(Bumping this post to the top - scroll down for updates and more thoughts)
Rick Moran blogs about the latest controversy involving comments Ann Coulter made in a recent interview with the Today Show’s Matt Lauer. First, the comments:
LAUER: On the 9-11 widows, an in particular a group that had been critical of the administration:
COULTER: “These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was part of the closure process.”
“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.”
Of those comments, Moran writes:
This rhetoric is not designed to advance debate or even make any kind of a salient point about the political activism of grief stricken parents like Cindy Sheehan and the anti-Bush September 11 widows. The remarks were designed to hurt other people’s feelings in a deeply personal and entirely inappropriate way. Can you imagine some liberal commentator making similar remarks about Debra Burlingame, sister of Charles F. “Chic” Burlingame, III, captain of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed at the Pentagon and who is fighting to keep the 9/11 Memorial from being hijacked by the anti-American left? We would be all over that worthy and deservedly so.
The anti-Bush 9/11 widows are not immune from criticism for their political positions nor even for the tactics they use to advance those positions. But to say that they are “enjoying” their status as widows is so far beyond the pale that anyone who makes such a statement deserves the most severe censure possible. And the networks who use Coulter as some kind of “Spokesman” for the right should be told in no uncertain terms by as many of us as possible that she doesn’t speak for any conservatives that we want to be associated with.
I couldn’t agree more.
Ann, of course, has the right to say whatever she wants - but was something like that right to say? I don’t think so. This isn’t about being uber-sensitive. It’s about there being a better way to get your point across without going overboard. No matter what the 9-11 widows have had to say about the President’s policies, Coulter saying they’ve been “enjoying” their husbands deaths is way beyond the pale.
This is yet another example of how sometimes conservative debate can turn from passion to poison.
James Joyner has a link roundup of blogger reax.
Read more via Captain Ed, AllahPundit
PM Update 11:47 ET: It’s ‘progressed’ (don’t know if that’s the best word for it) to a war of words been Coulter and Hillary.
Malkin makes a fair point here on what’s been lost in all this:
Unfortunately, lost in all the hype and hyperbole on both sides is the central point about the absolute moral authority the MSM confers on victims they agree with–while victims whose politics they do not share can’t get the time of day.
She’s absolutely right. Unfortunately, that central point won’t be the focus now. The focus is going to be on how hateful Ann is, and by association, conservatives, because she wrote about how the 9-11 widows were ‘enjoying’ their husbands’ deaths.
To add to my earlier points, on certain issues it helps to be tactful when attempting to get your point across. I have defended remarks made by other conservatives that I thought were taken out of context by the liberal mediots (Bill Bennett [scroll] and Rep. Jean Schmidt are two examples of that) because they deserved to be defended. The usual suspects took offense at Bennett’s and Schmidt’s remarks respectively - Bennett’s because he wasn’t being PC enough and Schmidt because she was supposedly ’smearing’ Vietnam vet Rep. John Murtha after he urged the US to essentially cut and run in Iraq. I cannot, however, do the same for Ann here.
Conservatives, including myself, are strong proponents of saying what needs to be said without worrying about who is going to get offended. The bane of progress on conservative priorities has been political correctness: we’ve been told for decades by Democrats that our ideas are offensive, mean-spirited and wrong - and when we act on our core beliefs (smaller gov’t, fiscal responsibility, etc) well, I don’t even have to give a rundown of the type of venom that spews out of the mouths of demagoguing blowhards like Ted Kennedy in response. In spite of the Ted Kennedys of the world, we need to keep on saying what needs to be said. But on certain issues, tact is important and this is indeed one of those issues.
I know some of my readers disagree with me on this, which is fine because a world in which we always agreed with each other would be quite boring. But I want to reiterate that this is not about political correctness or being uber-sensitive, but instead knowing which issues to approach tactfully and which ones not to. Because of the way Ann chose to make her point on the “Jersey girls” - by saying they were “enjoying” their husbands’ deaths, the real point - as Malkin noted - the one that really should be the focal point, has been lost. It’s become a personality debate now rather than a substantive debate and that is the most regrettable thing out of all this.
(Original post time before the update and bump: 10:16 a.m.)
When I blogged it I noted that she does trend to outrageous, and it is a pity because she has some great insight.
In considering it further though, the fact that Lauer chose to take that section of her book to task in a small way proves her point. I have read her work before, and I doubt that is the most outrageous statement she has made in this book.
Yet Lauer showcased it because it was the most morally outrageous. Did he grab on to it because of the moral authority aspect unconsciously?
I have to wonder if her outlandishness is more calculating then it appears sometimes.
But as much as I appreciate her, she still makes me cringe way too often.
Comment by Karl @ 6/7/2006 - 10:32 am
- Sorry guys. I don’t aggree. Is Coulters comments over the top. Yes. should she be denuded of her over the line rhetoric at times. Maybe.
- But in a time where every drive-by mediaa outlet is in full metal jacket attack on Bush, swimming in faux outrage in case after case of “ScamGates”, all designed to curry left wing favor, sell papers, and punch up sweeps ratings. I wish there were more of her, not less.
- There’s far too few “pushback” voices on the left, and oh-boo-******g-hoo, if they get therir widdle feelings hurt.
- I refuse to take serious, people who make their damn living lying everyday of the week, whining when they get it back in their mendacious faces. Good on them.
- Bang
Edited to add previously moved comment by Bang (I moved it in error) — ST:
Make that - There’s far too few “pushback” voices AGAINST the left…
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 6/7/2006 - 11:29 am
Bang, I moved this comment and your other one to the California primary thread - hopefully it will stir up some discussion in it
–ST
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 6/7/2006 - 11:31 am
Erm….ok ST - ‘cept that shorter one was a typo correction to the “Coulter” comment above …. NP… thanks…
- Bang
Oops! I’ll go make the correction myself. My bad! –ST
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 6/7/2006 - 11:38 am
Coulter is not writing pleasant things designed to make the reader feel all warm and fuzzy. Not her thing, not what she does.
And she ain’t wrong either! Dang right, some of these ’survivors’ are living off the notoriety and sympathy of 9/11. It’s more of this ‘absolute moral authority’ that Dowd threw out regarding Sheehan. They have no ‘absolute moral authority’ no matter what they went through nearly five years ago.
The US taxpayers have given them a lordly amount of money for their pain and suffering. That doesn’t mean we have to listen to their version of BDS and accept it as absolute fact. Coulter is not a diplomat. If she was we wouldn’t read her.
Comment by benning @ 6/7/2006 - 11:40 am
Spot on, benning.
Comment by libertarianobserver @ 6/7/2006 - 11:41 am
It’s not really about Coulter being a diplomat, though. There are right things and wrong things to say and her crack about enjoying their husbands deaths was wrong. There’s no question the “Jersey girls” certainly deserve scrutiny (Moran noted that, and I agreed with it) but not like that. She had been making some good points before she said that.
The point isn’t that they don’t deserve to be criticized, it’s the way Ann criticized them with that last crack that is the issue.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 6/7/2006 - 11:42 am
Why does the MSM keep giving her a platform?
Comment by andrew @ 6/7/2006 - 11:51 am
ST - I think you’d have to aggree that Coulter is voicing some of the frustration of mainstream America, maybe wrongly in some instances, and maybe she could show a little more Conservative control and responsibility, something that only “our side” seems to be required too do, since the left is given a pass no matter what egregious things they want to say publicly, them being out of power and victims and all.
- But you’ve got a situation where a small group of vociferous bleating voices not only show complete disrespect and uncaring for our troops in harms way, avoid any idea of appriciation for what they do, but enjoy the support of a MSM press who’s G_od is the bottom line. All with immunity undeserved.
- Tell you the truth its a testimony to the Rights immense patience, that there aren’t more repercussioins than there are.
- Pat roberts is certifiable, but Coulter I think is fighting the good fight, trying to level the playing field. When you’re out there almost alone against the rapaciousness of the rabid hard left, you’re going to make a few mistakes from time to time.
- I don’t aggree with some of her discordant memes, (McCarthy was a true patriot, all Liberals are G_dless), but overall shes more often right than not. (pun intended)…
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 6/7/2006 - 11:58 am
“Tell you the truth its a testimony to the Rights immense patience, that there aren’t more repercussioins than there are.”
Truly we live in a post-modern world. Where COULTER is testimony to the rights patience.
Comment by andrew @ 6/7/2006 - 12:06 pm
No andrew… You live in the best country in the world, where you enjoy more freedoms than you could ever hope to have in a single one of the “workers paradises” you seem to love so much. That you refuse to recognize or respect that, is a testimony too your own outmoded, very “unprogressive” agenda’s of the countries the hard Left agents of discord fled from.
“Why does the MSM keep giving her a platform?”
The left-wing MSM, comprising some 85 to 90% of the media outlets do not give her voice. Were it not for more balanced outlets like FOX and a handfull of more centrist newspapers, there’d be no counter too your lies, faux outrage, and “ScamGates” what-so-ever.
- Of course you’d love that. All lies 24 hours a day. Its how you exist. Without it, your cult of anti-American idiotarians would disappear altogether.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 6/7/2006 - 12:21 pm
And once again andrew ignores the dozens of liberal leftist obnoxious moonbats that offset Coulter. One Coulter, a legion of Olberman’s and others.
Comment by Severian @ 6/7/2006 - 12:22 pm
Bang wrote, “maybe she could show a little more Conservative control and responsibility”
With the put downs are truthful points to be made for sure but I do think she could try more tact as my goal is not to piss off liberals but to actually make a conversion and pursuade. There are ways to pursuade better. Michael Medved and Dennis Prager are masters at this to me. I try to learn from them.
While her style leaves more to be desired, she isn’t spouting non-truths like so many on the left are. Michael Moore paints a picture of children in Iraq flying kites and being happy until the big bad U.S. comes in to occupy. Al Franken lies when he calls people liars. Steve makes racist comment every day (glad he’s gone
). Andrew Sullivan makes reckless charges and impugns our leaders motives as if he knew what they were. Writers all over the place in the LA Times, NY Times, Wash Post can’t get things right to save thier lives, make charges of illegality without knowledge of constitutional law, talk down the economy without knowing economics, give aid and comfort to the enemy and yet we conservatives for the most part are mealy-mouthed low key fact responding to emotion trying to set the record straight venting and then doing nothing about itrule followers with “tact”.
Anyways, she could be taken aside and asked nicely for more tact but if she doesn’t “submit”
I think we should be sure to pointout that she isn’t MAKING THINGS UP and is expressing her opinion just like liberals posing as journalists are doing.
Comment by Baklava @ 6/7/2006 - 12:26 pm
- This is a woman who gets pies thrown at her, simply for practicing HER first amendment rights, voicing her opinions. The “wonderful “tolorance” of the asshats of the Left.
- I would ask her not to give the howling gaggle of moonbats yet more “ammunition” to screech their foaming-at-the mouth idiocies. They’re crazy enough as it is. When Conservatives remain controlled and cool, and reasonable, the Left becomes even more “unhinged”, everything they have to say eminating fron pure misguided emotion.
The idea of learned debate, The real world of facts and truth, is an alien landscape for the hard Left, leaving them totally asea, immired in angst, and even more confused and angry.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 6/7/2006 - 12:43 pm
“The left-wing MSM, comprising some 85 to 90% of the media outlets do not give her voice.”
She keeps getting coverage from mainstream outlets, from cable to broadcast TV.
” That you refuse to recognize or respect that, is a testimony too your own outmoded, very “unprogressive” agenda’s of the countries the hard Left agents of discord fled from.
Dude, I totally recognize the freedom to be post-modern and ironic as the best ever.
“One Coulter, a legion of Olberman’s and others.”
The problem is that olberman just doens’t do the idiotic things that coulter does. I see how he’s within mainstream opinion. Not her.
Comment by andrew @ 6/7/2006 - 12:44 pm
Well if you do recogize that andrew (dude), then you certainly know equally well how to show little or no respect for it, or even your own country for that matter.
- And please spare us the usual prangs about “stifling opposition voices”. We in the center, and on the Right, have a number of legitimate grievences with Bush and the administration. But we seldom get a chance to really debate them, owing to the high level of just pure “noise” on the Left, very little of which is based on any reasonable perceptions or “facts”. Its actually too bad, because it uses up the time that could be better spent making any real gains for the true advancement of the American people.
- In that sense, the yammering pointless screeching of the left, is twofold wrong, and un-helpfull.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 6/7/2006 - 12:57 pm
No Olberman just reports misinformation and makes false allegations…. That’s so much better… /end sarcasm
Comment by Baklava @ 6/7/2006 - 1:00 pm
“Well if you do recogize that andrew (dude), then you certainly know equally well how to show little or no respect for it, or even your own country for that matter.”
One of the best points of the freedom to be ironic and post-modern is that it DOESN’t need to be shown respect. That would undo the whole thing!
“No Olberman just reports misinformation and makes false allegations…. That’s so much better… /end sarcasm”
I’m not a regular viewer. I did see his report on O’reilly and Malmedy. That was good.
‘And please spare us the usual prangs about “stifling opposition voices”.’
In a post where I complain about Coulter getting too mainstream of a platform for her toxic, way out of the mainstream views? Of course you’re spared!
Comment by andrew @ 6/7/2006 - 1:13 pm
Andrew wrote, “I’m not a regular viewer. I did see his report on O’reilly and Malmedy. That was good.”
So you like lies huh. Go to the Expose the Left website for a new view on that “report”.
Comment by Baklava @ 6/7/2006 - 1:19 pm
- No andrew… that’s ass backwards, but so typical of the left’s thinking. “If I can’t rant and rave at will, any time, any where, then somehow I’m not excersizing my rights fully, and the system is pointless”.
- I know this may come as a shock too you, but it IS possible to debate issues in a temperate, controled manner and voice, make your points, state your case, and wonders of all wonders, show respect at the sme time.
- I put this Left idea at the feet of just overly-active restlessness of feeling out of power, that you think its wise and effective to abuse the very real freedoms we’re afforded. But to each his own I suppose. Style does matter. When you get older you’ll not only aggree with that, but you’ll find comfort in it.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 6/7/2006 - 1:26 pm
“The point isn’t that they don’t deserve to be criticized, it’s the way Ann criticized them with that last crack that is the issue.”
ST, you are prolly correct. But, again, she’s only out there because the MSM loves to take shots at her. She makes a good target.
And she does not have the correct governor for her mouth. But that’s one of the reasons her fans love her: She says what’s on her mind, not what she’s supposed to say. If she was diplomatic she wouldn’t be talked about, watched, read.
Comment by benning @ 6/7/2006 - 2:05 pm
andrew is just a pain in the rear here. Sure, he’d like to shut us all down so that his lies are all that is heard.
If the MSM was objective, we’d hear how many insurgents died, and how traitorous the Democrat party has become.
Comment by PCD @ 6/7/2006 - 2:06 pm
“traitorous the Democrat party has become”
Ya. If the media was objective, they’ be telling half the country that they are commiting a capital crime. You’re really onto something here.
Comment by andrew @ 6/7/2006 - 3:06 pm
The MSM and her critics are makign a critical error in criticizing her on this.
Rather then confront and vilify her for making the comment, the question they should ask her is who?
Make her put up or shut up with details on what she is referring to.
As I noted above, by telling her she has no right to make the accusation, they prove her point for her.
So instead, make her validate it. Because if someone is doing as she suggests, then they deserve scrutiny apart from the others who are lumped in by association.
Forcing her to be detailed would either expose her as an agitator, or expose the person she is critiquing.
Just my 2 cents
Comment by Karl @ 6/7/2006 - 5:36 pm
Coulter is always outrageous, sometimes funny, but rarely incorrect. Karl, she’s not talking about a specific liberal, she’s talking about liberalism. It’s not a person, it’s a doctrine, and would be hard to ascribe a doctrine to an individual. In her past books, she has provided numerous names to back up her claim, and I doubt she will do differently in this one.
I’ve only read the first chapter (here), but her explanation of why liberalism is similar to a religion is certainly believable. Her sardonic wit is disliked by many. Not me
Even though I would be classified as a darwinist, that’s just funny
. ‘Cause it’s true.
Comment by blogagog @ 6/7/2006 - 5:55 pm
“but rarely incorrect”
She’s a creationist isn’t she? Thats the end of that. She doesn’t accept evolution.
Comment by andrew @ 6/7/2006 - 6:38 pm
Well I’m glad to see you have “faith” in the religion of evolution at least andrew….
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 6/7/2006 - 7:06 pm
Andrew is God!
Comment by Baklava @ 6/7/2006 - 7:31 pm
Andrew is God!
Your dyslexia is acting up again Baklava…
Comment by Severian @ 6/7/2006 - 7:40 pm
If you don’t believe in creationism Andrew, then ‘rarely incorrect’ still applies, and this is one of those rare times. Of course if you do believe in it, it’s just another example of her being rarely incorrect.
Unrelated old joke. What do you get when you cross a dyslexic with an agnostic insomniac? Someone who stays up late at night and wonders if there really is a dog.
Comment by blogagog @ 6/7/2006 - 8:38 pm
” Of course if you do believe in it, it’s just another example of her being rarely incorrect.”
It seems like an argument in her book is about calling ‘darwinism’ ( a term mostly used by the creationists, as there aren’t that many people that follow Darwin’s particular theory any more) a religion. Thats quite incorrect. Much more than rarely, if its got a prominent place in her book.
Comment by andrew @ 6/7/2006 - 8:50 pm
Actually, she is saying that liberalism is the religion. Based on your one mistake, are you now ‘often’ incorrect?
Comment by blogagog @ 6/7/2006 - 9:14 pm
“Actually, she is saying that liberalism is the religion. Based on your one mistake, are you now ‘often’ incorrect?”
I said seems like it. She said ‘Darwinism’ is a matter of faith. According ot you then its correct to say its “part” of the religion. According to world net daily, she also says evolution is a “touchstone” for liberals. Which its not. Its also wrong to refer to evolution as Darwinism. They also say she writes about evolution being just a “gap.” Looks like she spends a substantial amount of time being wrong on this topic.
If I publish a book, which has been edited and cite-checked, a substantial portion of which is wrong, you can go ahead and call me wrong.
Comment by andrew @ 6/7/2006 - 10:00 pm
- Based on a faithful belief in something, a posit can be made that almost anthing that is followed faithfully could be embued with a religious demension.
- There was a time when Darwinism, in its purest form, was followed religiously by some. So calling it, or any other creedo a religion is a mixed bag.
- Evolution, on the other hand, is definately followed religiously, both because its an incomplete theory, and because those that adhere to it doggedly, insisting on a premitore of validity it has yet to establish, could easily be reffered too as , “evolution adepts”.
- In spite of all the hand waving, and eneffable arguing, as a scientist myself, religiously based, I can assure you that all of the existing theories are exactly the same, requiring no more and no less a faith to believe them, and believe in them as well.
- So its basically a case of you pays your money, and takes your choice, which I think, is the way it should be.
- Andrew, assuming some mantle of superiority, and impuning anothers ideas and beliefs, based solely on their religion, is as weak, bigoted, and arrogant as it gets. Its also one of the glaring discords belying the so often claimed “tolorance” of the Left.
- Bang (goes the Nug!) -
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 6/7/2006 - 10:06 pm
“Evolution, on the other hand, is definately followed religiously, both because its an incomplete theory, and because those that adhere to it doggedly, insisting on a premitore of validity it has yet to establish, could easily be reffered too as , “evolution adepts”.”
There sure is some faith going on here.
“Andrew, assuming some mantle of superiority, and impuning anothers ideas and beliefs, based solely on their religion, is as weak, bigoted, and arrogant as it gets.”
See, for me its not about religion. It is for you though.
Comment by andrew @ 6/7/2006 - 10:40 pm
andrew…thats pedantic…. even Atheism is a religion…
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 6/7/2006 - 11:04 pm
- as far as “Me”, you have no idea what I may, or may not “believe in”….. curious thing to say… but a pecular habit that Liberals tend too for some reason….probably some intrinsic “need” to label everything…..
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 6/7/2006 - 11:07 pm
I’m unwilling to argue evolution vs. creationism with you Andrew, since I fall on the evolution side of the argument. I also don’t believe they contradict one another, but that’s a story for another time.
The point I am making is that she is extremely accurate with her facts, and her logic is almost infallible. The creation/evolution issue is not fact driven, so it’s not really provable. Believe what you want, but being that it’s beliefs and not facts, it’s not a + or - to her accuracy tally. Even if it was, if you find fault in her views on that single issue, well, that’s one issue. Why does it matter how much she believes it?
Yes. It is. (that’s two times you were mistaken
)
Why? He’s the discover and founder, isn’t he?
No idea what you are talking about here, but again, do her possibly incorrect views on a single issue make the statement “Ann Coulter is rarely incorrect” untrue? Of course it doesn’t.
Her argument describing liberalism as a religion is extremely accurate. Any group of ideas that require you to accept them on faith could arguably be described as a religion. Think ‘global warming’, or ‘America is probably the bad guy in (fill in situation here)’. These are belief systems that are unsupported by hard fact. That’s religion in a nutshell.
I don’t approve of her name-calling most of the time, but let’s face it - Ann Coulter rocks.
Comment by blogagog @ 6/7/2006 - 11:22 pm
Just off hand, since I havn’t read her book, I’d guess by “gap” she’s reffering to the principle problem that “Evolution” runs into at every turn. Namely the “gaps” in the record, that in themselves, prevents a single supportive valid complete proof of any so-called origins.
On the other hand, Evolution, as practiced by todays experts in the natural sciences, prefer to distance themselves from the mantle of Darwinism, since as a practical matter, aside from his species theories, had some decidedly crack-pottish ideas in other areas. However, none of that takes away in the slightest from the brilliance of some of his findings and studies.
andrew, I think you’d be pretty hard up to find very many “progressives” that do not believe in Evolution as far as it goes.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 6/8/2006 - 12:14 am
The widows enjoy their husbands’ deaths by the celebrity it has given them. Obviously it is unlikely the mere notion of their deaths is a source of joy, but, similar to Sheehan, they’re diggin’ the warmth of the limelight, and in that manner, they exploit those deaths. Coulter’s choice of words, however, are a problem. I, too, dig her uninhibited nature, but, there needs to be some degree of control. I believe an apology for the choice of words is appropriately called for.
Comment by Marshall Art @ 6/8/2006 - 12:23 am
“andrew…thats pedantic…. even Atheism is a religion…”
Not really. But im not talking about atheism. I’m talking about science, which is a way of finding out things. Not a religion.
“s far as “Me”, you have no idea what I may, or may not “believe in”….. curious thing to say”
Well, when you said I was attacking religion, with no idea what I may or may not “believe in,” I assumed you meant I was having a religious argument. I’m not. I’m talking about science. And on that, coulter gets stuff wrong. She’s wrong to describe it as a religion.
” The creation/evolution issue is not fact driven, so it’s not really provable”
For the science side, it certainly is facts. The “issue” though, that the religious people wish to raise is the problem that most religons deal with. Eventually, they run into a problem when teaching contradicts the physical world. They mostly sort out the issues.
“Why? He’s the discover and founder, isn’t he?”
Not really. And what evolution is today is not what he proposed. Its not about him. Its about the theory.
“No idea what you are talking about here, but again, do her possibly incorrect views on a single issue make the statement “Ann Coulter is rarely incorrect” untrue? Of course it doesn’t.”
Well, its not just a single issue. Its a big issue in a published, edited, and hopefully researched book.
“Think ‘global warming’”
Thats not about faith either. Start following realclimate.org.
Comment by andrew @ 6/8/2006 - 12:33 am
- I wholeheartidly aggree Marshall. Impropmtu speaking can get away from you sometimes, especially when you tend to shoot from the hip. we all know instances where people say things in a crude manner that they’d like too take back after the fact. Tony snows use of the words “tar baby” comes to mind, to cite a recent example. Often times in our desire to express things that we feel strongly about, we may go over the line. Would be nice to see her step up to the bar, and admit the slip-up.
- I still think these women have also crossed the line, as in the case of Sheehan, all of them politisizing, what should be shown the proper respect for the people that died that day. I chalk it up to the “nothings sacred” attitude of the Left.
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 6/8/2006 - 12:43 am
As blogagog noted, Coulter’s writings are very well researched and documented, and she can often cite references from memory when hassled. But her “style,” if you will, is by design. She makes her living writing. Being controversial gets attention and sells books. O’Reilly once told a caller who complained about his shtick, “If I were not controversial, I’d have this job about a week.” Coulter could have said that and been correct, too. But her opponents and enemies (she is effective; that’s why they dislike her!) have said things about, and done things to, her far in excess to what she has done about and to them. For example, she has not tossed pies at anyone. I’m not a big fan of hers, but give her the credit she deserves, and criticize where she deserves. Her line about the 9/11 wives could have been said in better ways, though it might not have sold as many books.
Comment by Bachbone @ 6/8/2006 - 12:52 am
I dont see what the big deal is. Anyone who’s been paying attention to Coulter for the last few years knows that, at the very least, she’s consistent with her style and insight. And anyone who thinks Coulter is over-the-top, obviously has never listened to (liberal talk radio show) “Air America” where the rank and file libs (Al Franken, et al) advocate killing President Bush on a daily. Plus, these widows have been Bush-haters from day one, twisting facts and exploiting 9/11 for their own personal gain, yet we’re supposed to be mad at Coulter? I have no problem with any of her comments and it’s a shame that so many conservatives choose not to have her back. Especially when the likes of Hillary Clinton sticks their nose in the affair (no pun intended).
Comment by Mr. Grey Ghost @ 6/8/2006 - 1:11 am
Ghost has a great point there, what she said yesterday and today is a mere drop compared to the daily and hourly spewings of Franken and Rhodes.
Another element of the hypocrisy that is overlooked here is that the right is willing to criticize its own, where as the left just shields their’s with free speech mantras.
Comment by Karl @ 6/8/2006 - 1:39 am
**** UPDATE - Warring Polito-Babes ****
Ann Coulter Fires Back at Hillary Clinton
(from NewsMax.com)
Conservative author Ann Coulter is firing back at Sen. Hillary Clinton, after the former first lady attacked her for being “vicious [and] mean-spirited” towards a group of politically active 9/11 widows.
“I think if she’s worried about people being mean to women she should have a talk with her husband,” Coulter told radio host Sean Hannity, who was hosting a book signing for the conservative firebrand on Long Island.
“This is, I remind you, Bill Clinton’s wife,” Coulter added. “[And I’m the one who’s] mean to women?”
Earlier in the day, Mrs. Clinton complained about Coulter’s attacks on the Jersey Girls, a group of 9/11 widows who blamed President Bush for the attacks that killed their husbands and who campaigned for John Kerry in 2004.
“Perhaps [Coulter’s] book should have been called ‘Heartless,”‘ the top Democrat said
An angry Clinton added that she found it “unimaginable that anyone in the public eye could launch a vicious, mean-spirited attack on people whom I’ve known over the last four and a half years to be concerned deeply about the safety and security of our country.”
But Coulter told Hannity: “She may know the 9/11 widows, but you and I know Juanita Broaddrick” - a reference to the woman who accused Mr. Clinton of sexually assaulting her in 1978.
Coulter delivered her broadsides against Mrs. Clinton as a phalanx of TV and print reporters looked on.
The heavy coverage was prompted by the New York Daily News, which frontpaged Coulter’s comments on the Jersey Girls in Wednesday editions.
- Whoa ….. think I’ll just wait over there about 500 feet…..*snort*
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 6/8/2006 - 3:02 am
From Big Bang Hunter
>>andrew…thats pedantic…. even Atheism is a religion…
No, it’s not. It may be a belief system but it is definitely not a religion.
From Bachbone
>>O’Reilly once told a caller who complained about his shtick, “If I were not controversial, I’d have this job about a week.” Coulter could have said that and been correct, too.
I think of her as a show man for conservatives, a kind of David Blaine for politics. The only problem I have with her is that she doesn’t care really want to teach or convince people to change their minds. Her “style” of writing and the manner in which she says things just about guarantees that her writings will be read only by those who are already committed to her line of thought.
>>But her opponents and enemies (she is effective; that’s why they dislike her!) have said things about, and done things to, her far in excess to what she has done about and to them. For example, she has not tossed pies at anyone.
You say that a tossed pie is worse than telling people that these widows enjoyed having their husbands burned alive by fire? I think you have a strange sense of proportion. You have got to come up with a better example than that.
From Mr. Grey Ghost
>>And anyone who thinks Coulter is over-the-top, obviously has never listened to (liberal talk radio show) “Air America” where the rank and file libs (Al Franken, et al) advocate killing President Bush on a daily.
I would like an example of this. Can you send me a link or something? I did a google search (Al Franken kill president bush) and came up with nothing.
Comment by jaxcschin @ 6/8/2006 - 3:26 am
Unrelated…
LINK
Al-Zarqawi is dead
Comment by Ryan @ 6/8/2006 - 5:36 am
From jaxcschin:
Here is a NewsMax piece about one of Randi Rhodes’ alleged ‘humor’ bits where the President is assassinated.
Moonbattery’s comment on the same bit includes a Coulter reference.
That’s just for starters. You can find quite a few more.
Apples and oranges. Do you think that the neighbor who criticizes the color of your new car is worse than the thief who tries to steal it?
One is a physical assault by left-wing thugs with the sole purpose of suppressing someone from airing a viewpoint. The other is particularly biting criticism of someone who airs a viewpoint. You’ll have a point when, and only when, Ann starts recruiting a mob to attack Kristin Breitweiser.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 6/8/2006 - 7:39 am
“Ghost has a great point there, what she said yesterday and today is a mere drop compared to the daily and hourly spewings of Franken and Rhodes.”
Really? well I’m not a daily and hourly listener to franken and rhodes like yourself, so I’ll take your word for it.
“Think ‘global warming’,”
Check out realclimate.org. Warning: its tought to understand, so just subscribe to the RSS and start following the discussion.
Comment by andrew @ 6/8/2006 - 8:19 am
Man Bang ! Here’s a beer. I’ll stand there with you. *snort*
Comment by Baklava @ 6/8/2006 - 9:41 am
Excellent interview by hannity at her booksigning last night here. It’s interesting that she says it’s not possible to get the truth out sometimes being rude. “The truth cannot be delivered with novocaine.” Heh. Watch it if you get the chance, it’s really good towards the end (she’s pissed!).
Comment by blogagog @ 6/8/2006 - 10:31 am
Great White Rat, I read the first link. The second lead me to a blank page. The comment from the fist link was from 2004. Anything more recent? Bachbone says Air America makes a call for Bush’s assasinaton daily. Is it daily? when was the last time this kind of statement was made? I’m not trying to make you go nuts here, I’m trying to understand what the fuss over Air America is about.
>>>You say that a tossed pie is worse than telling people that these widows enjoyed having their husbands burned alive by fire? I think you have a strange sense of proportion.
>>Apples and oranges. Do you think that the neighbor who criticizes the color of your new car is worse than the thief who tries to steal it?
>>One is a physical assault by left-wing thugs with the sole purpose of suppressing someone from airing a viewpoint. The other is particularly biting criticism of someone who airs a viewpoint. You’ll have a point when, and only when, Ann starts recruiting a mob to attack Kristin Breitweiser
You know you misquote me right? the pie trhowing comment wasn’t mine. Bachbone made that comparison and even went so far as to call pie throwing worse! I wrote that he needs to come up with a better comparison. You cut out my last sentence.
Pie throwing is rude so I guess you can call them thugs but it’s hardly an attempt to supress an opion. It’s not a rock, no one is hurt, no one dies. Pie thowing has become a crazy fad, an idiotic kind of protest. Bill Gates had a pie thrown at him, was the thrower trying to supress Microsoft? Jeffrey Skilling also had a pie tossed at him, was the thrower trying to surpress Enron? People think Microsoft is a greedy uninnovative company. Splat. Enron had cost the loss of millions of dollars. Splat. I suspect the throwers would have liked to thrown something much harder but they didn’t. What could the police charge the throwers with, assult with a deadly pie?
Ann Coulter idea is that the 9/11 widows should not be immune from criticism when they dabble in the political arena. Ok I get that. It is like saying that you should listen to your father no matter what he says because he is your father. At some point, you need to question them because inspite of their great moral authority, in our society that authority isn’t enough. But she goes way beyond this basic nugget of truth. All this talk about how the truth hurts is just an excuse to be mean and nasty. Frankly, I think she is poison to any position you might hold and it surpises me that many of you don’t seem to realize that.
Comment by jaxcschin @ 6/8/2006 - 12:06 pm
Blogagog; I also watched Ann Coulter being interviewed by Hannity at her book signing and it was excellent. I have read all of Ann’s books except one (How to Talk to a Liberal if you must) and now two and have enjoyed them from cover to cover. I just listened to Neal Boortz (High Priest of the Church of the Painful Truth) interview Ann Coulter another great interview I will be buying her book and the left goes crazy every time Ann comes out with a new book. As has been said before “The Truth can be Insensitive” it (The Truth) doesn’t care who or what you are.
Comment by Jim M @ 6/8/2006 - 12:20 pm
It’s not a rock, no one is hurt, no one dies.
It’s not a rock now, but that is what it leads to. Any, and I mean ANY, acceptance of and condoning of violence of any kind as a political tool undermines whatever tenuous civility we have left. It’s not a far step from pies, to rocks, to bullets, and the Left is notorious for stepping over this boundary far too easily. From union thugs, to attacking Republican campaign offices, to slashing tires on Republican vehicles, to attacking ROTC and military recruiting offices. A pie now, Krystalnacht tomorrow. It’s an all too easy transition, and we’ve seen it happen all too often in the past, to want to encourage it now.
Too often liberals will dismiss the most repugnent behavior by their own as “just hijinks” while screaming bloody murder at far less onerous or dangerous acts by Republicans.
Comment by Severian @ 6/8/2006 - 12:24 pm
How about the left’s darling Mary Mapes (The Documents are Real) and yes she is still in the news here’s a link to James Taranto’s column. Can anyone show where in any of Ann Coulter’s books she lie’s or has any untruths? And not just your word she has lied or told untruths back it up with facts.
Comment by Jim M @ 6/8/2006 - 1:11 pm
>> A pie now, Krystalnacht tomorrow. It’s an all too easy transition, and we’ve seen it happen all too often in the past, to want to encourage it now.
If I wrote something like this, you would go ballistic. I think it’s so crazy I don’t even know where to begin writing. You think there is a direct link between pie throwing and Krystalnacht, where one leads naturally to the other? As far as I know there aren’t any liberal leaders calling for attacks on Republicans with pies. No one has organized a “Hit a Republican with a Pie day”. In fact, I don’t see any attempt by anyone to legitimize, glamorize or otherwise honor pie throwers.
Your clarion call that violence should not be tolerated sounds right to the ear but is so overstated it’s nonsensical. Pie throwing is not endemic to the left. It isn’t as if only the left throws pies at the right. I have no idea what party the person who threw the pie at Jeffery Skilling might be. I suspect it is the party of former-pissed-off-employees. I also have no idea what party the person who threw the pie at Ann Coulter might be, maybe he’s an independent or maybe he never voted at all. This pie thrower doesn’t speak for me, anyone I know, the democratic party or democratic party ideals. Does the Grand Vizer of the KKK speak for you?
Comment by jaxcschin @ 6/8/2006 - 10:29 pm
I checked out your end-of-the-world site Andrew. Here’s the first post:
Yeah, they might be right. As they might have been right with the global cooling scare of the ’70s. They might have been right when they said that nuclear energy was going to kill millions.
The fact that your favorite global warming site needs to couch its views in maybe’s should give you a hint that they are spinning data. Science tells us that the sun is most likely the cause of increased temperatures, and that we are in or entering a general cooling period for the next 30-40 years, if historical data is extrapolatable. If, in 2015 or so, the data shows that the avg. world temperature is still increasing, there may be cause for alarm. Until it escapes normal trending however, worrying about it is just alarmist, filled with possibly’s, maybe’s, what if’s, and is it worth the risk’s.
I know I won’t convert you from your global warming faith, but maybe you’ll look into the data, and think about it a bit? Here’s hoping!
Comment by blogagog @ 6/9/2006 - 10:54 am
“Yeah, they might be right. ”
Welcome to science.
Its not an end of the world site though. If thats what you think about it, you’re not paying attention to what they write. Like I said. Its a lot of info, and tough to follow. Subscribe to their RSS feed, and take the time to start familiarizing yourself with the scientific consensus.
Comment by andrew @ 6/9/2006 - 2:20 pm
andrew, they are a BS site. Maybes and Mibhts are not facts. You fight facts with your wishful thinking that is anti-capitalist, if not anti-american.
Comment by PCD @ 6/9/2006 - 2:37 pm
“Maybes and Mibhts are not facts. ”
Sure they are. Thats how we know. Thats how science works, with probabilities and likelihoods. Not certainties. Some things we know more than others. Somethings are maybes, some things are withing 2 standard deviations, etc… Effects on el nino? Maybe.
Comment by andrew @ 6/9/2006 - 2:46 pm
andrew, you are mentally defective. You take pipe dreams as fact. You know nothing of science, just practice propaganda.
Comment by PCD @ 6/9/2006 - 3:05 pm
“You take pipe dreams as fact.”
I take as fact that maybe el nino is being affected by anthropogenic gases. Have I ever said otherwise?
Comment by andrew @ 6/9/2006 - 3:09 pm
Yawn…
Comment by Baklava @ 6/9/2006 - 3:15 pm
Andrew, it’s not tough to follow. It’s just not science, or more accurately, it’s a hypothesis that science has yet to fully disprove, but does not come near supporting.
And sadly, it’s going to be hard to disprove. There is ALOT of grant money available to researchers, as long as their analysis reports doom and gloom. There is no scientific consensus and there never will be. The only supporters there will ever be are scientists who make money off of the scam, and the blame america first crowd (or its offshoot, the blame mankind first crowd, aka environmentalists), most of which have no scientific background whatsoever. I, however, do.
I understand the theory. Do you? The theory is that carbon dioxide is more of a blackbody than the rest of the atmosphere, therefore it, and other greenhouse gasses catch a little more of the sun’s energy. This is true. Where it breaks down is when they say raising the ambient CO2 concentration from .035% to .07% (doubling!) will have a dramatic effect on our climate. They fail to take into account the massively larger causes of temperature fluctuation, the sun and the earth’s core itself. They fail to read historical data logically, and always attach a strange upward sloping (supposedly interpolated) line at the end of their charts pointing towards magma flowing through all of our homes. They fail to consider hundreds of extraneous variables like plantlife, earth’s self-correcting buffer, wind-change patterns, planet tilt. The list goes on and on.
That anyone can say that man has such raw power over the earth exudes a little too much grandiosity for my tastes. Anyone who thinks the earth is so fragile that it can’t regulate itself certainly can’t believe the scientific view of the history of the earth. She takes a licking and keeps on ticking. Always will. Have some faith in her.
The aging hippies and sell-out grant recipients can waste their time and resources worrying about a non-problem if they want, but when they try to make laws that will waste my time and resources, it becomes personal.
Comment by blogagog @ 6/9/2006 - 3:17 pm
“Yawn…”
Its incredibly boring stuff. Thats why I said it was tough to follow. “standard deviation what?”
Comment by andrew @ 6/9/2006 - 3:18 pm
“There is ALOT of grant money available to researchers, as long as their analysis reports doom and gloom.”
From whom? NOAA? I’d say corporate money is quite plentiful. But i think they want a different result
“That anyone can say that man has such raw power over the earth exudes a little too much grandiosity for my tastes.”
Its not really just our power. Its also the power of the milliniea (you do believe that the earth is more than 6000 years old, right?) worth of biomass that we’re burning.
Comment by andrew @ 6/9/2006 - 3:27 pm
No. It isn’t tough to follow Andrew. I’ve read this environment stuff for years.
Read teh 102 page report found here to actually be educated Andrew. Or be negligent as you usually are. Pop quiz tomorrow!
I was yawning due to the high predictability of your negligence and uninformed opinion. That is what bores me.
Comment by Baklava @ 6/9/2006 - 3:32 pm
hehe, Andrew, you learn standard deviation in the 10th grade! I can see how you are having trouble with following it if sigmas are tough for you to comprehend. When you go to college I’d advise against a degree in engineering
Another thing I forgot to add. When you run a simulation, there is an all important law to keep in mind: Garbage in, garbage out. Since we don’t understand the effects of all of the variables that create our climate, any simulation necessarily has a large amount of assumptions (aka guesses). By tweaking those variables in a system with so many degrees of freedom, you can literally produce whatever result you are so inclined to get. And we all know what results the paid scientists are inclined to get. The scientists with nothing to gain monetarily are generally ambivalent or in disagreement with the global warming mantra. I expect that trend to continue.
Comment by blogagog @ 6/9/2006 - 3:56 pm
On page 3 - According to Gallup’s annual environmental poll, conducted in March 2005, 63 percent of Americans
think environmental quality is getting worse in the U.S - Does that match up with the truth? No.
On Page 47 - At the end of
August, readers of the Washington Post awoke to yet another front-page story about. . . New Source
Review! “NEW RULES COULD ALLOW POWER PLANTS TO POLLUTE MORE,” was Juliet
Eilprin’s breathless story that “[t]he Bush Administration has drafted regulations that would ease
pollution controls on older, dirtier power plants and could allow those that modernize to emit more
pollution, rather than less.”1
This story refers to the Bush Administration’s changes to the Clean Air Act’s “New Source
Review” (NSR) rules that have been in the offing since Bush arrived in Washington in 2001.
Stories like Eilprin’s, virtual reprints of press releases from disgruntled environmental activist
groups, were a staple of media coverage for the last several years, even as air-pollution
levels throughout the U.S. continued to decline. Can there be anything more tiresome
than the endless argument over this arcane and contentious feature of the Clean Air Act,
especially since two federal courts in 2005 rejected the EPA’s aggressive Clinton-era reinterpretation
of NSR?
Later is - Last year’s edition of the Index reported that 2004 came in
with the lowest level of ozone smog since monitoring began back in the early 1970s. When all
of the data are in, it is likely that 2005 will come in as the second- or third-lowest ozone year,
just above or below 2003. In other words, the last three years have seen the nation’s lowest ozone
levels in history.
Page 48 for those who are reading impaired has very nice graphs that contradict LA Times headlines.
On page 49 - The public not
only misperceives whether air pollution is falling in general, but is also misinformed about trends
with respect to automobiles and power plants. Typical in this regard was a 2003 USA Today story,
“Smoggy Skies Persist Despite Decade of Work,” which proclaimed “One likely reason why the
smog isn’t lifting: Americans are driving more miles than they did in the 1980s. And they’re driving
vehicles that give off more pollution than the cars they drove in the ’80s.”4 (Emphasis added.)
It is rare for a news story to get both the large and small details wholly wrong, but that is entirely typical
of news stories about smog. Figure 2 below shows that volatile organic compound (VOC ) emissions
from cars and trucks have declined by 73.8 percent since 1970, while Figure 3 shows a 64-percent
decline in carbon monoxide emissions from cars.
On page 52 - To date, reductions in VOC emissions from mobile sources account for two-thirds of the total
reduction in VOC emissions achieved so far. Hence it is not surprising that attention is now turning
to other sources of VOC emissions. In fact, automobile emissions have fallen so far that it
was announced in 2005 that in California’s Central Valley, which has the second-highest ozone
levels in the nation, cattle are now a larger source of VOCs than cars. The average dairy cow, the
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District estimates, emits 19.3 pounds of VOCs a year.5
(This is double previous estimates of bovine flatulence.) California’s San Joaquin Valley has about
2.5 million dairy cows, which implies a staggering amount of VOCs not previously accounted for
in the EPA’s emissions inventory. These estimates are disputed, and in any event it is not clear
exactly what emissions-control technology could be applied to cows.
You get the hint or maybe not.
Comment by Baklava @ 6/9/2006 - 4:06 pm
That is why I eat beef! I’m trying to save the world, one cow at a time. No no, don’t thank me. I’m doing it for me too.
Comment by blogagog @ 6/9/2006 - 4:14 pm
Stay away from the happy cows. They’re mine!
Comment by Baklava @ 6/9/2006 - 4:41 pm
“#hehe, Andrew, you learn standard deviation in the 10th grade! ”
Please don’t do this sort of stuff. Its like arguing from authority, only in reverse. I’d hate to have to describe my math experience for you. I’ll let you know if you want, but frankly I think we can discuss without that.
“Another thing I forgot to add. When you run a simulation, there is an all important law to keep in mind: Garbage in, garbage out. ”
Which simulations do you have in mind?
“Or be negligent as you usually are. ”
Well at least we’ve changed from recklessness. But I don’t htink that reasonable people have to read 102 pages in a day, so I’m not sure we’re going to qualify as negligent either.
“cattle are now a larger source of VOCs than cars.”
This is an interesting point, because I’d say that the size of our cattle herds is certainly due to anthropogenic factors: our demand for beef. Just like cars are due to our demand for transport.
So I’d say blogagg has it backwards: if you eat beef, they’ll produce more. So if you want to save the world on the corporate funded AEI plan, dont eat beef.
Comment by andrew @ 6/9/2006 - 4:42 pm
- Bak, stop tipping all the cows….its curdling their milk….
- Jumping into the Global “we still can’t predict the weather” discussion , I see that “warming” has replaced the Global “cooling” of the 70 and 80’s.
- Apparently the big money in research grants has shifted again. Looks like “Heat” is the in thing right now….. I’ll have to get in on it when “Global grasshoppers”, or “Global Oxygen” becomes fashionable….
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 6/9/2006 - 4:53 pm
Instead of saying, “corporate funded AEI plan” why don’t you dispute the FACTS Andrew? You CAN’T. You can only continue on with negligence. You’ll be on this blog and others talking about the environment or air quality being poor as opposed to getting MUCH better. You will then not only be negligent but LYING.
Comment by Baklava @ 6/9/2006 - 4:59 pm
“Instead of saying, “corporate funded AEI plan” why don’t you dispute the FACTS Andrew?”
If they’re facts they’re beyond dispute. Like theres no disputing where AEI gets its money. Just like there’s no disputing where NOAA gets its money, or who funds climate science.
Comment by andrew @ 6/9/2006 - 5:10 pm
What stuff do you have in mind?
Not sure how we switched from talking about science to talking about math (a tool in science), but if you have a strong handle on the subject, why do you keep saying it’s tough to follow?
All simulations with degrees of freedom (ie all simulations)
I am glad you understood why my statement was humorous. I didn’t mean it to be cryptic. A secondary part of the humor is that it’s kind of sarcastic. See, I can make the joke because I’m no more worried about a cow’s production of methane than I am about humans making methane or CO2. I know explaining a joke removes the humor, but I have to go out now and didn’t want to leave any misunderstandings.
Also, I like beef. Have a good night everyone!
Comment by blogagog @ 6/9/2006 - 5:22 pm
It’s not too tough to follow. Leftists and their lapdog jornalists in the drive by media print incorrect unfactual crisis mongering headlines and stories and the data points out their stories are untrue. All Andrew can say is the study I sited is corporate funded. All I can say to that is Andrew will continue on with negligence with no conscience.
BTW, I like beef too. And I want the happier cows. Leave them to me.
Comment by Baklava @ 6/9/2006 - 5:28 pm
“What stuff do you have in mind?”
What I described, arguing from authority.
“Not sure how we switched from talking about science to talking about math (a tool in science), but if you have a strong handle on the subject, why do you keep saying it’s tough to follow?”
Because climate modelling is difficult and complex and there are a lot of issues besides the math.
Comment by andrew @ 6/9/2006 - 5:29 pm
“Because climate modelling is difficult and complex and there are a lot of issues besides the math.”
- Thats correct andrew. In fact its so tough that as of now we can do pretty good out too maybe three days, with a reasonable percentage of error, five days gets really poor, and after that forget it.
Projecting 100 years right now, is the stuff of science-fiction rather than science. (be careful of getting too adventuresome - this is my area of discipline).
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 6/9/2006 - 7:45 pm
“In fact its so tough that as of now we can do pretty good out too maybe three days, with a reasonable percentage of error, five days gets really poor, and after that forget it”
Well there’s a difference between predicting local weather and global aggregates. Can you see why?
Comment by andrew @ 6/9/2006 - 8:56 pm
You didn’t describe it. You just said ‘arguing from authority’. Arguing from authority, in the faulty logical argument sense of the phrase requires that I believe something is true, therefore it is true. Only you are claiming that global warming is true, therefore it is true, and offering no substantive proof. I’m saying it is untrue, and giving telling you why it is untrue.
Is that what you meant by ‘arguing from authority’? Or did you mean it in the classical sense, as in ‘arguing from a base of knowledge’. To argue science, you need only understand the scientific method, and have the analytical ability to determine if the method is being followed (and it hasn’t progressed beyond the hypothesis stage in the global warming debate). Is that ‘arguing from authority’? If it is, then no, I won’t stop arguing in this method. I know of no other way to come to a logical conclusion.
Yes, so I repeat: Why did you switch the issue to math?
Based on the vacuum of information you’ve supplied on this subject other than a link to a dubious website, my hypothesis is that you are a blind follower of the global warming faith, needing no real scientific evidence, as is poigniantly described in Ann’s new book. Since you offer no logical reasoning, it’s fast becoming proven theory. That’s the scientific method in action. I hope you are still a fan of scientific theory.
I apologize for the flippancy, but it’s necessary because we’re discussing an issue that could waste a lot of the world’s resources that would be better spent fixing real problems that we have today. The absurd idea that we should try to affect the global climate needs to be derided until people come to their senses. Every dollar wasted on it is a dollar not spent on food for the poor, research on anything, vaccinations for diseases we can cure, or any number of beneficial endeavors.
So I’ll say it again. Spend all the time worrying that you need to worrying about global warming, but don’t waste anyone else’s money and time that could and should be better spent.
Comment by blogagog @ 6/9/2006 - 9:41 pm
That you think the root source of the science is different speaks to your basic lack of education andrew, and I’m going to take the high road here and refrain from embarrassing you. Of course if you knew that core principle, and the mechanics in the first place, you wouldn’t be wasting your time with junk science. Good luck. Hope you find a worthwhile hobby.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 6/9/2006 - 9:44 pm