We all heard about Coulter's recent comments regarding the 9/11 widows and how horrible that was.  Well, a few days ago I began the unthinkable.  I started listening to books on tape: Godless The Church of Liberalism.  I couldn't turn it off.  It was like watching Anchor Man.  You really want to stop watching, but you leave it on in the hopes a shred of something redeemable will come from it.

The first thing that hit me is just how not funny she is.  Most of her jokes are sexual in nature, and disgusting at that.  She makes Monica Lewinsky jokes and references that I won't quote here because they are sick.  When are republicans going to realize that Clinton is no longer president and move on?

The second item is that she loves the past.  I suspect a lot of Republicans would rather us not focus on the state of affairs today.  Exhibit A, Willie Horton.  That's a name from the past huh?  She spends a good bit on him.  And I already mentioned the Clinton thing.  Her home run is reliving the Scopes trial.  Blech.

The third item I noticed is that she really struggles to make her point.  The beginning of the book sets the tone that liberalism could be considered a religion.  I followed her there, but then she just decides to go on long winded diatribes that don't really support her argument.  At the end of the book she goes on and on about Evolution and the Scopes trial only to say in her last few words basically, "That's why it's a religion."

This book really should have been called the Anti-Abortion, Anti-Public Schools, Anti-Evolution book, and Bash Events from Christmas Past book.  Here's some quotes of the connections she tries to make (I'll try and make this as brief as possible, there were alot):

"Democrats use blacks to protect the right for women to sleep unprotected with men they don't want to father their babies."

"The most important value to liberals is destroying human life."

"No Republican is so crazily obsessed with any issue as democrats are with abortion."

Those were actual quotes I wrote down word for word.  It goes on and on.  That's not supporting an idea that Liberalism should be considered a Religion.  That's just inflammatory and does nothing for debate.  And I'm pretty sure I can find an issue that Republicans are crazily obsessed about as much or if not more-so than Democrats.  Off the top of my head, say, Abortion may be?

"Liberal Doctrines are less scientifically provable than the story of Noah's ark, but their (liberal) belief system is taught as fact in government schools while the biblical belief system is banned from government schools by law."

She made this statement early on in the book, but backed it up mostly by the evolution debate.  I'm a product of public schools and the only time I remember going over evolution was when we talked about the Scopes trial in history class.  It's really not that big of a deal.  It's a theory and doesn't change my faith in god.  Besides, please tell me you can see the difference between teaching the bible and talking about a scientific *THEORY*.  Let's move on.

But she can't.  She says several times that evolution won't disprove Christian's beliefs, but it would kill the Atheist movement.  Then what is the big deal Ann?  Why did you work so hard to try and prove there's nothing behind evolution?  Last I checked, Atheists represented a very small segment of our population.  Why do they anger you so much?

"If people are born gay, why hasn't Darwinism selected out people who don't reproduce?  For that we need a theory of survival of the most fabulous."

Ba dum dum.  Oh Ann, you so funny. 

"No one disputes a monkey looks like a human, especially Al Franken."

Oh please stop it.  You're killing me.  Can't breathe.

"If the death penalty doesn't deter murder how come Michael Moore is alive and I'm not on death row?"

Enough already!!!  Too much funny!!

Speaking of rehashing, did I mention she brought up Jane Fonda?  Moving on.  I found this quote quite interesting:

"At Harvard, 90% of the students come from families above the median income in America which is 42k a year.  Nearly 80% come from families in the top 20% or 80k per year.  As this suggests kids from good families could be taught by lunatics at an insane asylum and they would still do well on their SAT's."

Obviously this statement is ludicrous.  Much like her arguments, "If this is true, then this must be true" formula falls a little short here.  That's not what I want to point out though.  She said, "kids from good families."  WOW.  That's a telling statement.  Using her logic, "If your family makes over 42k per year, then you come from a good family."  She lives in a warped, sad world.  I feel bad for her.

I'm going to close this up here because it's a long enough post and I could go on forever.  I give this book zero lizards because it was a waste of my time.  At least no one can say I didn't try.  I don't know many Michael Moore bashers who have actually read his books. 

I used to have a theory that she was a Stephen Colbert character.  Humorizing the right by sticking to exactly what they say.  After hearing her read her own words with her own (by the way Dreadful) voice, I think she might actually believe this stuff.  Ah well, I'm sure I owe someone five dollars somewhere.

You can read the first chapter of her book here.  I'll leave you with the one actual funny she made in the book:

"Liberals default argument is to throw food."

That's just for you baby...just for you.