Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Paxman, Paxmaned?
Jeremy Paxman, famous for his contemptuous one line put downs, meets his match with a fearsome advocate for the US right Anne Coulter. Someone should have warned him, surely?
Update: It’s official: Paxman was indeed beaten!
Mick Fealty @ 05:38 AM
HF
Re: “The Jersey Girls”
Whether they were in the political arena or not, does this justify the allegation that they were “enjoying” their husbands’ death? Would you support such an assertion? Are the McCartney sisters enjoying their brother’s death by the same token? Or is this just shock-jock claptrap spouted to make money from uber right wing crackers?
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 11:08 AMHarry Flashman,
I think Jezza lives in Oxford rather than Islington. But I take your point about the 9/11 widows being fair game once they entered a political campaign. I don’t think the issue is the criticism of them so much as the impact this woman and people like her (the American shock jocks etc) are having on political discourse. Politics is being reduced still further to slanging matches and personalised abuse. The fact that people like this woman have quite often never served in the US military etc makes it harder to take. If they really believe all this, then let them go and do it for themselves.
I saw a piece on Break.com recently which was an interview from Fox News with a spokeswoman from those nutters from the Westboro Baptist Church who protest at US soldiers’ funerals saying their deaths are God’s punishment for American tolerance of homosexuality. The Fox News woman literally called her the Devil. This is not a serious and balanced interview, any more than Paxman’s was on this. I think he got the tone of the interview totally wrong, although he still won on points.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 11:11 AMOnce the interview was underway (watch it here) it quickly became resoundingly clear that she believes everything she says, otherwise why would she have said it?
So Barron didn’t have the guts to go the whole hog and give us the Paxman intro?
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 11:25 AMPaxman is at his best when nailing evasion. There is nothing evasive about Anne Coulter.
I notice that having failed to damage he by personal abuse the latest claim is that she is in it for the money. A brand.
One reads such attacks as a poor substitute for addressing her points.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 11:26 AMWhats all the fuss about? She was’nt so special, seems to me its the familiar territory of PJ O’Rourke but without the funnies and with a bit of feminine glamour…Although frankly she looks like tuppeny halpenny times square hussler to me.No big deal, Paxman won because she simply sounded like an absurd self publicist with those “unspeakable” radical right views, and the well rehearsed flinty responses which were’nt even that sharp really.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 11:28 AMFor those actually atte,pting the comedy of citing Coulter’s books, I suggest they read Al Franken’s Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. His destruction of her arguments is hilarious.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 11:31 AMI think the description of “the right’s Michael Moore” fits her just about perfectly. They’re both clearly self-publicists who distort the truth with the primary aim of selling books.
Their ‘radical message’ is something that comes a distant second, probably because deep down they know it’s rubbish.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 11:33 AMtaig,
I have never suggested we members of the working class are untainted, or virtuous beyond others or whatever as we are not. Your implication in sighting Barry,O’Malley, etc I suppose is that I am a mockney worker, well unless I invite you into my hovel in which i beat my wife, abuse my kids and keep my coal in the bath and tune into fox news I cannot prove otherwise. I have no doubt I write in cliches, all but good writers do, but at least my badly written cliches get up you nose so they serve my point.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 11:34 AM“we hate what she’s saying but - oh, boy!”
Really?! Well, to each their own. Out here in the US, Coulter is in hot water at the moment for calling 9-11 widows “self obsessed millionaires” “revelling in their status as celebrities”. She lost her job at MSNBC for telling a Vietnam vet who lost limbs in that conflict that it was people like him that cost America victory.
For a very funny and, in my opinion, honest look at her work, see Al Franken’s “Lies and the Lying Liers Who Tell Them”. I’m sure Darth and everyone at A Tangled Web will tear into me here but its worth a read!
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 11:36 AMesmeraldavillelobos: “Whether they were in the political arena or not, does this justify the allegation that they were “enjoying” their husbands’ death? Would you support such an assertion?”
Are they not “enjoying” the fruits of their spouses’ deaths? Would they be where they are without their husbands’ demise?
The fact of the matter is is that politics in a democracy is a bloodsport, the same as boxing or gladitorial combat of ancient Rome. Ms. Coulter is an effective blunt object. I would point out, however, those howling the loudest in American politics are those who use her same tactics to further their own ends—no one likes being hosted they way they hoist others.
Writing books and shouting unpopular facts is her gig and she’s welcome to it. Personally, I try not to make fun of anyone else’s racket—you never know what job you may be doing someday.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 11:42 AMGum: “For a very funny and, in my opinion, honest look at her work, see Al Franken’s “Lies and the Lying Liers Who Tell Them”.”
IOW, please ignore their loud-mouthed, self-publicizing pundit and look at *OUR* loud-mouthed, self-publicizing pundit, who has, iirc, been discredited by another loud-mouthed, self-publicizing pundit.
Al Franken, bless his heart, can’t even get radio ratings in some of the most liberal radio markets in the United States. Whatever he’s selling, not even liberals are buying.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 11:46 AMHarry,
I feel you confuse what those of us on the left are about when you condemn us as liberals, for few of us are. Equally I cannot say whether the US media is dominated by liberals but over in the UK it is far from being so.
The reason many of us would dismiss Ms Coulter is not because she is on the Right, but because she is so liberal with her facts, which she subjectively marshals to back up her right wing political opinions. There is nothing wrong with doing this, as long as you make clear you are a political activists, not an independent voice fighting against the powers that be.
Which is something she is clearly is not as she herself has become part of the political establishment in the US. She is the darling of the pro multi national Fox News, she supports the Republican Party which unless I am mistaken has controlled the White House and the Hill for approx the last 6 years.
I suppose what I find revolting about her is she and her supporters sell her as this gallant outsider fighting against the big battalions, when in reality she is a creature of the big battalions of Capital.
As to the Darwin and creationist business, I do not believe the majority of born again christians believe the latter, if they do then they are nincompoops as the body of work supporting Darwin is massive. If they do, then I am not surpirsed they are taken in by a creature of Capital like Ms Coulter, poor saps.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 11:52 AMHenry94
Why is she doing it then? This does not appear to be a woman who is preaching out of some altruistic notion that she is helping her country. Who is she helping? Coulter is a one woman attack ad with nothing constructive or concrete to back up her ideas (Darwin). The philosophy is:
1. All things liberal are bad.
2. Err… that’s it.
Maybe in my little liberal ivory tower I find it difficult or well nigh impossible that this woman is for real. Maybe I prefer it that way so I can sleep at night. I think she is a well rehersed self-publicist who could not quite make the grade in real politics and so makes a good living cheerleading for the Klan members out there. I don’t think they are beliefs, they are a means to an end.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 11:56 AMShould read “to believe that this woman is for real”
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 11:58 AMmickhall
you’re dave spart wanna keep up little brother aren’t you?Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 12:11 PMmickhall: “The reason many of us would dismiss Ms Coulter is not because she is on the Right, but because she is so liberal with her facts, which she subjectively marshals to back up her right wing political opinions. There is nothing wrong with doing this, as long as you make clear you are a political activists, not an independent voice fighting against the powers that be. “
That, mickhall, is just disengenuous. If someone does not realize that Ms. Coulter is a political essayist and commentator with a rather defined and specific point of view, we’d better find their keeper so they get back to the home in time for custard. They would have to be “*Ding* Fries are done!” dull to miss Ms. Coulter’s political perspective.
Esmeraldavillelobos: “Maybe in my little liberal ivory tower I find it difficult or well nigh impossible that this woman is for real. Maybe I prefer it that way so I can sleep at night. I think she is a well rehersed self-publicist who could not quite make the grade in real politics and so makes a good living cheerleading for the Klan members out there. I don’t think they are beliefs, they are a means to an end. “
Ah, yes, the gratuitous demonization of those whom one does not agree with… isn’t that one of the things folks complain about Ms. Coulter? Mayhaps you hadn’t noticed, but the political and academic worlds, including the liberal ivory towers, are full of self-publicists “who could not quite make the grade and make a good living cheerleading.” If you wish to refute the lady’s position, by all means feel free. If you wish to disagree with her, that is your right, priviledge and, if you are a “true-believer” well nigh your duty. But unless you have some evidence that Ms. Coulter has a pechant for “night-riding” and burning crosses, you might be best served sticking supportable comments. Likewise, I would point out that the KKK was a primarily ‘Democratic’ institution, not a ‘Republican’ one, with its greatest historical strongholds in the Mid-West rust belt and its heyday in the period between the world wars, iirc. But, hey, why let fact get in the way of an ad hominem attack, neh?
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 12:16 PM‘‘Maybe in my little liberal ivory tower I find it difficult or well nigh impossible that this woman is for real.’’
You better believe it Esmerelda—the US is stuffed with right-wing nutjobs like this one, who believe that white Christian America runs the world and that abortion & gay marriage are the spawn of the devil, while owning 16 rifles and casually bombing the country of your choice are a God-given right.
Listening to ye-haw citizens like this woman ranting about the supposed evils of a perfectly sensible scientific theory, ie Darwinism, whilst advocating teaching children about an invisible bloke in the sky who with America’s help is bringing on the endtimes fairly beggars belief in anything.
What the whole thing proves is that humanity is equally delusional whether it’s waving sticks in the jungle or presiding over the most supposedly advanced nation on earth. Who was it said ‘the more I see people the more I like my dog’?Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 12:24 PM“IOW, please ignore their loud-mouthed, self-publicizing pundit and look at *OUR* loud-mouthed, self-publicizing pundit, who has, iirc, been discredited by another loud-mouthed, self-publicizing pundit.”
Nah. Read the chapters where Franken points out the factual inaccuracies in Coulters books. Read the bit where he goes over her strategies for “argument”. Then apply everywhere, not just to Coulter.
I don’t really give a toss what you think of him, personally.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 12:42 PMSo we’re now 31 posts in and Ann Coulter’s positions have still not been rebutted, now as well as all the other abuse we learn that she’s in the KKK, as DC points out an organisation inextricably linked to the Democratic party in the US and Coulter has been withering in her attacks on leading Democratic senator Byrd a former Kleagle of the Klan. Keep going folks you’re really putting up such a strong case against Ann Coulter.
Mickhall, Coulter does not set out to present herself as a brave outsider, the fact that compared to the mainstream US and UK media she IS an outsider is beside the point, she merely writes very successful books pointing out the hypocrisy and lies upon which is based the liberal establishment (ie the media, academia, mainstream churches, the judiciary and civil service).
Paxman himself acknowledged by this by his embarrassed laugh and rapid changing of the subject when she whacked his ball out of the ground by pointing out his nasty, snarky intro (can you imagine Noam Chomsky getting an intro like that?) that she is right about the media’s liberal bias. Her position is total anathema to the current liberal bilge which passes for current affairs in the UK and the US. As for Franken, get real folks he is up to his eyeballs in corruption as a result of stealing from NY City childrens’ charities in order to fund his left wing talk radio station Air America, (there’s nothing like reinventing the dodo I suppose).
As for Darwinism, she is not putting forward creationism she is rightly pointing out there are Marianus Trench sized holes in his theory which have not been adequately addressed but it is still sacred devine text to liberals. The same way as man made Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change (or however the BBC is describing it this week) may also not be subject to critical analysis. Coulter’s point is that ideas like these have replaced Christianity as the new religion. If you disagree with her I suggest pointing out to a school teacher or BBC editor that most of the evidence for climate change is unscientific piffle, you will treated to the same look of horrified incomprehension that Gallileo got when he mentioned the Earth revolved round the Sun.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 12:44 PM“We know who the homicidal maniacs are.They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”
“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.” Do you stand by those quotes or do you think that perhaps you should have phrased them differently?
Ann Coulter: Ozzy Osbourne has his bats, and I have that darn “convert them to Christianity” quote. (Thank you for giving the full quote. I have the touch, don’t I?) Some may not like what I said, but I’m still waiting to hear a better suggestion.
RE: McVeigh quote. Of course I regret it. I should have added, “after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters.”
“I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo.”
“I think our motto should be, post-9-11: raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.”
This column deserves a read all on it’s own.
Dread, I didn’t suggest she was in the KKK (though the idea of her in a white cloak on horseback is fairly alluring) just that the extreme right in America probably look up to this woman and may even take her seriously. If after all the above she didn’t deserve it, that’s your opinion. I would suggest you take muslim, rag-head etc and replace it with Catholic, taig etc and see if your views are the same. God, I got a lecture on debating on Slugger! I must be doing something right…
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 12:52 PM‘‘As for Darwinism, she is not putting forward creationism’’
Yes I noticed that Harry—she advocates overthrowing Islam and replacing it with Christianity, but doesn’t advocate the first chapter of the bible. Good one.
It’s the usual fundie argument of needing absolute proof for any scientific belief, but none whatsover for their religious one. Of course science is OK if you’re wanting your disease cured or you’re needing to fly 6000 miles in a day, but if science questions your myths and fables, it suddenly knows nothing.Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 12:55 PMHarry,
The reason imo Ms Coulters books are successful is because they are heavily promoted in the very media you claim is out to stifle her because she is its enemy. It is no good you claiming otherwise because you have previously claimed that the very media that promotes her work is dominated by liberals [ as far as the publishing industry you may well have a point] But as far as TV is concerned this just is not so. Just look how they got behind GW over the invasion of Iraq.
In any case, when push comes to shove, liberals and conservative always find themselves in the same foxhole. All they differ on is the degrees of exploitation when making. money
All the best
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 12:59 PMHF
We should not carpet bomb the middle east because that is murder and morally indefensible.
We should not torture Arabs as this is morally indefensible.
We should not advise the bombing of newspaper offices as that is morally indefensible.
We should not castigate women for having political opinions and expressing them and then say that they enjoy the fact their spouses were killed as this is just plain wrong.
Darwinism may not be perfect but there is more evidence for this theory than any other. Any better ideas you can drop me a line. Creationism has no basis in scientific fact.
Happy now?
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 01:02 PM“If you disagree with her I suggest pointing out to a school teacher or BBC editor that most of the evidence for climate change is unscientific piffle, “
For an unscientific theory, it has an awful lot of support from scientists follwoing the, you know, scientific method. In fact, just about the only people disagreeing are on the payroll of vested interests.
Then again, it doesn’t actually take much education ot work it when looking at some of the graphs at Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Mick - any chance of introducing a right wingnut filter so I don’t have to see anymore of Flashman’s posts?
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 01:04 PMI’ve clicked on this damned thread a dozen times, and every time I’ve had a niggling doubt about .... something. Now I have just figured ut what it is.
The title should surely be Paxman, Paxmanned?, shouldn’t it? IE two n’s, not one. Or are you being very subtle, Mick, and referring to Coulter’s mane of hair - i.e. that she is Paxman with a mane?
Sorry to interrupt the rest of you. Please carry on.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 01:13 PM
