The Hitler v Coulter Quiz

Xrlq points to this really dumb quiz, purporting to show that Ann Coulter's rhetoric is indistinguishable from Hitler's (suitably obfuscated), and thus that Coulter == Hitler. Dafydd claims that it's really a test of how familiar you are with each of their writing styles.

Well, I've read nothing by Hitler, and nearly nothing by Coulter, and I still got 14 out of 14. Just by knowing something about each of their ideologies, I was able to distinguish most of the quotes easily. Try it yourself, it's really not that hard.

An Inconvenient Truth?

Here are 25 of them.

Who Heckler?

The idiot subbie strikes again.

I've posted before about subeditors who don't bother to read an article before writing a headline for it. Here's another example: The AP reports:

Attorney: Bush Heckler Charges Won't Stand

Jun 21, 4:24 PM (ET)

By STEPHEN MANNING

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Falun Gong follower who heckled Chinese President Hu Jintao at a White House ceremony has reached a deal with prosecutors under which all charges against her will be dropped, her attorney announced Wednesday.

Read that again – she heckled Hu, not Bush. Also, to me, at least, the phrase "charges won't stand" implies that they won't bear weight, and are bound to be dismissed on their merits, not that the prosecutors have agreed to exercise their discretion and conditionally drop them.

But to a certain kind of person, a) if someone was heckling at a Bush press conference, Bush must have been the target; b) it's only natural that anyone heckling Bush would be facing charges, in an attempt to crush dissent; and c) when those charges prove "unable to stand" it's a victory for the justice system and the little guy. So, a quick skim over the article, and the headline must have seemed to write itself. Oops.