All over the blogs, differing views on who won.
I’m trying to imagine a John Pilger or Robert Fisk getting such an introduction.
“Ann Coulter, whose right-wing rants …” Paxo opened. Discussing her new book, of which he’d read one chapter, “Coulter argues – if that’s the right word …” then his first question, “I’ve read it (chapter 1) – does it get any better ?”
Paxman then asked “You also believe there is some sort of liberal hegemony in the media, do you ? … I just don’t see how this argument stacks up.”.
“No, you’re right – with the warm introduction like you just gave me – no – no liberal hegemony there …”
You would almost have thought he was blushing at that point. Make up your own mind – the video is at Youtube.
“She uses the term raghead. Therefore she is a racist. Therefore she can be dismissed and is a nutjob.”
which is a fair point.
resorting to rabble rousing language is usually a measure of brain capacity – the more you use “raghead” or “nigger” or “Zionists”, then the more dumb you are.
think there’s an inverse square law waiting to be discovered there.
Gordon: “Why not accept that she is intelligent and articulate but you cannot agree with her?”
Intelligent, well possibly, (although as someone mentions earlier, is she not a Creationist?) intelligence comes in many forms they say, but articulate? No sir, definitely not. Ranting is not articulation. A true sign of an articulate orator would be someone who could provoke thought through logical reasoning and set out their argument in clear and concise manner, using racial slurs is neither. Archduke sums up much of my other thoughts on this.
There are many ‘PC Lefties’ of whom I feel much the same. I realise that earlier I did use the inflammatory term ‘nutjob’ but just to get my self out of jail, I hope, I imagine this would be described as private discourse (albeit in a public environment), if I were to call Coulter a ‘nutjob’ on television for example that would be a different matter. Which brings me back to the Paxman interview, I must confess I haven’t watched it yet (Youtube is blocked out by our work computers) but I will watch it later on my own computer with great interest.
archduke | Homepage | 27.06.06 – 2:00 pm
which is a fair point.
The point I’m making is that “racist” is used dismissively so that you dont have to address the argument. Take the treatment of Enoch Powell as an example.
Even a racist (and I dont think Coulter is) can talk sense when not talking about race.
Anyway, is the use of racial epithets racism?
What about Chris Rock, who divides African-Americans into blacks (=good, lawful) and niggers (=criminals, who give blacks a bad name).
theghostofredken | Homepage | 27.06.06 – 2:58 pm
She’s not a creationist.
Perhaps you should read her columns. I think you might find that she is witty and incisive in print.
As I have said before, when she is on tv, being interviewed by the standard left wing bigots, she rarely gets to finish a sentence, never mind a paragraph, without interruption and can therefore appear to be strident as she fights back – which she has to do.
Here’s a link to her website:
http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
As I have said before, when she is on tv, being interviewed by the standard left wing bigots, she rarely gets to finish a sentence, never mind a paragraph, without interruption and can therefore appear to be strident as she fights back – which she has to do.
Whilst her arguments are usually valid, and she isn’t the rabid notcase some on the left make her out as being she has the same flaw as people like Michael Moore have taking it that one stage too far. An example is her attack on those 9/11 widows. Her argument that they are using what happened to their husbands as a way of blocking criticism is important, her name calling only detracts from that.
Gordon,
I had a quick look as Coulter’s website (I’d seen it before though), I got as far as:
“Second, let’s pause for a moment to observe that two facts are now universally accepted: Liberals are godless and Hillary’s husband is a rapist”
Ahh, reasonable, rational argument…no wonder Paxman didn’t get let her get a word in, if he had she’d probably have chewed his ear off and spat down the hole. ‘Rabid’ is the word that comes to mind.
theghostofredken | Homepage | 27.06.06 – 3:51 pm
If your attention span had allowed, you would have read on to where she justifies those remarks.
She did grab your attention though, didn’t she, and you will be wondering for the rest of your life if bill really is/was a rapist.
Ralph | Homepage | 27.06.06 – 3:39 pm
Her argument that they are using what happened to their husbands as a way of blocking criticism is important, her name calling only detracts from that.
The trouble with the name calling is it gives the slimy people a chance to argue about the name calling and not the point, so I agree with you to that extent.
However, giving a descriptive name is useful, like jargon, in that you identify the topic quickly without having to repeat all the background info.
And why is Coulter in particular pulled up on name calling? They all do it. Just think of the abuse heaped on Bush for no good reason. He has been called stupid from the start but this is a man capable of being a jet pilot and who did better at Harvard than John Kerry. Is this yet another case where the left get away with it but the right are held to higher standards?
“Is this yet another case where the left get away with it but the right are held to higher standards?”
We should be hold ourselves to higher standards than the left BECAUSE we are better people.
Liberals are godless and Hillary’s husband is a rapist”
She missed out on the Wellesley problem for Hillary – that her husband likes women and so does she
the ghostoffredken writes:
“Ahh, reasonable, rational argument…no wonder Paxman didn’t get let her get a word in, if he had she’d probably have chewed his ear off and spat down the hole. ‘Rabid’ is the word that comes to mind.”
This is Biased-BBC. The issue is not whether you can stomach Ms Coulter’s invective, but whether it is right for the BBC (which openly lionises equally extreme figures from the Left) to treat her any differently from those of whom it, and the rest of the liberal media elite, approves.
Just as an aside, why do I keep seeing the assumption that being a creationist means that someone is, shall we say, less than spectacular in the brains department?
Having said this, I expect I’ll start a whole new argument, but the truth is Darwin was a christian. He had expected his ideas to be fully embraced by the church at large, but there was some historical reaction by christians to the idea of spontaneous generation about half a century earlier, to which they responded with the “nothing can change” dogma. It kind of got in the way of acceptance of evolutionary theory. The idea of evolutionary change is entirely compatible with christianity.
These days I wouldn’t be surprised if people like Coulter adopt a creationist stance purely to rile up lefties like Paxman…
Archonix: I like Ann Coulter but I’m not sure if she’s really a creationist. The question one has to ask oneself: How much of what she says is actually wrong? I’m not surprised that even Archduke – who I consider to be conservative – isn’t a fan of Ann Coulter but you have to remember that the American liberal (aka left-wing) media is equally as unhinged as the Beeb, the Grauniad, the Indy and so on. And generally American conservatives are still conservative in the truest sense, not in the David Cameron ‘NuCon’ sense.
Can I get the copyright on ‘NuCon’?
What I meant to say is: The divide in the US is greater (in political terms) than in the UK because ‘NuCon’ = ‘NuLab’ = ‘LibDim’ – that’s what I believe to be the case. Correct me if I’m wrong.
I think youre right Joerg.
Cheers, SiN. Can I get the copyright and earn money now? 😉
And why is Coulter in particular pulled up on name calling? They all do it.
The ‘they do it too’ is the sort of argument kids, and New Labour use.
Ralph | Homepage | 28.06.06 – 9:43 am
What’s that supposed to mean?
Gordon: “The issue is not whether you can stomach Ms Coulter’s invective, but whether it is right for the BBC (which openly lionises equally extreme figures from the Left) to treat her any differently from those of whom it, and the rest of the liberal media elite, approves.”
Having now watched the interview with Paxo I’m not sure that he did treat her any differently to anyone else.If you take the opening gambit away he let her have pretty free reign and was no more spikey/smug/condescending than he is with anyone else. The biggest problem was that he seemed incredulous to her very existence and she seemed incredulous that he was incredulous, if that makes sense. I don’t think either of them came out of it well.
Re: Coulter’s invective,
What Coulter did say wasn’t particularly interesting or insightful. Blabbing on about ‘liberal indoctrination’ in schools and then qualifying that by mentioning Darwinism (the classic route 1 right-wing fundamentalist Christian argument). As soon as anyone mentions Darwinism as point of contention you automatically know that what they really mean is:
“Darwinism isn’t compatible with my view of Christianity”, not as Coulter and many others have implied, that it’s leftist liberal propaganda. Yes, there are flaws in Darwin (yawn, yawn), but the same can be said for Newton, yet the far right don’t get all tetchy about that! (I’m still waiting for the gravity doesn’t exist theory: ‘it’s god holding you down by your bootlaces’). Paxman could have said far worse than asking her to ‘provide an alternative’, I thinking he would have totally entitled to attack her on the dishonesty of such reasoning, but I don’t think he could be bothered (lets get the nutter off quickly as possible, his eyes seemed to say…).
Ann Coulter is fun but bonkers – she deserved everything Paxman said. She came over really rather well anyway.
ALex Singleton writes:
” Ann Coulter is fun but bonkers – she deserved everything Paxman said. She came over really rather well anyway.”
As I said to ‘theghostofredken’ (who still doesn’t seem to get the point) the issue is whether it is right and proper for the BBC to give her aggressive treatment because its presenters disagree with her views – particularly on the very same programme that regularly gives Leftist moonbats an easy ride.
The day Newsnight tackles Harold Pinter (a recent example) or Abdul Bari Atwan in the same manner, then it may be fair. Until then it isn’t – fully justifying Ms Coulter’s charge of hegemony.
“…the issue is whether it is right and proper for the BBC to give her aggressive treatment because its presenters disagree with her views”
Didn’t I say in the above that Paxo wasn’t aggressive? Certainly non-more so than normal, in fact less than normal, opening tirade aside.
theghostofredken writes:
”
Didn’t I say in the above that Paxo wasn’t aggressive? Certainly non-more so than normal, in fact less than normal, opening tirade aside.”
You did say it. And I think you are very wrong. Paxman can be quite chummy when one of his pals is the subject.
He gave Ms Coulter a medium-high grilling. Not up to Michael Howard temperatures, perhaps, but a damned site hotter than he gives the usual drab procession of eco-freaks and Lib-Dems.
Gordon Bennett: “Moore is a deliberate liar, Coulter tells the truth.”
If you say so.
Back on topic:
The worst treatment I’ve seen from Paxo was when he had the Muslim guy on who wouldn’t shut up. Does this therefore prove that the BBC is anti-Islamic?
Just seen the YouTube clip (I don’t own a TV these days for obvious reasons). What struck me in the intro was Paxo’s revelation that Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams is actually a terrorist! Just imagine, a legitimate democratic politician, himself no stranger to Newsnight, was a terrorist all this time, and nobody knew {ROFL}. Decades of carefully-maintained BBC doublethink just seemed to fly out the window because Paxo needed to find an example of a terrorist who is not a Muslim. At this rate it will only be another 30 years before the Beeb admits to knowing its famous ‘militants’, ‘moderates’ and ‘campaigners’ were terrorists all along.
SturdyBeggar,
I like that observation. So true.
Why should Ann Coulter be denied her free speech by people who think the term “raghead” is racist? It is certainly derisory, and intended to be so, but racist? Racist how?
I don’t like the vitriolic hatred spewed at this individual who speaks her mind in an articulate and amusing manner. I argued her case over on 5th November (Guido’s blog for those whose memory has been obscured by an encounter with reality) and every commenter who called her a sensationalist, over-the-top attention-seeker was a man who would not be able to cope with an Ann Coulter sitting across a dinner table from him.
Ann Coulter bested Jeremy Paxman, coolly. She told him not to keep asking the same question (“Do you really believe….” frightfully English, superior splutter “…?” and she told him not to keep asking the question because, she assured him, the answer would be the same every time: yes.
No cringing. No apologetic, “Well, it’s just that I really believe …”. Nothing. Just a “Don’t keep trying to jump a wall that’s too high for you, you stupid dog.” (My words, but her effect.)
For those who like her, read her columns, which are perceptive, funny and devastating. For those who say, “Well over here we don’t go for such strong words …” …
… what a bloody sad admission! Where did robust, unafraid British self-expression go? I’m afraid, unless it’s an “alternative comedian” a crass, ignorant TV interviewer along the lines of Jonathan Woss, or a state-funded film-maker “pushing the boundaries”, it went West. To America.
Coulter’s schtick is old. It’s always about her in the end. I’d always seen her as the American Julie Birchill. Malkin’s smarter.
Christopher Davis | 06.07.06 – 9:59 pm
Coulter’s schtick is old.
So it’s more important to you that commentators are fashionable rather than consistent over a period of time?
She’s obviously wasted on you.
I wasn’t referring to fashion, just the predictability of it. For instance, her knee-jerk advocacy of The Passion of the Christ, whereas Charles Krauthammer saw the anti-Semitic implications clearly. And I do like Coulter’s line about teachers being more likely to be child molesters than priests, though I haven’t the heart to check her facts.