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
Stephen,
I’m glad somebody finally ahd the balls to say it
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 01:15 PMDread Cthulhu, Franken offers empirical facts to support his criticism of Coulter’s books. Whatever you think of him personally is irrelevant to the current discussion.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 01:25 PM“All things liberal are bad.”
ER, that REALLY is it!Thing is, because there tend to be some liberal tolerant people around the system, they have to allow such people the airwaves even though the people they allow their fascistic rants spend 99% of their time off-air pouring contempt of the media for not being representative or giving them airtime.
You cant win with such people, or bigots, or racists and funnily enough, theres a very significant overlap between those groups and the constituency that this dog-faced woman represents.
Where she and others fall deeper into well- deserved contempt not just from the Left or Right, but of all humans, is their unforgiveable hatred for the bereaved who arent angry and demanding more death as a result of their loss - cue Cindy Sheehan ad nauseam and now, for Coulter, the 9-11 victims who dont share her right wing views.
I would say this woman is heading for a rendezvous with a bullet. Anyone else remember the movie “Bob Roberts”???
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 01:31 PMGalileo’s error was that he attempted to teach the heliocentric theory as the only true one while there were still major holes in it (an adequate explanation for the apparent lack of parallax had not then been arrived at).
Darwin’s ideas on evolution are similarly problematic: the absence of medium length necked giraffe fossils indicates that evolution occurs
suddenly, in bursts, and not as a gradual process of survival of the fittest as Darwin imagined it. But this does not mean that we have to revert to Genesis 1 as our explanation of these phenomena: Ovid’s Metamorphoses provides an equally mythological account with greater
explanatory adequacy.As with global warming, these are topics to be debated, endlessly, by scientists. They are not there to be hijacked by right-wing bimbos (if you will excuse the argumentum ad feminam) with an agenda of perpetrating stupidity.
Her views on the Vietnam war are frankly abhorrent. The US lost nothing by withdrawing from that conflict, and if it had won, how would anything have been any different to the way it is now?
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 01:32 PMMickhall: “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. “
Precisely my point—you accept Franken because his comments, when juxtaposed with your beliefs, are sufficiently alike, as opposed to the jarring comments from Coulter. You accept what he says at face value because you agree with him.
Likewise, you don’t care about Franken’s short-comings, factual or talent, becaue he is “your” guy.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 01:40 PMEsmeraldaV: “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.”
No, you said she was a cheerleader for the Klan, a smear with no substance, as you have introduced no substantive evidence of her anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism and/or racism. As for her “ragheads” comment, I think that is little more than propaganda, much as “Jerry”, “Hun” and “Boche” were in other conflicts. Now, as for her use of hyperbole, is that not a legitimate writing device, even in liberal ivory towers?
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 01:54 PMKensei
“Mick any chance of introducing a right wingnut filter [sic] so I don’t have to see anymore of Flashman’s posts?”
Go f**k yourself pal, if you aren’t up to debating issues you clown, then you really shouldn’t come on here.
I have as much right to post here as you have, do you want to try posting something substantive other than crappy wiki links or is that beyond you? I have actually engaged in meaningful debate here, you have produced nothing.
(Sorry for the ad hominem, Slug, but I think you will agree I was provoked)
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 01:56 PMLet’s face it- Ann Coulter is right about a certain kind of liberal hegemony in modern America. Why not celebrate the fact that rationality and civilisation have advanced since the ‘sixties’ in ways that are abhorent to her. Let’s also recognise that in many other ways the US is still essentially ruled by power elites, riddled with off the chart fundamentalism, militarising space as we sleep, etc.
I thought Paxman was patronising and aggressive in the interview, and at a certain level Coulter was dignified in her attitude. How dare he try to set the limits for acceptable discourse in ways that make someone like Coulter seem even remotely appealing.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 02:02 PMKensai,
No political filters Ken. Just the one not playing the man, oh and the CIVIL engagement theory Harry!!!
Box on lads…
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 02:12 PMDread
...you have introduced no substantive evidence of her anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism and/or racism.
No evidence of racism? Oh, please! Did you read my posts? Did you read the linked column? Must try harder…
You don’t call it hyperbole (I’m straining at the leash here - insert suitable insult directed at your intelligence) - you call it incitement to racial hatred.
To have you lecture me now seems less credible. To go back to your first post, I never made fun of her. If she makes a living spouting this garbage, good luck to her. I just pity the more weak minded who do not have the intelligence to see through the hyperbole/racism (tomato/tomato)in the narrative and believe it.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 02:17 PMEsmeralda Villelobos: “No evidence of racism? Oh, please! Did you read my posts? Did you read the linked column? Must try harder… “
Words mean things, usually rather precise things, Esmeralda. Unless you subscribe to Rosenberg’s theory of racial confusion. They are a Mediterranean people, swathy Caucasians and not a seperate “race.” Likewise, the hyperbole of one column is perhaps a nail in her coffin, but not irrefutable evidence of her racism. I know the ivory towers are not used to harsh language and emotionalist responses, but, frankly, as she is an American, I would think she would be entitled to her hot-button, knee-jerk reactions to certain issues. Likewise, given the NYT’s apparent desire to make the US less secure, what with their publishing of information on a legal effort to watch over international bank transfers to catch terrorists, I can see them getting shellacked by the blonde bomb-thrower.
EsmeraldaV: “You don’t call it hyperbole (I’m straining at the leash here - insert suitable insult directed at your intelligence) - you call it incitement to racial hatred.”
tsk tsk… poor Esmeralda, unable to frolic in the gutter as is her want.
The very “over-the-top” nature of her comments shows that it is satiric hyperbole. I know that the ivory towers are bloodless, multi-culti bastions of dhimmitude and hand-wringing, but to take literally what is obviously intended as satire is ludicrous. When you read “A Modest Proposal,” did you actually believe Swift was advocating the consumption of human flesh?
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 02:46 PMCan you imagine him describing Nelson Mandela as a terrorist? -
Wasnt he?Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 03:02 PMWell at least you’re nailing your colours to the mast. So it’s OK to say these things about Arabs/Muslims because a large proportion of them are just vaguely dusky and not black. It’s not racism then - let’s just covert them and be done with it. *hangs head and shakes slowly*
I don’t make allowances for people on the basis of where there parents decided to procreate. Just ‘cause she’s American doesn’t give her carte blanche to broadcast race hate across the media. This is not satire: she means it, you know it, get over yourself.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 03:03 PM“Go f**k yourself pal, if you aren’t up to debating issues you clown, then you really shouldn’t come on here.
I have as much right to post here as you have, do you want to try posting something substantive other than crappy wiki links or is that beyond you? I have actually engaged in meaningful debate here, you have produced nothing. “
Oh, go f**k yourself too. It was just a little tease.
No, you haven’t actually debated anything, you’ve given the standard right wing line on well, everything ever.
The liberal media bias is everywhere.
It’s not Creationism it’s just picking holes in Evolutionary Theory.
Climate Change is not true.Now, as fun as it would be to go through those topics, they have been done to death and done better than by me. If you post stuff like:
“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 can’t expect people to take you entirely seriously. There is no argument there, just ranting. If you really want to talk about climate change, tone it down, raise some specific objections, and we’ll go from there.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 03:11 PM“Precisely my point—you accept Franken because his comments, when juxtaposed with your beliefs, are sufficiently alike, as opposed to the jarring comments from Coulter. You accept what he says at face value because you agree with him.”
No, I accept what he says because he has empirical evidence and a damn good arguemnt to back up what he says.
“Likewise, you don’t care about Franken’s short-comings, factual or talent, becaue he is “your” guy.”
Correct on one score. I really don’t care about his talent, because half the book was written by researchers anyway. I do care if he’s got facts wrong, and would surely like to see that.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 03:14 PM“I think Im doing just fine”
...her smug little closing line says it all, playing to every half baked, slimy little prejudice across the US and elsewhere makes the top of the best sellers. Can’t believe Swift was mentioned in the same thread as this cynical bitch who is coining it out of prejudice?
Ive an idea… why doesnt she start a blog (without a tipjar) and stop writing books if she REALLY believes all she writes? (which, I think nails the lie that she is all hyperbole.) The woman is all about Hate.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 03:59 PM“You accept Franken because his comments, when juxtaposed with your beliefs, are sufficiently alike, as opposed to the jarring comments from Coulter. You accept what he says at face value because you agree with him.”
Nah - his comments regarding Coulters work are backed up by empiracal facts, not partisan argument. I know I said this earlier but Dread Cthulhu chose to ignore it. (I’m not arguing about Franken himself here Dread, I am agreeing with his well researched criticism of Coulter).
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 04:10 PMKensei
Try debating me, ok? I posted two several paragraph long posts defending Ann Coulter, citing instances where I believed her viewpoint to be correct, in return you post a link to Wikipedia. Then you call on the administrator to censor me because you don’t like my political viewpoints, I got annoyed at that, not unnaturally.
You don’t like my politics? Fine. I can’t say whether I like yours or not because frankly I don’t know anything about your opinions as I don’t actually remember anything worthwhile you’ve ever posted on any subject here. However even if, like many other posters whose opinions are worth discussing, I did disagree with you, I would still never demand that you be banned.
Try not to be such an adolescent. You want to discuss politics? Good, discuss politics, leave out the childish name calling. If you want to resort to citing wiki and calling for me to be censored then expect me to tell you where to shove it.
Now, do you want to actually debate the substance of the original post with proper debates and rebuttals or do you want to remain on the sidelines making silly, idiotic, irrelevant comments?
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 04:23 PMJo: “...her smug little closing line says it all, playing to every half baked, slimy little prejudice across the US and elsewhere makes the top of the best sellers. Can’t believe Swift was mentioned in the same thread as this cynical bitch who is coining it out of prejudice? “
Prejudice or anger? How much did she discuss Arab politics prior to five years ago or so?
Likewise, I sincerely doubt she believes what she writes, in the literal sense. The United States may still allow the death penalty, but they do so in the dead of night, away from the eyes of the public. How does one seriously think that America could go from that to daily televised whippings and rackings? It just doesn’t follow.
As for Swift, it was simply to illustrate the point—she does not literally mean what she writes, no more than Swift intended the jugging and stewing of infants.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 04:23 PMJo,
Ann Coulter writes books which regularly top the best selling list, she researches her work thoroughly, invariably instigates international debates (as in this case) and makes for very entertaining reading.
However I do see your point, if only she gave all that boring oul’ shite up and started writing a blog in Belfast about her drinking habits and which particular lesbian celebrity she fancied then we could all take her seriously, eh!
Christ Jo, love, did you ever hear about people in glass houses?
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 04:31 PMWe’re debating her, not the issues - I think she’ll be very pleased with the extra publicity. Might sell another book or two.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 04:39 PMGum: “Nah - his comments regarding Coulters work are backed up by empiracal facts, not partisan argument. I know I said this earlier but Dread Cthulhu chose to ignore it. (I’m not arguing about Franken himself here Dread, I am agreeing with his well researched criticism of Coulter). “
There are dangers in “empirical facts,” Gum, in that they are relatively easy to manipulate.
Two headlines dealing with a motor race involving a Russian car and an American one.
American Headline: American car triumphs, Russian car loses.
Russian Headline: Russian car takes second place in great race; American car finished next to last.
Both are empirically accurate, and yet each provides an entirely different view of events. Thus, simply empiricism can lose deeper truths. No, as Franken is not what I would call a deep thinker (for the record, neither in Ms. Coulter), and given some other rebuttals to his “empirical truths,” I would advise you, if you honestly had an interest in veracity, to find some primary source level reference information and decide for yourself.
Now, the more complex the event, the easier it is to manipulate by simply shading their description of events.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 04:39 PMEsmeralda: “We’re debating her, not the issues - I think she’ll be very pleased with the extra publicity. Might sell another book or two. “
Which, I suspect, is the whole point of her excercise.
Were she to stand on an orange crate in the park, she’d be dismissed as a crank. She puts it down on paper, dresses provocatively, slings a few glib comments meant to outrage the ivory tower set, finds herself verbally savaged in some quarters and her sales go through the roof. Next go ‘round, the converted queue up early, making her sales seem impressive early, the spin machines whirl up to speed and the process repeats.
Kinda makes you wonder—what if she wrote a book and no one shrieked in outrage?
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 04:48 PMI am dismissing her as a crank! ;)
(The word at the bottom is soviet88 - imagine her in the cold war - Russkies heads on sticks no doubt- yikes!)
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 04:58 PMEsmerelda: Well at least you’re nailing your colours to the mast. So it’s OK to say these things about Arabs/Muslims because a large proportion of them are just vaguely dusky and not black. It’s not racism then - let’s just covert them and be done with it. *hangs head and shakes slowly*”
The lines of an old SNL faux news routine come to mind…
Its not racism because its not about race. Words mean things and no amount of you ginning up or shaking your head is going to change that. Your KKK smear is void of any real support. That she doesn’t wish to make nice with Muslims may be distasteful, but it is also understandable—as I asked Jo, how much did she discuss Arabs pre-9/11.
Esmerelda: “I don’t make allowances for people on the basis of where there parents decided to procreate. Just ‘cause she’s American doesn’t give her carte blanche to broadcast race hate across the media. This is not satire: she means it, you know it, get over yourself. “
Actually, it does, under the system she operates under. She is not ‘broadcasting race hate,’ since Muslims aren’t a race, nor are Arabs. As for “getting over myself.” I would advise you do deal with the plank in your own eye before you worry about the mote in mine. There is no way she means this in a literal sense. She is a pundit. What she lacks in gravitas, she makes up in volume and shock. She is the Howard Stern of politics, here to rattle your cage and surf the wave of outrage to financial success.
Posted by on Jun 27, 2006 @ 04:58 PM
