its recent court loss in Dover, Pa., and political defeats in Ohio and Kansas, it will no doubt change again. The most recent campaign slogan I have heard is "creative evolution."

But perhaps more worrisome than a political movement against science is plain old ignorance. The people determining the curriculum of our children in many states remain scientifically illiterate. And Kansas is a good case in point.

The chairman of the school board, Dr. Steve Abrams, a veterinarian, is not merely a strict creationist. He has openly stated that he believes that God created the universe 6,500 years ago, although he was quoted in The New York Times this month as saying that his personal faith "doesn't have anything to do with science."

"I can separate them," he continued, adding, "My personal views of Scripture have no room in the science classroom."

A key concern should not be whether Dr. Abrams's religious views have a place in the classroom, but rather how someone whose religious views require a denial of essentially all modern scientific knowledge can be chairman of a state school board.

I have recently been criticized by some for strenuously objecting in print to what I believe are scientifically inappropriate attempts by some scientists to discredit the religious faith of others. However, the age of the earth, and the universe, is no more a matter of religious faith than is the question of whether or not the earth is flat.

It is a matter of overwhelming scientific evidence. To maintain a belief in a 6,000-year-old earth requires a denial of essentially all the results of modern physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology and geology. It is to imply that airplanes and automobiles work by divine magic, rather than by empirically testable laws.

Dr. Abrams has no choice but to separate his views from what is taught in science classes, because what he says he believes is inconsistent with the most fundamental facts the Kansas schools teach children.

Another member of the board, who unfortunately survived a primary challenge, is John Bacon. In spite of his name, Mr. Bacon is no friend of science. In a 1999 debate about the removal of evolution and the Big Bang from science standards, Mr. Bacon said he was baffled about the objections of scientists. "I can't understand what they're squealing about," he is quoted as saying. "I wasn't here, and neither were they."

This again represents a remarkable misunderstanding of the nature of the scientific method. Many fields ?- including evolutionary biology, astronomy and physics ?- use evidence from the past in formulating hypotheses. But they do not stop there. Science is not storytelling.

These disciplines take hypotheses and subject them to further tests and experiments. This is how we distinguish theories that work, like evolution or gravitation.

As we continue to work to improve the abysmal state of science education in our schools, we will continue to battle those who feel that knowledge is a threat to faith.

But when we win minor skirmishes, as we did in Kansas, we must remember that the issue is far deeper than this. We must hold our elected school officials to certain basic standards of knowledge about the world. The battle is not against faith, but against ignorance.

Lawrence M. Krauss is a professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University.

You find that laughable? Methinks that speaks volumes about your credibility as a humor critic.

You didn't know you caused laughter? That's even funny.

The is deja vu as we've been over this material before with you Tico. Please come up with something original about Coulter besides you checked out two of her endless dirge of tombs [sic] and your wife actually bought one (from the close-out shelf in paperback at Barnes & Noble no doubt).

Not really. Whatever is in there and whether it is a function of abuse or genetics or syphilis doesn't engage my curiosity much.

My interests relate to why so many of you find comfort in these authoritarian Joe McCarthy types.

And now your calling me "entertainment for the weak minded."



It must really be eating at you that her latest book debuted at #1 on the New York Times bestseller list for nonfiction.

-----

(BTW: You did not use [sic] properly in that sentence above. .... FYI. :wink: )

How sad...

I recall a thread, not so long ago, where I was being critical of Farenheit 9/11, or Brokeback Mountain, or some other movie Lightwizard was enamored with, and he criticized me (and others) of being critical of the movie when we hadn't seen it.





Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

Unless a person is a geek, I can't imagine anyone wasting time on one of her books.

Unless a person is gay, I can't imagine anyone wating time on Brokeback Mountain.