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!

,

  • “frightening that she seems to believe the nonsense she’s spouting.”

    Psssst…..

    It’s a lawyer.

    Hint, Hint, Hint….

  • kensei

    “Actually, I do believe the Esmerelda referred to her as “making a good living cheerleading for the Klan members out there,” ….”

    Condemn on the one hand but spout views such as she does and your undoubtedly going to become a cheerleader for the wrong people.

    “Not entirely accurate—… The only known KKK member in American politics is Senator Byrd of West Virginia, a Democrat. Likewise the mentors of some of the recent and current crop of Southern democratic officeholders are the racists of yesteryear, such as Al Gore, Sr. and Senator Fullbright of Arkansas.”

    I don’t believe that men should pay for the sins of their fathers, do you? The history of the Dixiecrats and the Solid South is well known, but not relevant to the Democratic Party of past 40 years. Again, look at the last election results.

    “Uh-huh… let’s examine this cute bit of sophistry. Let us assume, arguendo, that what you have said here is accurate. Compare that to the three major free television broadcast networks, CNN, MSNBC, and the majority of American newspapers.”

    Which, any of the links above will tell you, have no liberal bias, and there certainly isn’t an out and out left wing version of Fox News. I hate to be such a whiny liberal, but any actual evidence?

    And I hate to point it out, but the right wing in the US won. Congress, Presiedent, Supreme Court. It’;s an attempt to paint yourself as the set upon underdogs ina world you control. Take some goddamn responsibility.

    “The only place right-of-center dominates is radio, partly because the most successful syndicated programs are right of center and partly because liberal/left-wing radio doesn’t work on the national level”

    Basless opinion there, try not to slip into it.

    “IIRC, Franken essentially claimed ignorance, despite some damning documents. The network has “taken responsibility” and is paying back the crooked loans. Given that Franken was one of the “players” at the network and, again, iirc, signed off on some of the documents, he is liable / responsible, if not in the know. Moral: read before you sign.

    So nothing proven and the original allegation is potentially libellous? And again, you’ve attacked the person and not his arguments against Coulter? What you are shouting at people for? What’s that sound? It’s the Hypocrisy Bell ringing!

    “The difference between climate change (baseline) and climate change (baseline + man-made) is miniscule. The two other locations in the solar system where global warming is being seen are Mars (shrinking polar caps) and Jupiter (a second “red-eye” storm). Shockingly, there is a remarkable shortage of SUVs, coal-burning plants or people at either of these locations. Likewise, when one looks at emission reductions, the United States is actually ahead of Europe, with an exception or two, when it comes to achieving the reductions mandated in the Kyoto treaty. Then again, Kyoto is a red herring, seeing as the last time it went to the Senate, it was unanimously rejected in a non-binding vote. Ergo, global warming, as much as some may pose, is not all that a partisan issue in the United States.”

    I don’t care if it is partisan issue in the US. I care if it is happening or not.

    Another take on the Mars thing:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

    From the Met Office link above:
    “The modelling study investigated the historic impact on the climate system of the combined effect of greenhouse gases, anthropogenic sulphate aerosol, lower atmosphere and stratospheric ozone and the effects of volcanoes and changes in the output of the sun. The study compared this with the climate change that would have been expected if only natural factors from volcanoes and changing solar output were important (Fig. 15).

    There is a much better agreement with the observed climate change in all six continents when anthropogenic factors are included. Warming observed in the last two decades can only be explained by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.

    The ‘optimal’ detection method shows there is a significant greenhouse gas warming signal in all of the continental regions we looked at: the Americas, Asia, Africa, Australia and Europe

    Temperature changes from other human activity and from natural factors are detected in some but not all of the continental areas, since these factors are weaker and more uncertain than the effects of greenhouse gas.

    Therefore, scientists have more confidence in attributing a man-made greenhouse gas component to continental-scale temperature changes than in attributing other factors. ”

    Are they guilty of liberal bias? Have you any actual evidence of your claims?

    The right wing is right about one thing: only technology can solve the problem ultimately. But it needs some sort of stick in orde to kick start it. Kind of like how everyone only moved to Unleaded when they taxes 4 Four Star to make it cheaper.

  • Maura

    Kensei wrote: , ‘I suggest they read Al Franken’s Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. His destruction of her arguments is hilarious. ‘

    He really does do a number on her ‘facts’.
    I find Ann Coulter to be a vile and ugly woman, in all ways ( I can’t believe someone on this blog actually referred to her as attractive, but well!) Miss Coulter has been around for a while, behind the scenes in the Paula Jones case, putting out false and vicious information so as to prevent a settlement of the case, a settlement which Jones and her lawyers had accepted.
    ( see ‘The Hunting of the President’, by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons)
    Also, she doesn’t seem to have a problem with the 9/11 widows who sat in the gallery in support of Bush during the State of the Union Address (2002, 2003,2004).
    I am not a fan of Paxman, but I thought he treated her with the contempt she deserves. I would have liked to have seen an in studio more in depth interview, I have read that when she is confronted in debate she simply lashes out on a personal level.

  • It’s also a sad day in Sluggerland when no one comments on the appropriate positioning of the play button.

    Breathe deeply, lads, remember to oxygenate.

  • esmereldavillalobos

    I said “alluring” actually – in a sort of klan outfit, night riding, burning crosses, Lady Godiva way. Sort of like Madonna in “Like A Prayer”. In the same way Sven Goran Eriksson is alluring to some. Maybe it’s just women on horseback, I dunno.

    I agree with everything else, Maura.

  • “The significant mass of the Republican Party in the USA are too liberal for Coulter; as such it’s hard to tell how popular her views are at all. ”

    Her book is Number One best seller. That’s a clue – Comrade.

    God but you have to spell it out for leftists. They like it simple, hence their devotion to the likes of lying Al Franken

  • Miss Fitz

    Smiling Jim
    I noticed it, but felt it wasnt my place to say!

  • Maura

    Forgot to add, Franken’s follow-up book ‘The Truth’, is a much better book, I highly recommend it.

  • Maura

    ‘God but you have to spell it out for leftists. They like it simple, hence their devotion to the likes of lying Al Franken ‘

    I must admit I do prefer simple truths to the contortions of the right wing. Thus, my distaste for Ann Coulter- A vile creature.

  • Maura
  • Maura

    Sorry, I should put all these blogs in one!
    A good alternative to read is ‘What’s the Matter with Kansas,’ by Thomas Frank. For those who may not like Franken’s style, Frank ‘strips the right wing hustle to its core.’ While not as obviously insulting to Republicans as Franken, Frank does a great job and in a humourous manner. One scene has the low paid Republican voting factory workers of Kansas, marching to the mansions of the factory owners, screaming ‘We are here to CUT your taxes.’ He shows how populism has been turned on is head; low income voters voting Republican on ‘moral issues’ while their own economic lot in life worsens constantly. Voting against their own interests.
    A Great Read!

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Kensei: “Which, any of the links above will tell you, have no liberal bias, and there certainly isn’t an out and out left wing version of Fox News. I hate to be such a whiny liberal, but any actual evidence? ”

    Right, a couple pundit’s books and a liberal think-tank. Can you follow the bouncing ball on this one, or are you *THAT* into the kool-aid?

    Kensei: “And I hate to point it out, but the right wing in the US won. Congress, Presiedent, Supreme Court. It’;s an attempt to paint yourself as the set upon underdogs ina world you control. Take some goddamn responsibility. ”

    Let us see… wildly increased education spending (NCLB), wildly increased entitlement spending (Medicare Part D) and an immigration plan that leaves the borders wide open… You’ve fallen for the notion that Republican = conservative and they are not the same. Just as Zell Miller was not the same as Diane Feinstein on the Democratic side, Republicans cover about the same range of beliefs. Neither party is the cartoonish monolith you want to paint.

    Kensei: “Basless opinion there, try not to slip into it. ”

    Actually, empirical fact — Air America’s ratings are in the toilet with no hint of coming out. There are some successful liberals in syndication, although nothing on the Limbaugh level. Check arbitron or one of the other ratings services. But, hey, don’t reality get in the way…

    Kensei: “So nothing proven and the original allegation is potentially libellous? And again, you’ve attacked the person and not his arguments against Coulter? What you are shouting at people for? What’s that sound? It’s the Hypocrisy Bell ringing!”

    Hardly. Checked your favorite source and yes, he did sign the documents, so no libel, sorry, thank you for playing. Likewise, being party to a fraudulent / illegal loan does call a body;s credibility into question, does it not?

    Kensei: “The right wing is right about one thing: only technology can solve the problem ultimately. But it needs some sort of stick in orde to kick start it. Kind of like how everyone only moved to Unleaded when they taxes 4 Four Star to make it cheaper. ”

    Already happening with the Asia / Pacific Rim agreement on technology (US, Australia, India, China and a few other nations) pooling resources and sharing cleaner technologies between the developed and the developing world.

  • German-American

    I’ll leave off commenting on Ann Coulter’s political opinions, but I can’t pass up discussing her views on the theory of evolution. Based on what I’ve read of Coulter’s arguments and the responses to them, Coulter is just recycling the classic pseudo-objections to the theory of evolution that have been put forth by creationists and now intelligent design advocates for decades– “evolution is nothing more than a theory”, “‘survival of the fittest’ is a tautology”, , “the moths were faked!”, and so on–and adding some cute new rhetorical twists of her own (e.g., “they say the whale ‘evolved’ when a bear fell into the ocean”).

    As Comrade Stalin wrote, people who agree with Coulter regarding evolution should please feel free to point out the “Marianus Trench sized holes” in the theory, and then we can compare them
    against the Talk.Origins index of creationist claims. I suspect that this list contains every argument that Coulter makes or would be likely to make, with the added bonus of providing detailed rebuttals of each one.

    Coulter and other anti-evolution advocates remind me of nothing so much as the Marxists who objected to capitalism on various grounds and generated reams of rhetoric about how capitalism was riven by internal contradictions both in theory and practice, and was going to imminently collapse. Well, capitalism is still here and the Marxists are either dead or irrelevant. Whether one happens to like capitalism or not, there’s little if any question that it’s been empirically validated in a way that communism was not.

    If anything the case for evolution is even stronger than the case for capitalism; there have been thousands of smart people working on the problem over the years, any of whom could have achieved lasting fame by finding solid evidence that contradicted the theory and held up under scrutiny. Thus far it hasn’t happened. If you’re interested in exploring why this is, feel free to check out “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution” or this broader list of references.)

    I find it quite amusing that self-identified conservatives who pride themselves on upholding reason and empiricism in economic matters (unlike those “fuzzy-headed socialists” they hold in such contempt) should be so quick to assume that a well-validated scientific theory is going to collapse like a house of cards when somebody like Coulter says “boo”.

  • “I’ll leave off commenting on Ann Coulter’s political opinions, but I can’t pass up discussing her views on the theory of evolution.”

    Pssst…. Hey Bud

    It’s a lawyer.

    Really, it’s that simple.

    Book deals, FOX “interviews”, yada yada yada …..

    Paddy Chayefsky died for you sins.

    Hint, Hint, Hint ……

  • Comrade Stalin

    Her book is Number One best seller. That’s a clue – Comrade. God but you have to spell it out for leftists. They like it simple, hence their devotion to the likes of lying Al Franken

    Not really David. I know you run away back to ATW whenever anything that looks like a debate approaches, but perhaps you could comment on the sales of Michael Moore’s books or attendance at his movie to be indicitive of opinion in the US ? Apologies if this is too much work for you.

  • peter

    Whatever your opinion of her whether you love or hate her I’m sure that, like me, you can’t wait to see how South Park do her.

  • Jo

    Good one, Peter – and true!

  • kensei

    “Right, a couple pundit’s books and a liberal think-tank. Can you follow the bouncing ball on this one, or are you *THAT* into the kool-aid?”

    Pundits books with scientific studies. That I found in 3 seconds searching on the internet. Which is more evidence than has been presented FOR liberal bias in US media, or have I missed something?

    “Let us see… wildly increased education spending (NCLB), wildly increased entitlement spending (Medicare Part D) and an immigration plan that leaves the borders wide open… You’ve fallen for the notion that Republican = conservative and they are not the same. Just as Zell Miller was not the same as Diane Feinstein on the Democratic side, Republicans cover about the same range of beliefs. Neither party is the cartoonish monolith you want to paint.”

    I paint neither party as anything. While Bush’s Conservative credentials may be weaker on the economic side (though, only in a fiscal resposniblity sense, as you gleeful ignore his tax cuts), he is unquestionably a social conservative, and self proclaimed. No one could seriously make the argument of Bush being a liberal without being somewhere to the right of the BNP.

    Same red herring, same answer: there is a Conservative Ascendency in the US, and you need ot take responsibility.

    “Actually, empirical fact—Air America’s ratings are in the toilet with no hint of coming out.”

    No, the fact that Left Wing Radio doesn’t work on a national level is baseless speculation.

    “There are some successful liberals in syndication, although nothing on the Limbaugh level. Check arbitron or one of the other ratings services. But, hey, don’t reality get in the way…”

    So, some successful liberals exist on syndicated radio, so I’m right? Taa…

    “Hardly. Checked your favorite source and yes, he did sign the documents, so no libel, sorry, thank you for playing.”

    The original allegation was unqualified and therefore libeelous?

    “Likewise, being party to a fraudulent / illegal loan does call a body;s credibility into question, does it not?”

    Which would matter if you didn’t have evidence to back yourself up and your book wasn’t (openly) written mainly by researchers.

    “Already happening with the Asia / Pacific Rim agreement on technology (US, Australia, India, China and a few other nations) pooling resources and sharing cleaner technologies between the developed and the developing world.”

    That’s not a stick. To tackle CO2 emissions you need a serious stick. The kind of stick that the Oil Shocks produced. That’s what would really focus business on cutting CO2. the rest is useful, but mainly window dressing.

  • Rory

    Harry Flashman gleefully predicts the growing (for want of a better word) Coulterisation of us all soon (“..this phenomenon will cross the Atlantic – and not a moment too soon”).

    This might seem a gloomy prognosis for some of us but then I was cheered at the thought that we could, perhaps, shortly look forward to – The Ballymena Monkey Trial!- which should brighten things up considerably and do no end of good for the tourist industry.

  • Stephen Copeland

    Actually Rory, I was thinking that Coulterisation had already crossed the Atlantic, but long ago and in the other direction. Coulter is, of course, a well-known ‘Ulster Prod’ name, so maybe her ancestors were from here. Certainly her attitudes and rigidly right-wing beliefs are consistent with an ‘Ulster Prod’ background.

  • Rory

    Yes, the thought had occurred, Stepen Copeland, but I was much too shy to utter it.

    Auberon Waugh maintained that the Brethren indeed left Plymouth on the Mayflower because of religious intolerance – the good people of England could no longer tolerate their mad puritanical ranting and told them to “piss off!”.

  • micktvd

    Just a thing on the supposed liberal bias in the mainstream media.

    Chomsky and Herman in ‘Manufacturing Consent’ provide a social scientific model for pro-business and’right wing’ media bias based on a set of criteria that include things like massive ownership by major corporations, the power of advertiser interest, flak from establishment institutions, the filtering out of ‘the wrong kind of journalists,etc. They then use this model to predict media behaviour, and provide convincing evidence for their theory based on a wide range of historical events.(comparing differential media treatment of similar events such as invasions and massacres).

    If we compare public opinion on the eve of the invasion of Iraq to media opinion we find that the media was strongly supporting the WMD fabrications and assorted scaremongering almost without exception in The US, Britain and Australia, whereas public opinion was either split or against. This provides further confirmation of the Chomsky/Herman theory.

    There is certainly no liberal hegenomy when it comes to the core interests of the power elites (an example would be the the strong media belief that the IMF or World Bank are there to help developing countries) But we can watch uncensored television, film and theatre- we have made crude forms of racism, sexism, and homophbia much less acceptable etc. etc. We have reined in the grosser militarism of our own countries (hence the first time in history where people massively protested against a war before it started).

    This explanation is for you smilin’ Jim. 🙂

  • German-American

    It’s a lawyer. Really, it’s that simple. Book deals, FOX “interviews”, yada yada yada …..

    Yes, I know there’s a perfectly good explanation for Coulter’s views. (I like Andrew Sullivan’s “post-modern performance artist” explanation as well.) However when I see someone like Mick Fealty appear to waver (“I thought her remarks on Darwinism were interesting…”) I feel a sacred duty to intervene.

  • andy

    Rory
    Actually I heard the religous tolerance was the other way – they thought the Population of Engalnd was too tolerant – Particularly towards Catholics.

    I haven’t seen documentary evidence of this but the guy who told me is normally reliable (and a bit of a self-styled enemy of the Church of Rome….)

    Regards
    Andy

  • Mick Fealty

    G-A,

    Relax. ‘Interesting’, in the sense that they should have been pursued. Paxo got stuck on first base, partly because (I think) he assumed his pre-set questions were ‘killer’ in their own right.

    This, IMHO, was a classic case of playing the (wo)man, and not chasing the ball.

  • Rory

    Yes, Andy. That fits with the point Waugh was making that the religious intolerance that they say caused them to flee England was in fact their very own intolerance which their more easy going neighbours were no longer prepared to put up with. They fled to America to build their very own little colony structured on religious intolerance. Fortunately, inspired by Tom Paine and Enlightenment rationalism, Franklin and Jefferson and others rather spoilt their game plan but not before they had caused a lot of human misery as their descendants would yet do today and not only in the USA. That is if we let them get away with it.

  • “This, IMHO, was a classic case of playing the (wo)man, and not chasing the ball.”

    Dammit Fealty, you loused up a perfectly good joke setup where the punchline is

    “but this man has no balls”

    Party pooper.

  • Stephen and Rory,

    Re: Coulterization

    It’s the other way round, lads, old Europe has had it’s way with young America.

    Ann Coulter is Kevin Myers in drag.

    The arguments are carefully contrived to inflame and titillate, uniquely designed to create notoriety for the author and not the argument.

    It is self promotion by rant, a Myers trademark.

  • CJ

    That was absolutely brilliant, thank you Slugger.

  • Harry Flashman

    German American (and Comrade Stalin)

    I followed your links and mostly they knock down straw men regarding who was or was not a creationist, as I am not a creationist this was of no interest to me.

    However on the points where there are socking great gaps in the middle of evolutionary thoerists’ main claims the riposte seems to be “…er, well, we can’t be expected to know everything now can we…” so I’d need something more to help me fill in the huge holes.

    For example we are told that the hugely complex life organisms that exist today all started evolving from basic one celled creatures a hundred million years ago or so (the exact number of years is not relevant to my point) to reach the highly developed state of planetary life that now exists.

    However after we (ie all life now on this planet) started evolving, the process appears to have stopped, why did the single cells of ninety nine million years ago not start evolving? Or ninety seven million years ago or so on to one million years ago? Why are there not a huge range of semi-evolved creatures all some distance behind the marvellously developed creatures that exist today, all coming along in their evolutionary journey, just having started later? There aren’t any.

    If survival of the fittest means the best adapted survive and the less well adapted die off not only should there be billions of fossils of these “failed prototypes” out there, but also given that many of these creatures should have begun their evolutionary journey tens of millions of years after we started, then they should all still be here among us and we could actually see and touch the creatures that started evolving later than we did.

    In just the same way as there are millions of people of all ages on the earth all of whom started their development (ie were born) at different times -lots of new born infants and adolescents and geriatrics- so there should be millions of species who are at different stages of their evolutionary journey now, you know; proto-camels, not quite evolved yet sharks, nearly-elephants, all of whom started the evolutionary process millions of years after the fully developed species that exist today, there aren’t any.

    Instead all we have is fully developed animal species all around us and we have never discovered evidence of “failed species”, even though if you follow the logic of “survival of the fittest” then logically for every successful, developed species there should be billions of ones which didn’t work out so well, there aren’t any.

    Even the dinosaurs which died out were all fully developed; brontosaurus and tyrannosaurus fossils all show fully developed species that died out but no half developed, failed prototypes, even though as I stated, there should according to the logic of “survival of the fittest” be gazillions of examples of the “weaker” designs which did not quite make it, there are none.

    To give a semi-facile example to show up my point. In the depths of the deepest ocean there is a species of fish, the angler fish, it catches its prey by means of a lumescent “lure” that dangles in front of its mouth to attract little fish for it to eat. Now according to the theory of “survival of the fittest” this magnificent creature just evolved. Along the way its ancestors just happened to evolve this glowing lamp bulb in front of its mouth, pure chance you understand. It could have developed this bulb on its backside, or it could have developed a filing cabinet in front of its mouth instead of a glowing lamp.

    In fact according to evolution this may indeed be what did happen to the weaker species, that’s why they all died out leaving this fantastically developed fish as the winner. Wow, a bit of a stretch don’t you think? Furthermore given the sheer scale of “failed designs” that there must have been to come up with this marvellous lamp bulb effect entirely by chance then there must be trillions and trillions of fossils of the failed “filing cabinet” fish, I have to say I’ve never seen them have you?

    No, evolution clearly works within species, hence Darwin’s Galapagos finches with their different beaks for their different island habitats but to suggest that the phenomenally developed finches and tortoises and humans and bears and cockroaches which live today just came about by accident after millions of years of trial and error really doesn’t add up. I admit evolution as a theory beats a six day creation effort by the supreme being, but I’m afraid the evolution boys are going to have to be a little more honest about the flaws in their arguments.

  • German-American

    Why are there not a huge range of semi-evolved creatures all some distance behind the marvellously developed creatures that exist today, all coming along in their evolutionary journey, just having started later? There aren’t any.

    Harry’s argument seems to be a combination of claims CB805 and CB925: if evolution were true “we should see a continuum of organisms” and we should see “creatures in various stages of completion”. Since this is not the case (so the argument goes) evolution must be false. Harry has added to CB805 and CB925 the minor twist that such hypothesized intermediate creatures “started later” and thus should be considered “semi-evolved”.

    (Note for those following along at home: This argument is related to the claim based on Genesis that God created distinct “kinds” of plants and animals in separate acts of special creation. Evolution contradicts this Bible-based claim by asserting that new species can evolve from pre-existing species. Creationists and other anti-evolution advocates can accept the claim that variation can occur and evolve within species–”evolution clearly works within species”, as Harry puts it–but not the claim that new species can evolve; the shorthand for this argument is “microevolution yes, macroevolution no”.)

    The key counterargument to all of this is given in the CB805 reference above: “Intermediates are competitive only so long as specialists are absent; so when specialists evolve, the intermediates are likely to become extinct.” (Or, alternatively, the “semi-evolved” species would never get “off the ground” in the first place.)

    To use one of Harry’s examples, suppose there indeed happened to be lots of different species of “proto-camels” around, along with the supposedly fully-evolved “real” camels. The “proto-camels” would presumably differ from actual camels in certain respects; in particular, they might not be able to store water in their bodies as well as real camels. To the extent that that were true, proto-camels would not be as suited to the particular ecological niche occupied by camels (e.g., living in deserts and other arid environments, eating plants, etc.), they would be less successful than “real” camels in surviving and reproducing in that environment, and over time such “proto-camel” species would become extinct, assuming the environment didn’t markedly change.

    So we don’t in fact see “proto-camels” living in deserts today, but we do see fossils of past camel-like species in areas that were deserts or semi-deserts in the past. (The talk.origins site has some references to extinct camel-like species as part of a general discussion of transitional vertebrate fossils.)

    Another part of Harry’s argument is that it’s absurd to think that today’s species “just came about by accident after millions of years of trial and error”. (This is similar to claim CB940.) It would indeed be absurd to think this, but in fact that’s not what biologists claim. The claim instead is that organisms are constrained in their possible body plans, etc., by virtue of how they develop from embryos to grown organisms, and that evolution and natural selection work in large part by changes to genetic mechanisms regulating that development, followed by natural selection based on the adaptive value of any body changes resulting from those changes. (The technical term for this is evolutionary developmental biology or “evo-devo”.)

    Evo-devo also addresses Harry’s point about the “filing cabinet” fish, i.e., the idea that evolution being completely random could have and should have produced a fish with “a bulb on its backside, or … a filing cabinet in front of its mouth”. Fish with bulbs on their backsides are certainly possible to imagine; however such a bulb would have limited value to the fish compared to a bulb near its mouth (which could and does act as a lure), and we would’t expect such a feature to be selected for and thus evolve. On the other hand the changes to a fish’s developmental mechanisms needed to produce a filing cabinet in front of its mouth are quite extreme and would hence have an extremely low probability of happening, regardless of whether having a filing cabinet in front of its mouth would be of any value to a fish or not.

  • But we can watch uncensored television,……
    ………..
    This explanation is for you smilin’ Jim. :)”

    Orwell Rolls In His Grave has a neat clip in which a Fox producer reveals all….to paraphrase him, If it isn’t reported, it didn’t happen.

    The Stephen Colbert roast of Bush was totally unreported for days after it happened. The only reason that it came to surface in the Washington Post was because they commented on the blog activity after the broadcast. If it isn’t reported, it didn’t happen.

    Disney initially blocked Miramax from distributing Fahrenheit 911 (no I haven’t seen it, it would just piss me off). It was not seen on network TV and not even on subscription media like DirecTV until well after the election. If it isn’t shown, it never happened.

    All the financial analysts on the street, all the investment banks, Christ everyone, saw Enron as a magic money machine that could do no wrong. Nothing was printed, Fastow & Skilling were both feckin’ geniuses ——-> until a mere slip of a girl wondered where the money was coming from. For YEARS up until then all the big guns, the financial elite, were dead silent, even when the then sixth largest economy in the world was suffering rolling blackouts at the hands of the Enron traders. God damndest case of participatory censorship I ever saw.

    They gotcha cold. It’s over.

    We have reined in the grosser militarism of our own countries (hence the first time in history where people massively protested against a war before it started).

    Jean Jaurez mobilized thousands in war protest during the string of Balkan Crises on the eve of WWI. He was on his way to do the same thing during the mobilization of August 1914 when he was assassinated by a French patriotic good ole’ boy . That was all before WWI. It was also nearly a hundred years ago.

    My glass may be half empty but yours is spiked, Bubba. It would be polite if you shared.

    I’ll take a double, neat, no ice, please.

  • Puzzled Jackeen

    For a moment I misread German-Americans’ phrase “Coulter and other anti-evolution advocates” as “Coulter and other anti-evolution addicts”. Scarily, it made just as much sense…