Posted on 06/17/2006 8:42:22 AM PDT by marc costanzo
The left-leaning Newsweek magazine lied about what she wrote in her book, an indignant Ann Coulter said during an appearance on Thursday night's Hannity & Colmes show on Fox News Channel.
"I'm sitting in a Fox studio in L.A.," Coulter said. "I don't know why there's a copy of Newsweek here rather than Human Events. Here is Newsweek describing Ann Coulter as saying '9/11 widows enjoyed their [husbands'] deaths.' That is simply a lie . . . That is a lie. If you can't deal with the facts and you refuse to say what the argument is, I think that's a total lack of confidence in your position and it certainly shows a complete lack of understanding [that] Americans can find out the truth these days - that it's not the mainstream media monopoly it was 10 years ago."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
I'm sure W meant the use of "vigilante" in the "watchman" sense.
The word "vigilante" as the President used it did have a bad connotation.
But the President didn't specifically accuse the Minutemen of being "vigilantes". Instead, the President made a general denouncement of potential vigilantism by anybody who would head down to the border.
Let's keep it simple.
Newsweek = news_bias.
Every ABC radio news report i heard said Ann slandered 911 widows. They never mentioned the Jersey Hags, just a blanket use of widows.
OK, let me rephrase my question--besides the evolution vs. ID theories (get it, theories) what errors does the book contain?
I'm convinced that we won't know the answer to that debate until we get to ask God Himself.
Let's talk about the political stuff...thanks! GG
besides the evolution vs. ID theories (get it, theories)Well, ID isn't a scientific theory anyway (unless, like Behe said in the recent Dover trial, we redefine the word to mean things like astrology).
what errors does the book containIf you check RWP's blog (that I linked earlier), you'll see some points about DDT as well. Another subject she's off mark about is Chernobyl .
I'm running Spysweeper by Webroot. I also had spybot and a host of others but I finally broke down and paid for this one. It works very well.
">>What Ann wrote about the so-called "Jersey Girls," and not all the other 9/11 widows in "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," was "these self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them, The whole nation was wounded, all our lives were reduced. But they believed the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process. These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzies. I've never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much." "
I was chastized by some smarmy SOB (darkmeat... something, IIRC) on this forum for suggesting that Ann was inferring the definition shown in the dictionary -
enjoy
2. To have the use or benefit of: enjoys good health.
I don't think there can be any doubt that is her intent and is certainly born out by their actions!
I was waiting to respond to him until I was able to read the comment in full context.
ID does not rise up to the level of theory.
The following will help you to understand what a scientist means when he/she uses the term theory:
Let me post my own example of gravity:
A little history here:
Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation
“Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects.”
F=Gm1m2/r2
Where:
F equals the gravitational force between two objects
m1 equals the mass of the first object
m2 equals the mass of the second object
R equals the distance between the objects
G equals the universal constant of gravitation = (6.6726 )* 10-11 N*m2/kg2 (which is still being refined and tested today)
(BTW this is a simple form of the equation and is only applied to point sources. Usually it is expressed as a vector equation)
Even though it works well for most practical purposes, this formulation has problems.
A few of the problems are:
It shows the change is gravitational force is transmitted instantaneously (Violates C), assumes an absolute space and time (this contradicts Special Relativity), etc.
Enter Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity
In 1915 Einstein developed a new theory of gravity called General Relativity.
A number of experiments showed this theory explained some of the problems with the classical Newtonian model. However, this theory like all others is still being explored and tested.
From an NSF abstract:
“As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.
In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.
Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
"Could you please explain to me how else I am supposed to interpret (exact quote), "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much"?"
Look up the word 'enjoy'. The second definition means ...to derive benefit from. These 4 broads have certainly benefited, not only monetarily (over $1,300,000) but in perceived stature.
That is 'enjoyed'!
Bull. I'm the last one to scream or pund my fist and demand pc language but the sentence, in context, is disturbing. Again why does she have to point out she's jewish? What bearing does it have except to highten the rhetoric.
"PRESIDENT BUSH: I'm against vigilantes in the United States of America. I'm for enforcing law in a rational way. That's why you got a Border Patrol, and they ought to be in charge of enforcing the border. "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050323-5.html
It's all a little unclear when reviewing the text of the verbal interchange. It does seem that the reporterette was referring to the MM and W was essentially calling them vigilantes (in the armed, enforcing sense). Closely parsing the words of the statements shows that W is in fact a politican and can use weasel wording with the best of them. AC doesn't have a lock on the concepts and methods.
The whole point of what Ann was saying is that those widows who support the dimwits agenda in any way are allowed to spew their venom and are not to be criticized in any way since they are 'grieving widows'.
Not only are the 9/11 GWs not to be critized, by extension the whole 'rat platform (whatever that is today) should be given a pass.
Not only a pass but equal time for alternative points of view!
"those widows... are not to be criticized in any way since they are 'grieving widows'."
That is the Dems' unstated premise, which Ann exposes.
That they "enjoyed" some benefits of their misfortune, such as becoming millionaires, being followed by paparazzi, appeared in magazines, TV, etc., pierces the veil of absolute victimization, and allows for their arguments to be engaged by a competing voice. Their opinions should not be beyond reproach.
It's amazing how many DU trolls these Ann Coulter threads bring out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.