Book Review - Ann Coulter Godless
When reviewing Ann Coulter, it's hard to be objective. Either one loves her, or totally hates her. So you get a bifucuration of reviews.
I got bored reading Gibbon, and decided to take a break (actually, the only Gibbon you get is paraphrased, and I got a bad paraphrase). So when at Costco, I bought her book. John Stossel wasn't there. In any case, I have all her books but the first.
Now, you might think - "Ann Coulter gets read because she looks like a bimbo and every conservative wants to sleep with her." I will refute this argument in two points. First, while Ann Coulter looks like a bimbo (albeit an aging bimbo), she certainly doesn't write like one. After all, she went to an Ivy League school, and has a law degree from UM. You try to get those degrees. So she has a superior education, and ten years on me (and my education is further down the dumbed-down path than she is). If she wrote like a bimbo, no one would have read her second book. Having a lot of wit makes her a huge success, too.
The second point is that, well, not only do conservatives have the hots for her. So do many liberals. If you read through this entire blog (I believe it is this one) - cajunjew.blogspot.com/ - it will link you to a site where some leftists want to engage in perversions with her, too. And this guy might, also.
So, what is Godless about? It is about how leftists, who claim to be irreligios, really have a religion - "liberalism". She spends much of her time outlining her thesis.
She bashes those who deserve to be bashed. Like teachers. The high priests of our civilization. She kinda beat me to the punch, as I am hoping to someday explain how the education establishment is nothing more than the new Papacy, but someday I will explain my thesis. You see, teachers get waaay too much credit, although they are often dolts. And, according to economists who measure their salary, greatly overpaid dolts.
Her most infamous example is over the Jersey Broads. You know, the ones who exploited 9-11. While she maybe went over-the-top, you kinda have to wonder about how these four women have managed to exploit 9-11 for their own ideological gains. Ann Coulter, who is one of the few iconoclasts today, is merely dishing something back to those who are "untouchable".
One problem with the book is that Ann seems to wander on and on in her writings. But then again, she could probably wander aimlessly and still get bestsellers - she's Ann Coulter, #2 conservative, right behind Limbaugh. Which is why she seems disjointed when she spends much of the book attacking Darwinism - approximately 2/5 of the book (I'm too lazy to calculate if I'm correct).
She makes a point that those who are irreligious defend Darwinism - not on science, but on faith. For people who supposedly have none. Despite all the evidence that put holes in Darwinist theory, they still cling to it like it is the absolute truth. How do they know - the certainly weren't there. Then again, maybe they were - after all, they're dinosaurs.
And, there is a lot that puts holes in Darwinism. But they refuse to debate those who see problems with Darwinism - and there are even some athiest scientists who see problems with the theory - merely mentioning that it is a waste of time to debate facts with them. After all, as my 10th grade biology teacher told me - if you don't believe in Darwinism, you don't believe in biology (this is the same man who taught us sex ed without parental permission).
Toward the end of the Darwin chapters, I realized that she is getting to her main point - these people do not want there to be a God, so they will use their own faith to try to prove there is no God. Athiesm is intellectually dishonest, and intellectually arrogant - there is absolutely no way to disprove any supreme diety, all dieties, or all animal spirits. Agnosticism is much, much, more honest.
If you do not get her central argument, she brings up some past episodes whose stories are now forgotten. First, two 1920's anarchist thugs, Sacco and Venzetti, the Mumia of their day,were actually guilty of their crime - but many leftists were willing to try to prove their innocence. The second episode, the Scopes Monkey Trial, also in the 1920's, was a fraud - Mr. Scopes may not have even taught evolution - and was nothing more than a publicity stunt to get the ACLU to do a test trial, and to get some town in Tennessee a lot of publicity. I looked up both these episodes on Wikipedia, and it turns out that Ann is telling the truth about both.
So, who should read this book? I think everyone. She brings up some fresh points. For it gives conservatives more ammo. And we all need to read some book once or twice a year from our ideological opponents. This is a good book for liberals to read to help understand conservatives better. And for squishy moderates - well, they need to read any political book, as they are most often the least interested in politics, so they have next-to-no training in ideologies anyway, and are total political dolts. So this is a good book for them.
I got bored reading Gibbon, and decided to take a break (actually, the only Gibbon you get is paraphrased, and I got a bad paraphrase). So when at Costco, I bought her book. John Stossel wasn't there. In any case, I have all her books but the first.
Now, you might think - "Ann Coulter gets read because she looks like a bimbo and every conservative wants to sleep with her." I will refute this argument in two points. First, while Ann Coulter looks like a bimbo (albeit an aging bimbo), she certainly doesn't write like one. After all, she went to an Ivy League school, and has a law degree from UM. You try to get those degrees. So she has a superior education, and ten years on me (and my education is further down the dumbed-down path than she is). If she wrote like a bimbo, no one would have read her second book. Having a lot of wit makes her a huge success, too.
The second point is that, well, not only do conservatives have the hots for her. So do many liberals. If you read through this entire blog (I believe it is this one) - cajunjew.blogspot.com/ - it will link you to a site where some leftists want to engage in perversions with her, too. And this guy might, also.
So, what is Godless about? It is about how leftists, who claim to be irreligios, really have a religion - "liberalism". She spends much of her time outlining her thesis.
She bashes those who deserve to be bashed. Like teachers. The high priests of our civilization. She kinda beat me to the punch, as I am hoping to someday explain how the education establishment is nothing more than the new Papacy, but someday I will explain my thesis. You see, teachers get waaay too much credit, although they are often dolts. And, according to economists who measure their salary, greatly overpaid dolts.
Her most infamous example is over the Jersey Broads. You know, the ones who exploited 9-11. While she maybe went over-the-top, you kinda have to wonder about how these four women have managed to exploit 9-11 for their own ideological gains. Ann Coulter, who is one of the few iconoclasts today, is merely dishing something back to those who are "untouchable".
One problem with the book is that Ann seems to wander on and on in her writings. But then again, she could probably wander aimlessly and still get bestsellers - she's Ann Coulter, #2 conservative, right behind Limbaugh. Which is why she seems disjointed when she spends much of the book attacking Darwinism - approximately 2/5 of the book (I'm too lazy to calculate if I'm correct).
She makes a point that those who are irreligious defend Darwinism - not on science, but on faith. For people who supposedly have none. Despite all the evidence that put holes in Darwinist theory, they still cling to it like it is the absolute truth. How do they know - the certainly weren't there. Then again, maybe they were - after all, they're dinosaurs.
And, there is a lot that puts holes in Darwinism. But they refuse to debate those who see problems with Darwinism - and there are even some athiest scientists who see problems with the theory - merely mentioning that it is a waste of time to debate facts with them. After all, as my 10th grade biology teacher told me - if you don't believe in Darwinism, you don't believe in biology (this is the same man who taught us sex ed without parental permission).
Toward the end of the Darwin chapters, I realized that she is getting to her main point - these people do not want there to be a God, so they will use their own faith to try to prove there is no God. Athiesm is intellectually dishonest, and intellectually arrogant - there is absolutely no way to disprove any supreme diety, all dieties, or all animal spirits. Agnosticism is much, much, more honest.
If you do not get her central argument, she brings up some past episodes whose stories are now forgotten. First, two 1920's anarchist thugs, Sacco and Venzetti, the Mumia of their day,were actually guilty of their crime - but many leftists were willing to try to prove their innocence. The second episode, the Scopes Monkey Trial, also in the 1920's, was a fraud - Mr. Scopes may not have even taught evolution - and was nothing more than a publicity stunt to get the ACLU to do a test trial, and to get some town in Tennessee a lot of publicity. I looked up both these episodes on Wikipedia, and it turns out that Ann is telling the truth about both.
So, who should read this book? I think everyone. She brings up some fresh points. For it gives conservatives more ammo. And we all need to read some book once or twice a year from our ideological opponents. This is a good book for liberals to read to help understand conservatives better. And for squishy moderates - well, they need to read any political book, as they are most often the least interested in politics, so they have next-to-no training in ideologies anyway, and are total political dolts. So this is a good book for them.
posted by EricMatthew at 11:37 PM
<< Home