Paxman really fluffed that one. He obviously didn't/couldn't grasp the fact that the American right wing is unashamedly right wing, whereas our own are so embarrassed at the fact that even being called Conservative puts them instantly on the defensive. Dave C is a prime example of that fact, a non-tory tory.
Asking Coulter "if you really believe what you say" again and again is pointless with a true believer. Imagine if he'd got a Muslim Imam or a Bishop up there and started asking them if they really believed this Jesus bloke did all that bollocks.
It would be nice if for once the BBC could try to put a positive take on right wing issues or at least go along with them without automatic dissmissal, and although I find Coulter's arguments idiotic, and her manner abrasive, it's pretty obvious that the BBC couldn't accord it even the slightest bit of credibility from their left wing bias.
Paxman's questions were weak. Whislt it can be hard to have a proper argument (debating using facts and comparing the merits of competing theories) against someone who has staunch beliefs in such complete nonsense, he should have made a better fist of it than he did.
She's a loon. Absolutely certifiable.
June 21, 2006 at 6:14 PM
Anonymous
said...
She certainly did best Paxman and it was a pleasure to watch. How foolish he sounded when he kept asking her if she believed what she had written and believed what she said, giving her a fine opportunity to keep slapping him down. He was like a dog trying again and again to jump over a wall that is obviously too high for it, and allows, again and again, the cat sitting smugly on the wall, knowing it can't be touched, to scratch him his nose on each jump.
She was far more articulate than he is and her thoughts were better organised whereas he was on cruise control - "right-winger; embarrass her to death; smugly mention 'over here' as your trump point, as though the British hard left has been appointed moral guardian of the universe". He looked like the bullying smart, overweening, smartass socialist that he is.
Anonymousette
June 21, 2006 at 6:19 PM
Anonymous
said...
Put her on the A-List !
June 21, 2006 at 6:20 PM
Anonymous
said...
definitely something about him... sorry I mean her.
June 21, 2006 at 6:21 PM
Anonymous
said...
Sells a lot of books though. Hence all the fear and envy from the left wing on here today.
June 21, 2006 at 6:21 PM
Anonymous
said...
He came across badly because he can't conceive that there might be an alternative to the increasingly smug, dominant, secular liberalism that the metropolitan classes love.
She came across well because she exposed the aggressive emptiness of his questioning ("Of course I believe it...I wrote it!" sort of reply to dumb questions like "do you believe it?" Paxman exposes the true cynicism of the media class here in assuming people never write what they believe!).
She was great - get her over to argue against animal rights terrorists, smoking ban fascists and secular desperation!!
If her books upset the left that much then they must be worth buying. She reminds me of that woman from Grantham who people derided so much for her house wife economics.
June 21, 2006 at 6:55 PM
Anonymous
said...
She's right about people using tragedies like 9/11 to advance their own agenda. It's difficult to argue against them since it's seen as disrespectful yet it obstructs reasoned debate.
June 21, 2006 at 6:55 PM
Anonymous
said...
Cool cutie!!
June 21, 2006 at 7:00 PM
Anonymous
said...
What happened to the hard hitting Paxman we had last year?
Oh yea dw, we have the republicans over here, we just call half of them UKIP and the other half BNP.
"...people using tragedies like 9/11 to advance their own agenda..."
I guess its alright when that agenda is invading Iraq. Or maybe some people can dish it out but can't take it.
June 21, 2006 at 7:20 PM
Anonymous
said...
Have any of you read any of Coulter's columns? She is crude and dangerous and, in her books, an out-and-out plagiarist.
June 21, 2006 at 7:25 PM
Anonymous
said...
david chappell - I think most,not all, of her arguments are well-reasoned. I always enjoy watching her because she is so quick on her feet - she made Paxman look like a lumbering old dog, after all - and, although it didn't show up so much in this interview, she is also very witty.
Tom says: " ...people like Coulter, who are so far from traditional British conservatism that they can't see it with a powerful telescope?" This is now known as the Paxman Error - the assumption that the British decide for the planet what is conservatism - as in his sneering "over here". Tens of millions would disagree with Paxman and David Cameron on the definition of Conservative. And Ann Coulter doesn't seem to be unduly disturbed by "over here".
She coped well with Paxman. On the other hand, her agenda is clearly just to shock and get famous rather than to argue a point of view coherently. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't leave much for an interviewer to get to grips with.
Like Michael Moore, her views are so dumb and she is so cynical that I suspect she'll do more damage to her own side in the long run.
An easy points victory for the mad American women and that doesn't happen that often.
June 21, 2006 at 8:52 PM
Anonymous
said...
i) where's the fire? I can't see how anyone can spin this as a victory for her over him. ii) Coulter, like Michael Moore, is just a comedian who ramps up the message for shock value. Anyone who reads more into either of them wants their head examining. Correctness doesn't increase with every decibel.
June 21, 2006 at 8:59 PM
Anonymous
said...
Why does it always happen that so many men become distressed when a woman out-argues a man?
Face it: Paxman lost. He couldn't think what to say, except to re-iterate, "Do you believe what you write?", and she eventually she had recourse to advising him not to keep repeating the question because the answer would remain the same.
Becoming apopletic because someone disagrees with one is infantile. He was pissed off that he'd met a Conservative who wouldn't become pliant or apologetic when he sneered. She clearly had no interest in his opinions. Indeed, she was dismissive, because he holds the socialist opinions that she deplores and believes are dangerous to society - as the evidence shows in Britain.
Further, it is almost always men on the left who cannot bear to see a man bested by a woman in an argument. Conservative men seem to take it in their stride without going into emotional meltdown.
She's right about people using tragedies like 9/11 to advance their own agenda. It's difficult to argue against them since it's seen as disrespectful yet it obstructs reasoned debate.
No, it's not at all difficult to rant against anyone by using those arguments. What is difficult for me to comprehend is the way this somewhat immature woman uses her rather vague concept of 'sexuality' in the belief that it is some kind of blowtorch she can use to force her opinion through any argument. Her somewhat childish quote that she is “emboldened by my looks to say things that Republican men wouldn’t” does tend to bear this out in my opinion.
Nevertheless such people as Ann Coulter eventually do find their niche and Ms Coulter has been enjoying an extended 15 minutes of fame ever since 9/11, with her continuous rants against Muslims as “ragheads”, “camel jockeys” and “jihad monkeys” and her advocating "raghead-free air travel" which to me belies her entire argument against the 'NJ Widows' summed up in her statement that, “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much”.
Not a very pleasant woman in my view and I must confess I find it rather bizarre that she alternates her rants against anyone with views differing to her own with these desperate pleas for any single man to come forth. The woman ain't right in the head.
June 21, 2006 at 9:29 PM
Anonymous
said...
That's it! She argues strongly against your own cherished "liberal" point of view! She must be crazy!
- Anonymousette
June 21, 2006 at 9:44 PM
Anonymous
said...
i'm with nonymouse on this one. to me someone like livingstone is much more of a raving dingbat than anne coulter.they call it the loony left for a reason you know.
Anonymous (one of the many...) - Do you really believe that Paxman is a 'man of the left'? Like Livingstone? Michael Foot? Mark Steel?
Or are you so far to the right that, say, Ming Campbell looks like a dangerous revolutionary?
June 21, 2006 at 10:17 PM
Anonymous
said...
Marvelous. The paranoid style at last has its Leni Riefenstahl. And I agree with her about Darwin. Paxo, left practically speechless, has no excuse.
I wager, though, that in all his broadcasting career the Wood Lane godzilla been never been confronted by self-belief so armadillo-like in its impenetrability. And, what's worse (would have thrown Mr P, this) in female form.
This woman makes Hazel Blears look like a blushing maiden; crafty Ken, whose bomb-proof studio confidence comes courtesy of his mum, would seem by comparison an interviewee raddled with self-doubt.
Gun-totin' Annie has all the appearance of someone whose parents brought her up to believe that Coulter IS Culture. That, or she's spent an awful lot hypnotising herself in Anthony Robbins self-improvement courses. Either way: spooky.
Riefenstahl? That would be an insult to aesthetics. Carnivore redneck hubris has finally found, rather, its Heather Mills McCartney. (The facial similarity is also, well . . . spooky.)
If this uber hack, in all her cheesy sesame-bun barbarity, truly characterises what the planet & most of life upon it is now up against, then God help us all.
The neo-con Kali de nos jours.
June 21, 2006 at 10:26 PM
Anonymous
said...
yes i'm as far to the right as you want me to be if that makes you feel better.ming campbell doesn't look like a dangerous revolutionary he looks like my grandad.and paxman made it clear where he stands and that goes for the beeb in general.
June 21, 2006 at 10:33 PM
Anonymous
said...
And George Galloway, and all those Stepford wives in the cabinet and the ever more imperial and grand Tony Blair. And Polly Toynbee and Jackie Ashley. And Matt Frei and Orla Guerrin and Andrew Marr. And Clare Short. I am confident that readers can name a dozen more off the top of their own heads.
What Ann Coulter has going against her, other than being on the right, is, she's attractive, quick witted and is skilled at debate. She shoots to kill. How infuriating! All the left can do is purport to be shocked, horrified and concerned for her mental health - because they cannot answer her arguments.
The Squid - if you were addressing me, yes, I am right of centre and I stand my ground.
Footnote hooligan - most of your rant was rather silly, but the "Kali des nos jours was rather good"! Ann Coulter and Heather McCartney both have long blonde hair. I cannot see a single other similarity. Coulter is highly educated and highly articulate and funny.
Anonymousette
June 21, 2006 at 10:44 PM
Anonymous
said...
You're all just jealous because Coulter commands a level of readership, attention and credibility that you can only aspire to. And she's rather attractive too.
June 21, 2006 at 10:45 PM
Anonymous
said...
Footnote Hooligan - What is "cheesy sesame-bun barbarity"? Is this what you imagine Americans like Anne Coulter eat? You've been watching too much Matt Frei.
If you really like her you could always buy her talking action figure!
June 21, 2006 at 10:48 PM
Anonymous
said...
Matt, further to the post above and to respond you, you are correct: being the No 1 on the NY Times Bestseller List would indicate that she does command a large readership and a lot of money. She also has a television show. American TV not being paid for by unwilling licence payers, if her programme didn't attract advertisers, she wouldn't be on the air. So yes, she commands attention and she is a confident individual, which also plainly upset Paxman. He expects to be able to wrong-foot people with his patented sneer and motheaten bulldog attack mode. Interesting how uncomfortable he became when it didn't work.
- Anonymousette
June 21, 2006 at 10:51 PM
Anonymous
said...
Paxman is a pathetic spineless liberal turd. BBC bias at its most contemptible.
June 21, 2006 at 10:55 PM
Anonymous
said...
Have to agree with you about Paxman Anonymousette, and with everyone who has expressed dismay at the usual BBC anti conservative bias. I'm with Peter Hitchens on that one, break it up and sell it off. And for all those who would disagree with the charge of institutional left wing bias against the BBC let me ask you this; If the BBC is really balanced and inclusive in the viewpoints it expounds and promotes then where is the necessary balancing right wing Rottweiler interviewer anywhere in the BBC's massive empire? Nowhere that's where.
June 21, 2006 at 11:13 PM
Anonymous
said...
Methinks Gregor hit the nail on the head with this one. She's part of a shrill collection of 'right-wingers' in the US media who make their living by appealing to dispossed Americans who feel as though they have no voice in politics.
Sure she's sharp, good-looking(ish), articulate in that PR way ... and funny as hell ... but she and Sean Hannady, Rush, Bill O'Reilly, Tony Snow, etc ... they're all pitching their hay at the 'little guy'. They're not honest sceptics, they are really nasty, manipulative and fundamentally dishonest people.
The only British pol I know like her would be George Galloway. Similar rhetorical style ... although he's far more amusing once he gets going.
June 21, 2006 at 11:20 PM
Anonymous
said...
professor quatermass -
Please tell us what is wrong with being on the right. You seem to think you are speaking some universal truth. The left is dangerous - here be the ghosts of tens if not millions or murdered Why do you cleave to it so?
"Dispossed Americans" buy Ann Coulter's books? If you are referring to people who live in trailer parks, they are not big book buyers. What they buy doesn't register on the NY Times Bestseller List. Ann Coulter's books become No 1 bestsellers in the entire United States - a country of 350m people. They're bought by people interested in politics and who have the disposable income to buy books.
(Something tells me you are not American and have probably never been to America. But you nevertheless know instinctively that you have contempt for the land of the free. Why?)
You state Coulter is "articulate in a PR way". How diminishing! Yet you are wrong again. She is articulate in an attorneyesque way because she has a law degree. She writes a column for Universal Press Syndicate that is carried in more than 100 newspapers in the US. The "dispossed"? She graduated cum laude from Cornell, an Ivy League. She worked for the US Senate Judiciary Committee. Her career is jammed with achievements.
George Galloway,whom you cite as a comparison, is a street fighter and is quick-witted in a chippie sort of way - with absolutely no depth and no education. To compare him with Coulter is a bit desperate.
Anonymousette - 'Ann Coulter and Heather McCartney both have long blonde hair. I cannot see a single other similarity.'
Come, come; you're being too modest.
Not just the hair. Maybe it takes a male eye for the similarities to be so apparent . . . The steely slightly disconnected stare. The teeth. The rigid neck. The Educatin' Archie lips. Above all: the unstoppable Humby-like self-belief. Admirable, maybe, in a defiant invalid, but positively frightening in a world-grabber.
Have also, I must admit, this niggling suspicion that the bloodlust of the one may in reality be as much a matter of venal convenience as possibly the vegetarianism of the other.
"Coulter is highly educated . . .'
I'll take your word for it. But it's always sensible not to mistake cleverness for wisdom.
Anonymous - 'What is "cheesy sesame-bun barbarity"?" Is this what you imagine Americans like Anne Coulter eat?'
Not heard of metaphor?
If you prefer, however, by all means discard the bun . . . and just relish the barbarity.
June 22, 2006 at 12:48 AM
Anonymous
said...
footnotehooligan - The Heather McCartney red herring I leave at your door, the way a cat leaves unwanted dead prey around the place.
Heather McCartney has no degree and no achievements, and she's ugly. Sorry. I say nothing about her reputation during the previous 20 years, but she does not appear to have achieved much other than marrying a millionaire, a talent of her tribe.
Ann Coulter makes her own way in a tough world, and she prevails.
Re my remark about your "sesamie bun remark, and your response: "If you prefer, however, by all means discard the bun . . . and just relish the barbarity."
What "barbarity"? The barbarity of the United States? If you believe this, I withdraw my tolerance for the mad left. The statement turns my stomach. Have you ever visited this kindly,helpful and polite country?
Your ignorant, slutty statement infuriates me. I hear Bob Mugabe's looking for new best friends. Maybe you could crosspost to his website.
June 22, 2006 at 1:09 AM
Anonymous
said...
I forgot to sign myself, because I don't want to sign up to these blog companies. But the above was from Anonymousette.
June 22, 2006 at 1:13 AM
Anonymous
said...
Anonymousette said:
"...He was pissed off that he'd met a Conservative who..."
I think you mean he'd met someone who calls themself a 'conservative', not a 'Conservative'.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong, however.
Feel free to check the 'Other' button when submitting comments, instead of 'Anonymous' ;) It works better than forgetting to attach a manual signature at the bottom of your post.
June 22, 2006 at 2:16 AM
Anonymous
said...
Sensible types have to put up with an endless stream of loony-lefties on the telly with resignation.
For once, a right-leaning woman sticks it up Paxo (so to speak) and the lefties swoon, gibber and call her mad.
I thoroughly enjoyed the way she swatted tired old Paxo's obviously loaded questions.
Our less colourful, timid Conservatives could learn a thing or two from her.
June 22, 2006 at 2:19 AM
Anonymous
said...
James, I don't know what "other" means. I would gladly use a less cumbersome method. Anonymousette
Anonymousette. As I overheard some Americans say- America,land of the free home of the crazy.
June 22, 2006 at 4:25 AM
Anonymous
said...
Little Miss Anonymousette has hit a number of funnybones here. I think she has flushed out those with an inherent anti US bias. Nice one Miss A - a little abuse is always a compliment.
Sorry to disagree, it was as clear a win to Paxo as Argies V Serbia/Mont
June 22, 2006 at 8:24 AM
Anonymous
said...
I blame the Government. Paxo has been damaged by over-exposure to intellectual Titans like Hazel Blears. He's clearly out of condition.
June 22, 2006 at 8:54 AM
Anonymous
said...
Joe Otten said...
"...people using tragedies like 9/11 to advance their own agenda..."
I guess its alright when that agenda is invading Iraq. Or maybe some people can dish it out but can't take it.
----
No, those who liberate Iraq expect to be challenged on that policy and have to defend it on its merits, the point she is making is the 4 New Jersey widows who appeared in John Kerry commercials (and Cindy Sheehan for that matter) appear to think their status as widows makes them exempt from questioning. She makes a fair point, albeit in characteristically bombastic fashion.
June 22, 2006 at 9:10 AM
Anonymous
said...
Attractive? What are you people smoking? It'd be like shagging a rabid rottweiler!
June 22, 2006 at 9:16 AM
Anonymous
said...
Paxman just had poor questions presumably based on poor preparation and little research. He looks like a bit of a wally but he hardly "lost".
IMO, what threw him was that she makes numerous factually incorrect statements and then has the gall to look you in the eye and lie some more.
June 22, 2006 at 9:17 AM
Anonymous
said...
Martin, when a television presenter famed for his interviewing skills is "made to look a bit of a wally" because of "poor preparation and little research" then, no matter how his loyal leftist defenders try to spin it, he has lost. Live with it.
June 22, 2006 at 9:24 AM
Anonymous
said...
I think you may be doing Paxo a disservice - it was obvious he kept asking whether her whether she believed what shoe wrote to highlight the fact that it all she was putting up against other belief's were her own - there was no objective facts in her postion at all.
This programme is for a domestic audience, so he didn't need to 'better her in debate', just shine sufficient light on her so that the viewers could see the hypocrisy inherent in her books.
He did his job - it was classic tv journalism. He did a good job - it worked.
Bit disappointing after Guido's buildup. To me she's just a skilled interviewee who's used to hostile questioning: doesn't stop her being an utter pillock. But then I suppose the religious right (and I include New Labour in that description) haven't got much to crow about these days.
Also, I think elduded's comparison with Michael Moore and "shock value" is a valid one. It would be nice to see valid, informed, political debate of all colours coming out of the USA but I don't think it's going to happen any time soon.
June 22, 2006 at 10:00 AM
Anonymous
said...
Paxman became a parody of himself a long while ago.
Shame, once upon a time I used to really enjoy watching him interview.
Hilarious TV and good for a dig at the BBC, but if you're interested in a forensic demolition of Ms Coulter's anti evolution chapters read PZ Myers at Pharyngula. PZ is an associate professor of biology at Minnesota University, an evolutionary and developmental biologist and knows of what he speaks. Ann Coulter, for all her Jeremy-fazing charms is not a scientist and her arguments against evolution are so riddled with misquotation, false reasoning, old and discredited argument that as an a level essay it would be slung back at her. (Except perhaps in a Vardy School in the North East). Myers absolutely marmalizes her arguments in this post, which is eminently worth a read:
It's science, I know science make the arts-obsessed media's brains ache but it's also important that this kind of thing is opposed. Lots of Americans think that humans co-existed with dinosaurs, wilfully try to discredit evolution and put it on a par biblical creation accounts: our Prime Minister has openly supported the teaching of the Genesis account of creation in state-funded schools. Ms Coulter is a shrill for this kind of obscurantism and creeping theocracy. Being a conservative: fine. Lying to people in the name of your conservatism and traducing the work of Darwin (the greatest biologist ever to live, responsible for an enlightenment that makes the renaissence look like an Italian decorating party) and all the great scienists who followed him is reprehensibe. INstead of laughing up your sleeves at Mr Paxman's discomfort, apply some critial faculties to what Ms Couler says, better yet, so it with someone who can reply with authority. Try Myers' Coulter Challenge: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/a_clarification.php
For Anonymousette : - A short lesson on 'Clicking Other' James, I don't know what "other" means. I would gladly use a less cumbersome method. Anonymousette
1) Type out your comment in the main box as usual.
2) Underneath the line that says Choose an identity there are 3 radio buttons. -BLOGGER -OTHER -ANONYMOUS Check the 'OTHER' radio button. Do NOT check 'ANONYMOUS' or 'BLOGGER'.
3) A textbox will appear afterwards, asking you to write your NAME. In the Name textbox, please write "Anonymousette" or whatever you want to call yourself and continue as usual.
You can press the PREVIEW button to test this sequence of steps out to see if it works before pressing the PUBLISH YOUR COMMENT button.
Continuously signing "Anonymousette" at the end of your message makes you look stupid and adds weight to the myth that women don't know how to use computers.
You're making the rest of us look bad!
June 22, 2006 at 11:29 AM
Anonymous
said...
Coulter 1 - BBC 0
A great shame that the BBC should seek to score cheap shots from the Republican far right in such a ham-fisted manner, can think of several far better and far more lucid commentators they could have chosen that Ms Coulter. I presume Paxman's piece was as a result of Coulter's abyssmal interview with The Times some weeks ago where she most certainly did herself no favours. Still, the BBC should have known better that to bring in that monoglot of the shrill right, for whatever reason.
June 22, 2006 at 11:57 AM
Anonymous
said...
Compare and contrast : Paxman's BBC Standard Operating Procedure attempts to belittle any interviewee perceived as from the right of the political spectrum , and this mornings Today programmes' reverential build up and treatment of Al Gore. Strange how when Gore admits to only getting one senator to support his latest bill, the bbc reporter removed his lips from the former vice presidential member long enough to plead for him to stand again !
June 22, 2006 at 12:00 PM
Anonymous
said...
Anon 09:16
You've obviously never been to bed with a psycho-babe then. It's scary, but one hell of a rush.
Sadly, in reality, I suspect the experience would be far less exciting thanks to Ms Coulter's deeply held religious beliefs.
RM
June 22, 2006 at 12:39 PM
Anonymous
said...
Just did a Google search on Coulter and found an anti-coulter website. I love this from the site:
"There's a fun game one can play while reading Ann Coulter. Just substitute her name whenever you come across the word liberal"
It's actually very funny if you look at the stuff she writes. Pots and kettles.
Some of you lot just don't get it. The BBC *has* to be challenging to the right wing. In a system of adversarial politics, *somebody* has to challenge the government. With Conservative and Labour policies now effectively the same*, who else is going to do it?
*Actually, I'd place the Tories slightly to the left of nu labour, who are somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan.
June 22, 2006 at 1:06 PM
Anonymous
said...
biodun - thanks. I'm fine on computers, but not accustomed to these blogging companies.
There are enough anti-women people populating this blog without your allying yourself with them.
Anonymous said, "It would be like shagging a rabid rottweiler." The infantile arrogance of imagining in his wildest dreams that he would ever find out what it is like to shag Ms Coulter is so pathetic. That was the greatest insult he could devise: his personal opinion of what he imagined she would be like to shag. As though Ms Coulter would give him a chance to find out. This individual does not regard women as people.
O'Brien said he has heard Americans say, "Land of the free; home of the crazy." Americans who, to the dismay of the British who thought they held the patent on it, have a good sense of irony which they often use dismissively against themselves. It's a comment. They don't mean it.
June 22, 2006 at 1:37 PM
Anonymous
said...
mr gisoad - Fine. But there are people on here who are angry because Ann Coulter is rich, famous and powerful.
But neither do I like people spewing out anti-American hatred when they know nothing about the United States except what they've seen on Friends. These people often fancy themselves using American argot to great effect. Rather than demonstrating an easy familiarity with American usage, it makes them look like wanabees. What, for example, is an "intellectual redneck"?
Which of Coulter's "shrill" books have you read, by the way?
*Actually, I'd place the Tories slightly to the left of nu labour, who are somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan.
Labour Right Wing?????? Pull the other one. They are statist meddlers of the finest pedigree, a sure sign of a modern marxist.
June 22, 2006 at 2:39 PM
Anonymous
said...
an intellectual redneck is obviously someone who disagree's with mr gisoad.
June 22, 2006 at 2:50 PM
Anonymous
said...
Serf - This lot are more toxic than Marxists. They are Gramscians - the goal being to destroy nationhood and destroy the family. Why? Who knows? Dark malevolence dwelling in their twisted psyches. Who knows. But they have unpicked Britain, have unpicked many of our centuries old laws, and are in the process of nationalising children. They've certainly dumbed them down and discouraged them from thinking or talking in sentences.
June 22, 2006 at 3:03 PM
Anonymous
said...
alas it's my crappy comp education. whats your excuse for being an arsehole.
June 22, 2006 at 3:31 PM
Anonymous
said...
I have to contest the "Coulter is a fox" assumptions on display here.
To men of a certain age perhaps she is, but to me looks like a repulsive old witch.
She's an ugly old hound and there should be a warning to children before she's allowed on TV over here again.
June 22, 2006 at 5:30 PM
Anonymous
said...
I can't imagine her having the faintest interest in being "allowed on TV" over there again. She has a potential audience (and buyership) of 350m in the US. That keeps her busy enough. The British aren't potential buyers of her books because they have had true conservatism beaten out of them by Tony Blair's coven. They would be frightened to death of the bracing nature of American conservative thinking. Americans think owning guns is a natural right!!
Anne Coulter had probably never heard of the BBC before a couple of days ago.
Stick with gargoyles like Polly Toynbee and the Yazzmonster, you Brits.
Sorry. Must have got it wrong.American kids don't go on a shooting spree in high schools.
June 22, 2006 at 5:52 PM
Anonymous
said...
I wouldn't argue that she has a large audience for her commentary on modern life but can she please put a bag on her head next time she's on the telly because she makes me feel ill.
The pictures on the front of her books have clearly been airbrushed and tidied up.
Sadly in the harsh light of the BBC's stateside studios she looked a bit like Danny Le Roux.
June 22, 2006 at 6:01 PM
Anonymous
said...
Could you tell us how many "shooting sprees" there have been in American high schools and then compare and contrast with knife deaths in British schools. And the number of children who needed medical treatment or to be hospitalised after "happy slapping". And the number of householder deaths by burglars - especially of tiny old people - for their pensions. In the US, tiny old people pack heat.
June 22, 2006 at 6:03 PM
Anonymous
said...
annonymousette. hey i'm a brit and i'm with you all the way. even if i am crappy with my punctuation.nice post by the way mr gisoad i take the arsehole back.
anonymousette The murder rate in Britain is 15 per million people. The US murder rate is 55 per million according to the FBI. Having a handgun in the house is useful if the householder wants to commit suicide.A use they are often put to.
June 22, 2006 at 6:34 PM
Anonymous
said...
O'Brian - I'm not sure I believe the British figures. I'd have to know how they were arrived at. Britain, since Blair got into office, has become a violent and degraded country. Gun crime there is horrifying.
Regarding the 55 "murders" per million in the US - is that "murders" or killings?
I ask because I have been in this discussion before, and many, many of those 55 (per million) are criminals shot by householders in self-defence. Self-defence is not murder.
In addition, I would have to see it broken down state by state because I want to know how many murders with guns took place in states where owning a gun is illegal. That would mean that all the murders by firearm in that state were committed by criminals carrying illegal guns.
O'Brien, I don't know that they're "often" put to use for suicide. Ernest Hemingway and that Rolling Stone writer and some others, but someone who is going to kill himself will do it one way or another. It could be sleeping pills. It could be driving a car off a bridge. You can't blame the gun.
I lived in Texas for years, and I never knew of anyone personally, or heard of anyone through a friend, who had committed suicide with a gun. In fact, I never knew of anyone who killed themselves at all. It's not a common occurrence.
I am afraid you have swallowed the Tony Blair lies and distortions. No offence, but there is a big world out there and you don't have the background to calculate the facts. Just blind prejudice.
I'll bet you think that those "55 million Americans without medical insurance" are left to die on the streets, don't you?
June 22, 2006 at 7:01 PM
Anonymous
said...
"*Actually, I'd place the Tories slightly to the left of nu labour, who are somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan."
As someone who wants to see the NHS and public education abolished I resent the implication that the Tories and Labour are right-wing. 40% of GDP spent by the government - the Victorians would have considered it communism.
June 22, 2006 at 7:19 PM
Anonymous
said...
Ann you're an ignorant fuckwit. Darwin was right get over you fucking rednecks.
June 22, 2006 at 7:25 PM
Anonymous
said...
What I am amazed about is the vitriol being hosed in Ms Coulter's direction on account of her looks.
Wasn't it some leftie harradin who recently complained that whenever she made an appearance, the criticism consisted largely of nasty remarks about her looks. If I'm correct the Graun even penned an editorial tut tutting at the shallow crassness of the right and how they should engage with the fat old hag on her ideas and not her looks? (Obviously, I'm a right wing loon so I can make base statements like this - the Guardian says so)
As to Ann Coulter appealing to "men of a certain age" well, I am of my age, whether that is certain enough for anon, I don't know, and visually I find tall, svelte blondes quite attractive. Whether I would wish to have a relationship with Ms Coulter is another matter; she does hold some views that are contrary to my own and she does come across as a rather forceful lady. Then again she did exhibit some dry wit in her destruction of Paxo and she is by all accounts well educated.
Perhaps I should invite her to dinner, engage in some conversation, find out a little more about her before making that judgement.
Ooops! Sorry, I forgot, I'm supposed to be the shallow one only concerned with a woman's looks.
RM
ps Guns don't kill people - criminals kill people. People kill scrotes
June 22, 2006 at 7:35 PM
Anonymous
said...
Sorry,
Blogger wouldn't give me a box to put my name on that one. If you didn't guess, it was from The Remittance Man.
Damn! It won't let me take credit for this one either.
Guido! Blogger's got it's head up its bum again.
RM
June 22, 2006 at 7:37 PM
Anonymous
said...
ps Guns don't kill people - criminals kill people. People kill scrotes.
I like that.
June 22, 2006 at 7:50 PM
Anonymous
said...
Anytime ;-)
RM
June 22, 2006 at 8:21 PM
Anonymous
said...
Back OT (I think) - Ms Coulter was quite right about Darwinism. Although Darwinism is a convincing theory, science (in the way science is thought of by Popper) it ain't. Although parts of the theory can be predictive (eg the survival of the fittest woodmoth) and there is a lot of evidence in its favour, the theory of evolution as put forward by Darwin cannot be tested in a controlled experiment and thus cannot be refuted. This doesn't mean it's wrong: it's just not provable. However, to believe that the world was created in 6 days in 4000 BC isn't provable either and there's very little evidence going for it.
The point I believe she was trying to make is that Darwinism is rammed down the throats of children in the US public schools as if it were a provable fact, and this she resents. She overstates her case but it is a respectable case.
I wonder how many liberal cretins on this blog have actually read her book, or are just rubbishing it out of natural bilious hate?
June 22, 2006 at 11:46 PM
Anonymous
said...
May I add my voice to the pro-Coulter crowd? If she were to curb the ridiculous 'ragheads'/'camel jockeys' line then she would be untouchable.
June 23, 2006 at 12:15 AM
Anonymous
said...
twils - Agreed! She speaks to millions of Americans who have never heard of Tony Blair and his iron-fist of school-marmish political correctness in a Britain diminished by no longer having freedom of speech as a birthright.
She can still say 'ragheads' in the US. Why not? On the BBC, financed solely by "licence fees" taken at the point of a gun and under threat of imprisonment, they've admitted that they don't even use the word "terrorist" (as in suicide bomber who kills hundreds of - or even two or three - innocent people) unless they are quoting someone else. They don't want to be "judgemental".
So the BBC, supported solely by the licence fee extracted from British citizens (I'm assuming the illegal aliens don't pay) at the point of a gun, have made a decision that terrorists be "insurgents". Oh. OK, Tony. Black's white. Day's night.
I prefer Ann Coulter's confident, breezy free speech, as a free American, to the controlling and frightened Tony Blair, and the BBC's, suppression of expression of thought. Who doesn't?
I'm glad her book's sold out in Britain despite having little to do with Britain or Europe. People in the Anglosphere are hungry for candid opinions and they are not going to find them in Blair's iron-fisted Britain.
That, however, is their fault and I have no sympathy with them.
June 23, 2006 at 1:25 AM
Anonymous
said...
twils - why on earth would she censor herself? Why should she "curb the ridiculous ragheads"? Why? That is what she wrote. That is free speech.
When did you lose it, you sad British person? Someone should "curb" their opinion? Why not let the market decide?
The market decided: Ann Coulter's book is at No 1 on the NY Times Bestseller List. And now it's sold out in Britain, to where it doesn't even apply.
Chris Palmer I saw the books on the shelf of my local Kinokuniya bookstore.It doesn't take long to read them. To use the American word-garbage. The books are garbage.Don't waste your money. Anonymousette I work with Americans and enjoy doing so.I have to put up with an Irish manager though!(The Christian Brothers have a lot to answer for!) There are plenty of places you can get reliable statistics from. The homicide rate in Britain is much lower than the US. If Britain is a violent society, then it is something that began during Margaret Thatcher's time. And by the way-the fellow from Texas who I worked with underwent a sexchange operation. Does Ann Coulter have large hands?
June 23, 2006 at 5:29 AM
Anonymous
said...
O'Brien,
You obviously haven't been paying attention when you look at tranny porn. It's not the size of the hands that's the give away, it's the presence or not of an adam's apple.
Funnily enough Ms Coulter doesn't appear to have one.
Case closed methinks.
RM
June 23, 2006 at 9:08 AM
Anonymous
said...
o'brian - I don't care who you work with. As I said before and you have not addressed my comment: I would need to know the murder-by-gun statistics over every state in the union as they all have different laws and I would need to know how many killings were murder and how many self-defence.
The murder rate in states which have banned guns is usually higher because only criminals have guns and they have them for a reason.
In states where the citizenry is routinely armed, the statistics are skewed unless you distinguish between murder and self-defence. What may appear to be a high "murder" rate may just be 7-ll clerks and gas station attendants who were faster on the draw than druggies and drunks who staggered in with a gun to rob the till, or someone who shot a burglar. The figures can also include perps shot by the police.
Unless these issues are addressed, the comparison with British gun deaths is meaningless.
Anonymousette When did extra-judicial killing become legal in Texas? And no free Alcazar Show tickets for you Remittance Man when you are in Pattaya if your going to be like that!
June 23, 2006 at 5:23 PM
Anonymous
said...
O'Brian - It has always been legal to shoot an intruder in your home in Texas. The minute they step over the threshhold, you are absolutely free to blast their brains out. Then you call the police, who call an ambulance to remove the body. The police ask you to come down to the station the following morning and fill in a report, and you do so. Case closed.
This is why there is so little burglary in Texas. Even the dumbest, drunkest, most drugged-up burglar is aware that there may be someone on the other side of the door with a gun pointed at it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
June 23, 2006 at 5:45 PM
Anonymous
said...
Not all criminals are shot by homeowners. Not everyone, contrary to belief, has a gun. I have a friend who doesn't have a gun.
Murder happens outside the home, you know. People who work in gas stations and convenience stores get murdered from time to time. Or banks. Someone walking through a dark parking lot to their car ... someone raped and murdered so she can't tell the tale. The number of perps who get shot in people's homes in Texas is small, because most, however addled, are not stupid enough to go where they know there may be a gun and the owner can legally shoot them dead.
There are not, in any case, "so many state executions". I don't know where you get your impressions from, but certainly not from anyone with a grasp on the reality of life in the US. Have you ever even been to the United States?
When there is an execution in a state that allows capital punishment - not all do - it is a big deal. First, the perp will have gone through around 10 years of taxpayer-funded appeals. Sometimes the death penalty is commuted to life in prison. (Life means life in places like Texas.)
When someone has exhausted every taxpayer-funded appeal, he is then executed by lethal injection. That is always mentioned somewhere on the front page. It is not an everyday event.
June 23, 2006 at 5:56 PM
Anonymous
said...
Coulter talks about "liberal hegemony" yet ardently supports a political movement that is fundamentally based on the direct exportation of its baroque world view onto an impervious population?
Coulter deserves nothing more to be thrown into Iraq and attacked viciously by a group of swarthy, starving insurgents – we’d soon see if she'd continue to discharge her absolute drivel.
anonymousette Where do I get my impressions of the United States from- the writings of Ann Coulter of course! Texas is number one in executions,but Virgina may exceed it in the future. Will have gone through tax payer funded appeals-only the poor get executed? Yes I have set foot in the US.I have relatives there. Most Americans have never been to another country.Which countries have you been to?
June 24, 2006 at 12:28 PM
Anonymous
said...
Which countries have I "been to"? around 14. And your point is? This disqualifies me from being familiar with gun law in Texas?
June 24, 2006 at 1:40 PM
Anonymous
said...
PS - You seem to be under the impression that I'm an American. I'm not. You don't have to be American to love and respect the United States.
anonymousette OK 'gone to'! Your disqualified period. No point in discussing anything if your not a true Texan. As I said I work with Americans so I can ask them. If you have lived in the DDR I would be interested in what you have to say.
June 24, 2006 at 3:27 PM
Anonymous
said...
I lived in Texas for eight years. I have lived in several other countries, but that doesn't diminish my knowledge of the US. But ask your American colleagues whatever it is you are going to ask them. I haven't the faintest idea what the DDR is so no, I probably haven't lived there or I would have noticed.
This is my last comment on this thread. You have a chip on your shoulder about the United States and capital punishment, meaning you are a lefty with predictable arguments.
June 24, 2006 at 3:41 PM
Anonymous
said...
Paxo's stunned desbelief was the best tactic in emphasising the woman's stupidity. You cannot argue against someone who revels in their 'all-America' ignorance and lack of an argument. It is alright to be stupid, as long as everyone is stupid too - the current attitude of Fox-news watching, Ann-Coulter reading America.
It would be a shame if she left. I'd like to see her apply the same extreme scrutiny to the "#1 best seller in a country of 350M" claim as she does to her country's lamentable gun crime statistics. Obviously, since every single book in the average bookstand claims to be a #1 best seller, it can't all be true. Funny how no book is ever #2 or #3.
On the other hand, when we say that the US is #1 for gun crime, murder, and incarceration among all developed nations, she's not so happy to swallow it. As usual, the facts don't matter. An endless stream of made-up excuses, myths, and pointless requests for further elaboration on the statistics is enough to avoid contact with reality.
Anyone following the non-terrorist plot story in Miami? I laughed when I heard that their only contact with Al Qaeda was an FBI agent. So soon after we had a similar debacle in London. It's sad that in America the justice is so dysfunctional they can imprison and torture people for years when they are innocent.
June 24, 2006 at 5:07 PM
Anonymous
said...
To Verity, I believe she should curb her offensive vernacular because the terms 'raghead' and 'camel jockey' which she used are neither pointed or amusing. Frustratingly it also allows the more sane lefties to ignore her crucially important insights and dismiss her as a racist. I'd like to bet that the majority of people who bought her book think the same.
If she could 'censor' her burning desire to be controversial for its own sake, then she'll be right back on track in my eyes.
I thought it was a rather tame interview. You should see Coulter when she gets fired up, this was a snooze. Paxman was pathetic.
June 26, 2006 at 1:57 PM
Anonymous
said...
An only slightly interesting set of comments. The most obvious observation being; there was plenty of personal comments on the woman . . . very little of substance on the topics she brings up. How European and liberal. Kill the inconvenient messengers who don't see the world as you know it to be. It must be frustrating attempting to counter the lawyer with such "sophiticated" and "nuanced" petty comments.
How does it feel to be watching yourselves fade . . fade away into insignificance, as you rail at a world no longer of your own making. Being a Yank I can only imagine.
111 comments:
She's an idiot.
Just because she is a confident articulate orator doesnt stop her being an absolute tit.
She bettered Paxo though.
His BBC Bias was easily trumped by the wing-nut woman.
She may be nuts but it was fun to watch.
that womans no idiot idiot
best tele ive seen for an age.coulter
for the win.yay
Paxman really fluffed that one. He obviously didn't/couldn't grasp the fact that the American right wing is unashamedly right wing, whereas our own are so embarrassed at the fact that even being called Conservative puts them instantly on the defensive. Dave C is a prime example of that fact, a non-tory tory.
Asking Coulter "if you really believe what you say" again and again is pointless with a true believer. Imagine if he'd got a Muslim Imam or a Bishop up there and started asking them if they really believed this Jesus bloke did all that bollocks.
It would be nice if for once the BBC could try to put a positive take on right wing issues or at least go along with them without automatic dissmissal, and although I find Coulter's arguments idiotic, and her manner abrasive, it's pretty obvious that the BBC couldn't accord it even the slightest bit of credibility from their left wing bias.
So the rumors could be true!
Paxman's questions were weak. Whislt it can be hard to have a proper argument (debating using facts and comparing the merits of competing theories) against someone who has staunch beliefs in such complete nonsense, he should have made a better fist of it than he did.
She's a loon. Absolutely certifiable.
She certainly did best Paxman and it was a pleasure to watch. How foolish he sounded when he kept asking her if she believed what she had written and believed what she said, giving her a fine opportunity to keep slapping him down. He was like a dog trying again and again to jump over a wall that is obviously too high for it, and allows, again and again, the cat sitting smugly on the wall, knowing it can't be touched, to scratch him his nose on each jump.
She was far more articulate than he is and her thoughts were better organised whereas he was on cruise control - "right-winger; embarrass her to death; smugly mention 'over here' as your trump point, as though the British hard left has been appointed moral guardian of the universe". He looked like the bullying smart, overweening, smartass socialist that he is.
Anonymousette
Put her on the A-List !
definitely something about him... sorry I mean her.
Sells a lot of books though. Hence all the fear and envy from the left wing on here today.
He came across badly because he can't conceive that there might be an alternative to the increasingly smug, dominant, secular liberalism that the metropolitan classes love.
She came across well because she exposed the aggressive emptiness of his questioning ("Of course I believe it...I wrote it!" sort of reply to dumb questions like "do you believe it?" Paxman exposes the true cynicism of the media class here in assuming people never write what they believe!).
She was great - get her over to argue against animal rights terrorists, smoking ban fascists and secular desperation!!
If her books upset the left that much then they must be worth buying. She reminds me of that woman from Grantham who people derided so much for her house wife economics.
She's right about people using tragedies like 9/11 to advance their own agenda. It's difficult to argue against them since it's seen as disrespectful yet it obstructs reasoned debate.
Cool cutie!!
What happened to the hard hitting Paxman we had last year?
Oh yea dw, we have the republicans over here, we just call half of them UKIP and the other half BNP.
Anon,
"...people using tragedies like 9/11 to advance their own agenda..."
I guess its alright when that agenda is invading Iraq. Or maybe some people can dish it out but can't take it.
Have any of you read any of Coulter's columns? She is crude and dangerous and, in her books, an out-and-out plagiarist.
david chappell - I think most,not all, of her arguments are well-reasoned. I always enjoy watching her because she is so quick on her feet - she made Paxman look like a lumbering old dog, after all - and, although it didn't show up so much in this interview, she is also very witty.
Tom says: " ...people like Coulter, who are so far from traditional British conservatism that they can't see it with a powerful telescope?" This is now known as the Paxman Error - the assumption that the British decide for the planet what is conservatism - as in his sneering "over here". Tens of millions would disagree with Paxman and David Cameron on the definition of Conservative. And Ann Coulter doesn't seem to be unduly disturbed by "over here".
Anonymousette
She coped well with Paxman. On the other hand, her agenda is clearly just to shock and get famous rather than to argue a point of view coherently. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't leave much for an interviewer to get to grips with.
Like Michael Moore, her views are so dumb and she is so cynical that I suspect she'll do more damage to her own side in the long run.
Utterly fab that everyone else noticed.
An easy points victory for the mad American women and that doesn't happen that often.
i) where's the fire? I can't see how anyone can spin this as a victory for her over him.
ii) Coulter, like Michael Moore, is just a comedian who ramps up the message for shock value. Anyone who reads more into either of them wants their head examining. Correctness doesn't increase with every decibel.
Why does it always happen that so many men become distressed when a woman out-argues a man?
Face it: Paxman lost. He couldn't think what to say, except to re-iterate, "Do you believe what you write?", and she eventually she had recourse to advising him not to keep repeating the question because the answer would remain the same.
Becoming apopletic because someone disagrees with one is infantile. He was pissed off that he'd met a Conservative who wouldn't become pliant or apologetic when he sneered. She clearly had no interest in his opinions. Indeed, she was dismissive, because he holds the socialist opinions that she deplores and believes are dangerous to society - as the evidence shows in Britain.
Further, it is almost always men on the left who cannot bear to see a man bested by a woman in an argument. Conservative men seem to take it in their stride without going into emotional meltdown.
I forgot to sign the above: Anonymousette.
anon says,
She's right about people using tragedies like 9/11 to advance their own agenda. It's difficult to argue against them since it's seen as disrespectful yet it obstructs reasoned debate.
No, it's not at all difficult to rant against anyone by using those arguments. What is difficult for me to comprehend is the way this somewhat immature woman uses her rather vague concept of 'sexuality' in the belief that it is some kind of blowtorch she can use to force her opinion through any argument. Her somewhat childish quote that she is “emboldened by my looks to say things that Republican men wouldn’t” does tend to bear this out in my opinion.
Nevertheless such people as Ann Coulter eventually do find their niche and Ms Coulter has been enjoying an extended 15 minutes of fame ever since 9/11, with her continuous rants against Muslims as “ragheads”, “camel jockeys” and “jihad monkeys” and her advocating "raghead-free air travel" which to me belies her entire argument against the 'NJ Widows' summed up in her statement that, “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much”.
Not a very pleasant woman in my view and I must confess I find it rather bizarre that she alternates her rants against anyone with views differing to her own with these desperate pleas for any single man to come forth. The woman ain't right in the head.
That's it! She argues strongly against your own cherished "liberal" point of view! She must be crazy!
- Anonymousette
i'm with nonymouse on this one.
to me someone like livingstone is much more of a raving dingbat than anne coulter.they call it the loony left for
a reason you know.
sorry that should be nonymousette.
Anonymous (one of the many...) - Do you really believe that Paxman is a 'man of the left'? Like Livingstone? Michael Foot? Mark Steel?
Or are you so far to the right that, say, Ming Campbell looks like a dangerous revolutionary?
Marvelous. The paranoid style at last has its Leni
Riefenstahl. And I agree with her about Darwin.
Paxo, left practically speechless, has no
excuse.
I wager, though, that in all his broadcasting career
the Wood Lane godzilla been never been confronted
by self-belief so armadillo-like in its impenetrability.
And, what's worse (would have thrown Mr P, this) in
female form.
This woman makes Hazel Blears look like a blushing
maiden; crafty Ken, whose bomb-proof studio
confidence comes courtesy of his mum, would seem by
comparison an interviewee raddled with self-doubt.
Gun-totin' Annie has all the appearance of someone whose parents brought her up to believe that Coulter IS Culture. That, or she's spent an awful lot hypnotising herself in Anthony Robbins self-improvement courses. Either way: spooky.
Riefenstahl? That would be an insult to aesthetics.
Carnivore redneck hubris has finally found, rather,
its Heather Mills McCartney. (The facial similarity is
also, well . . . spooky.)
If this uber hack, in all her cheesy sesame-bun barbarity, truly characterises what the planet & most of life upon it is now up against, then God help us all.
The neo-con Kali de nos jours.
yes i'm as far to the right as you want me to be if that makes you feel better.ming campbell doesn't look like
a dangerous revolutionary he looks like my grandad.and paxman made it
clear where he stands and that goes for
the beeb in general.
And George Galloway, and all those Stepford wives in the cabinet and the ever more imperial and grand Tony Blair. And Polly Toynbee and Jackie Ashley. And Matt Frei and Orla Guerrin and Andrew Marr. And Clare Short. I am confident that readers can name a dozen more off the top of their own heads.
What Ann Coulter has going against her, other than being on the right, is, she's attractive, quick witted and is skilled at debate. She shoots to kill. How infuriating! All the left can do is purport to be shocked, horrified and concerned for her mental health - because they cannot answer her arguments.
The Squid - if you were addressing me, yes, I am right of centre and I stand my ground.
Footnote hooligan - most of your rant was rather silly, but the "Kali des nos jours was rather good"! Ann Coulter and Heather McCartney both have long blonde hair. I cannot see a single other similarity. Coulter is highly educated and highly articulate and funny.
Anonymousette
You're all just jealous because Coulter commands a level of readership, attention and credibility that you can only aspire to. And she's rather attractive too.
Footnote Hooligan - What is "cheesy sesame-bun barbarity"? Is this what you imagine Americans like Anne Coulter eat? You've been watching too much Matt Frei.
http://www.talkingpresidents.com/products-af-coulter.shtml
If you really like her you could always buy her talking action figure!
Matt, further to the post above and to respond you, you are correct: being the No 1 on the NY Times Bestseller List would indicate that she does command a large readership and a lot of money. She also has a television show. American TV not being paid for by unwilling licence payers, if her programme didn't attract advertisers, she wouldn't be on the air. So yes, she commands attention and she is a confident individual, which also plainly upset Paxman. He expects to be able to wrong-foot people with his patented sneer and motheaten bulldog attack mode. Interesting how uncomfortable he became when it didn't work.
- Anonymousette
Paxman is a pathetic spineless liberal turd.
BBC bias at its most contemptible.
Have to agree with you about Paxman Anonymousette, and with everyone who has expressed dismay at the usual BBC anti conservative bias. I'm with Peter Hitchens on that one, break it up and sell it off. And for all those who would disagree with the charge of institutional left wing bias against the BBC let me ask you this; If the BBC is really balanced and inclusive in the viewpoints it expounds and promotes then where is the necessary balancing right wing Rottweiler interviewer anywhere in the BBC's massive empire? Nowhere that's where.
Methinks Gregor hit the nail on the head with this one. She's part of a shrill collection of 'right-wingers' in the US media who make their living by appealing to dispossed Americans who feel as though they have no voice in politics.
Sure she's sharp, good-looking(ish), articulate in that PR way ... and funny as hell ... but she and Sean Hannady, Rush, Bill O'Reilly, Tony Snow, etc ... they're all pitching their hay at the 'little guy'. They're not honest sceptics, they are really nasty, manipulative and fundamentally dishonest people.
The only British pol I know like her would be George Galloway. Similar rhetorical style ... although he's far more amusing once he gets going.
professor quatermass -
Please tell us what is wrong with being on the right. You seem to think you are speaking some universal truth. The left is dangerous - here be the ghosts of tens if not millions or murdered Why do you cleave to it so?
"Dispossed Americans" buy Ann Coulter's books? If you are referring to people who live in trailer parks, they are not big book buyers. What they buy doesn't register on the NY Times Bestseller List. Ann Coulter's books become No 1 bestsellers in the entire United States - a country of 350m people. They're bought by people interested in politics and who have the disposable income to buy books.
(Something tells me you are not American and have probably never been to America. But you nevertheless know instinctively that you have contempt for the land of the free. Why?)
You state Coulter is "articulate in a PR way". How diminishing! Yet you are wrong again. She is articulate in an attorneyesque way because she has a law degree. She writes a column for Universal Press Syndicate that is carried in more than 100 newspapers in the US. The "dispossed"? She graduated cum laude from Cornell, an Ivy League. She worked for the US Senate Judiciary Committee. Her career is jammed with achievements.
George Galloway,whom you cite as a comparison, is a street fighter and is quick-witted in a chippie sort of way - with absolutely no depth and no education. To compare him with Coulter is a bit desperate.
The reason for the bile and trashing of her achievements (she may well have a better degree than Jeremy Paxman, for example) is, she is an articulate and witty spokesman for the right. What is astounding is, the right tolerate the rantings of the left, but the left simply goes bananas at hearing an opposing point of view. Why is it that we on the right can we tolerate you, clinging white knuckled to the belief system of Mao-Tse Tung, the Supreme Soviet, Pol Pot, Hitler, Ché Guevera, Fidel Castro, the Ceaucescus and others, yet you lose your marbles when a spokesperson for democracy and capitalism speaks out in public?
Anonymousette
Thanks for that incredible insight Anders.
Anonymousette - 'Ann Coulter and Heather McCartney both
have long blonde hair. I cannot see a single other similarity.'
Come, come; you're being too modest.
Not just the hair. Maybe it takes a male eye for the similarities to be so apparent . . . The steely slightly disconnected stare. The teeth. The rigid neck. The Educatin' Archie lips. Above all: the unstoppable Humby-like self-belief. Admirable, maybe, in a defiant invalid, but positively
frightening in a world-grabber.
Have also, I must admit, this niggling suspicion that the bloodlust of the one may in reality be as much a matter of venal convenience as possibly the vegetarianism of the other.
"Coulter is highly educated . . .'
I'll take your word for it. But it's always sensible not to mistake cleverness for wisdom.
Anonymous - 'What is "cheesy sesame-bun barbarity"?" Is this what you imagine Americans like Anne Coulter eat?'
Not heard of metaphor?
If you prefer, however, by all means
discard the bun . . . and just relish the barbarity.
footnotehooligan - The Heather McCartney red herring I leave at your door, the way a cat leaves unwanted dead prey around the place.
Heather McCartney has no degree and no achievements, and she's ugly. Sorry. I say nothing about her reputation during the previous 20 years, but she does not appear to have achieved much other than marrying a millionaire, a talent of her tribe.
Ann Coulter makes her own way in a tough world, and she prevails.
Re my remark about your "sesamie bun remark, and your response: "If you prefer, however, by all means
discard the bun . . . and just relish the barbarity."
What "barbarity"? The barbarity of the United States? If you believe this, I withdraw my tolerance for the mad left. The statement turns my stomach. Have you ever visited this kindly,helpful and polite country?
Your ignorant, slutty statement infuriates me. I hear Bob Mugabe's looking for new best friends. Maybe you could crosspost to his website.
I forgot to sign myself, because I don't want to sign up to these blog companies. But the above was from Anonymousette.
Anonymousette said:
"...He was pissed off that he'd met a Conservative who..."
I think you mean he'd met someone who calls themself a 'conservative', not a 'Conservative'.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong, however.
Feel free to check the 'Other' button when submitting comments, instead of 'Anonymous' ;) It works better than forgetting to attach a manual signature at the bottom of your post.
Sensible types have to put up with an endless stream of loony-lefties on the telly with resignation.
For once, a right-leaning woman sticks it up Paxo (so to speak) and the lefties swoon, gibber and call her mad.
I thoroughly enjoyed the way she swatted tired old Paxo's obviously loaded questions.
Our less colourful, timid Conservatives could learn a thing or two from her.
James, I don't know what "other" means. I would gladly use a less cumbersome method. Anonymousette
Anonymousette. As I overheard some Americans say-
America,land of the free
home of the crazy.
Little Miss Anonymousette has hit a number of funnybones here. I think she has flushed out those with an inherent anti US bias. Nice one Miss A - a little abuse is always a compliment.
Sorry to disagree, it was as clear a win to Paxo as Argies V Serbia/Mont
I blame the Government. Paxo has been damaged by over-exposure to intellectual Titans like Hazel Blears. He's clearly out of condition.
Joe Otten said...
"...people using tragedies like 9/11 to advance their own agenda..."
I guess its alright when that agenda is invading Iraq. Or maybe some people can dish it out but can't take it.
----
No, those who liberate Iraq expect to be challenged on that policy and have to defend it on its merits, the point she is making is the 4 New Jersey widows who appeared in John Kerry commercials (and Cindy Sheehan for that matter) appear to think their status as widows makes them exempt from questioning. She makes a fair point, albeit in characteristically bombastic fashion.
Attractive? What are you people smoking? It'd be like shagging a rabid rottweiler!
Paxman just had poor questions presumably based on poor preparation and little research. He looks like a bit of a wally but he hardly "lost".
IMO, what threw him was that she makes numerous factually incorrect statements and then has the gall to look you in the eye and lie some more.
Martin, when a television presenter famed for his interviewing skills is "made to look a bit of a wally" because of "poor preparation and little research" then, no matter how his loyal leftist defenders try to spin it, he has lost. Live with it.
I think you may be doing Paxo a disservice - it was obvious he kept asking whether her whether she believed what shoe wrote to highlight the fact that it all she was putting up against other belief's were her own - there was no objective facts in her postion at all.
This programme is for a domestic audience, so he didn't need to 'better her in debate', just shine sufficient light on her so that the viewers could see the hypocrisy inherent in her books.
He did his job - it was classic tv journalism. He did a good job - it worked.
pre-op i reckon.
Bit disappointing after Guido's buildup. To me she's just a skilled interviewee who's used to hostile questioning: doesn't stop her being an utter pillock. But then I suppose the religious right (and I include New Labour in that description) haven't got much to crow about these days.
Also, I think elduded's comparison with Michael Moore and "shock value" is a valid one. It would be nice to see valid, informed, political debate of all colours coming out of the USA but I don't think it's going to happen any time soon.
Paxman became a parody of himself a long while ago.
Shame, once upon a time I used to really enjoy watching him interview.
Hilarious TV and good for a dig at the BBC, but if you're interested in a forensic demolition of Ms Coulter's anti evolution chapters read PZ Myers at Pharyngula. PZ is an associate professor of biology at Minnesota University, an evolutionary and developmental biologist and knows of what he speaks. Ann Coulter, for all her Jeremy-fazing charms is not a scientist and her arguments against evolution are so riddled with misquotation, false reasoning, old and discredited argument that as an a level essay it would be slung back at her. (Except perhaps in a Vardy School in the North East). Myers absolutely marmalizes her arguments in this post, which is eminently worth a read:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php#more
It's science, I know science make the arts-obsessed media's brains ache but it's also important that this kind of thing is opposed. Lots of Americans think that humans co-existed with dinosaurs, wilfully try to discredit evolution and put it on a par biblical creation accounts: our Prime Minister has openly supported the teaching of the Genesis account of creation in state-funded schools. Ms Coulter is a shrill for this kind of obscurantism and creeping theocracy. Being a conservative: fine. Lying to people in the name of your conservatism and traducing the work of Darwin (the greatest biologist ever to live, responsible for an enlightenment that makes the renaissence look like an Italian decorating party) and all the great scienists who followed him is reprehensibe. INstead of laughing up your sleeves at Mr Paxman's discomfort, apply some critial faculties to what Ms Couler says, better yet, so it with someone who can reply with authority. Try Myers' Coulter Challenge: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/a_clarification.php
No we're not interested. Try the Discovery channel.
For Anonymousette : - A short lesson on 'Clicking Other'
James, I don't know what "other" means. I would gladly use a less cumbersome method. Anonymousette
1) Type out your comment in the main box as usual.
2) Underneath the line that says Choose an identity
there are 3 radio buttons.
-BLOGGER
-OTHER
-ANONYMOUS
Check the 'OTHER' radio button.
Do NOT check 'ANONYMOUS' or 'BLOGGER'.
3) A textbox will appear afterwards, asking you to write your NAME.
In the Name textbox, please write "Anonymousette" or whatever you want to call yourself and continue as usual.
You can press the PREVIEW button to test this sequence of steps out to see if it works before pressing the PUBLISH YOUR COMMENT button.
Continuously signing "Anonymousette" at the end of your message makes you look stupid and adds weight to the myth that women don't know how to use computers.
You're making the rest of us look bad!
Coulter 1 - BBC 0
A great shame that the BBC should seek to score cheap shots from the Republican far right in such a ham-fisted manner, can think of several far better and far more lucid commentators they could have chosen that Ms Coulter. I presume Paxman's piece was as a result of Coulter's abyssmal interview with The Times some weeks ago where she most certainly did herself no favours. Still, the BBC should have known better that to bring in that monoglot of the shrill right, for whatever reason.
Compare and contrast :
Paxman's BBC Standard Operating Procedure attempts to belittle any interviewee perceived as from the right of the political spectrum , and this mornings Today programmes' reverential build up and treatment of Al Gore.
Strange how when Gore admits to only getting one senator to support his latest bill, the bbc reporter removed his lips from the former vice presidential member long enough to plead for him to stand again !
Anon 09:16
You've obviously never been to bed with a psycho-babe then. It's scary, but one hell of a rush.
Sadly, in reality, I suspect the experience would be far less exciting thanks to Ms Coulter's deeply held religious beliefs.
RM
Just did a Google search on Coulter and found an anti-coulter website. I love this from the site:
"There's a fun game one can play while reading Ann Coulter. Just substitute her name whenever you come across the word liberal"
It's actually very funny if you look at the stuff she writes. Pots and kettles.
Some of you lot just don't get it. The BBC *has* to be challenging to the right wing. In a system of adversarial politics, *somebody* has to challenge the government. With Conservative and Labour policies now effectively the same*, who else is going to do it?
*Actually, I'd place the Tories slightly to the left of nu labour, who are somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan.
biodun - thanks. I'm fine on computers, but not accustomed to these blogging companies.
There are enough anti-women people populating this blog without your allying yourself with them.
Anonymous said, "It would be like shagging a rabid rottweiler." The infantile arrogance of imagining in his wildest dreams that he would ever find out what it is like to shag Ms Coulter is so pathetic. That was the greatest insult he could devise: his personal opinion of what he imagined she would be like to shag. As though Ms Coulter would give him a chance to find out. This individual does not regard women as people.
O'Brien said he has heard Americans say, "Land of the free; home of the crazy." Americans who, to the dismay of the British who thought they held the patent on it, have a good sense of irony which they often use dismissively against themselves. It's a comment. They don't mean it.
mr gisoad - Fine. But there are people on here who are angry because Ann Coulter is rich, famous and powerful.
But neither do I like people spewing out anti-American hatred when they know nothing about the United States except what they've seen on Friends. These people often fancy themselves using American argot to great effect. Rather than demonstrating an easy familiarity with American usage, it makes them look like wanabees. What, for example, is an "intellectual redneck"?
Which of Coulter's "shrill" books have you read, by the way?
*Actually, I'd place the Tories slightly to the left of nu labour, who are somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan.
Labour Right Wing?????? Pull the other one. They are statist meddlers of the finest pedigree, a sure sign of a modern marxist.
an intellectual redneck is obviously
someone who disagree's with mr gisoad.
Serf - This lot are more toxic than Marxists. They are Gramscians - the goal being to destroy nationhood and destroy the family. Why? Who knows? Dark malevolence dwelling in their twisted psyches. Who knows. But they have unpicked Britain, have unpicked many of our centuries old laws, and are in the process of nationalising children. They've certainly dumbed them down and discouraged them from thinking or talking in sentences.
alas it's my crappy comp education.
whats your excuse for being an arsehole.
I have to contest the "Coulter is a fox" assumptions on display here.
To men of a certain age perhaps she is, but to me looks like a repulsive old witch.
She's an ugly old hound and there should be a warning to children before she's allowed on TV over here again.
I can't imagine her having the faintest interest in being "allowed on TV" over there again. She has a potential audience (and buyership) of 350m in the US. That keeps her busy enough. The British aren't potential buyers of her books because they have had true conservatism beaten out of them by Tony Blair's coven. They would be frightened to death of the bracing nature of American conservative thinking. Americans think owning guns is a natural right!!
Anne Coulter had probably never heard of the BBC before a couple of days ago.
Stick with gargoyles like Polly Toynbee and the Yazzmonster, you Brits.
anonymousette
Sorry. Must have got it wrong.American kids don't
go on a shooting spree in high
schools.
I wouldn't argue that she has a large audience for her commentary on modern life but can she please put a bag on her head next time she's on the telly because she makes me feel ill.
The pictures on the front of her books have clearly been airbrushed and tidied up.
Sadly in the harsh light of the BBC's stateside studios she looked a bit like Danny Le Roux.
Could you tell us how many "shooting sprees" there have been in American high schools and then compare and contrast with knife deaths in British schools. And the number of children who needed medical treatment or to be hospitalised after "happy slapping". And the number of householder deaths by burglars - especially of tiny old people - for their pensions. In the US, tiny old people pack heat.
annonymousette.
hey i'm a brit and i'm with you all
the way. even if i am crappy with my
punctuation.nice post by the way mr
gisoad i take the arsehole back.
anonymousette
The murder rate in Britain is 15 per million people. The US murder rate is 55 per million according to the FBI.
Having a handgun in the house is useful if the householder wants to commit suicide.A use they are often put to.
O'Brian - I'm not sure I believe the British figures. I'd have to know how they were arrived at. Britain, since Blair got into office, has become a violent and degraded country. Gun crime there is horrifying.
Regarding the 55 "murders" per million in the US - is that "murders" or killings?
I ask because I have been in this discussion before, and many, many of those 55 (per million) are criminals shot by householders in self-defence. Self-defence is not murder.
In addition, I would have to see it broken down state by state because I want to know how many murders with guns took place in states where owning a gun is illegal. That would mean that all the murders by firearm in that state were committed by criminals carrying illegal guns.
O'Brien, I don't know that they're "often" put to use for suicide. Ernest Hemingway and that Rolling Stone writer and some others, but someone who is going to kill himself will do it one way or another. It could be sleeping pills. It could be driving a car off a bridge. You can't blame the gun.
I lived in Texas for years, and I never knew of anyone personally, or heard of anyone through a friend, who had committed suicide with a gun. In fact, I never knew of anyone who killed themselves at all. It's not a common occurrence.
I am afraid you have swallowed the Tony Blair lies and distortions. No offence, but there is a big world out there and you don't have the background to calculate the facts. Just blind prejudice.
I'll bet you think that those "55 million Americans without medical insurance" are left to die on the streets, don't you?
"*Actually, I'd place the Tories slightly to the left of nu labour, who are somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan."
As someone who wants to see the NHS and public education abolished I resent the implication that the Tories and Labour are right-wing. 40% of GDP spent by the government - the Victorians would have considered it communism.
Ann you're an ignorant fuckwit. Darwin was right get over you fucking rednecks.
What I am amazed about is the vitriol being hosed in Ms Coulter's direction on account of her looks.
Wasn't it some leftie harradin who recently complained that whenever she made an appearance, the criticism consisted largely of nasty remarks about her looks. If I'm correct the Graun even penned an editorial tut tutting at the shallow crassness of the right and how they should engage with the fat old hag on her ideas and not her looks? (Obviously, I'm a right wing loon so I can make base statements like this - the Guardian says so)
As to Ann Coulter appealing to "men of a certain age" well, I am of my age, whether that is certain enough for anon, I don't know, and visually I find tall, svelte blondes quite attractive. Whether I would wish to have a relationship with Ms Coulter is another matter; she does hold some views that are contrary to my own and she does come across as a rather forceful lady. Then again she did exhibit some dry wit in her destruction of Paxo and she is by all accounts well educated.
Perhaps I should invite her to dinner, engage in some conversation, find out a little more about her before making that judgement.
Ooops! Sorry, I forgot, I'm supposed to be the shallow one only concerned with a woman's looks.
RM
ps Guns don't kill people - criminals kill people. People kill scrotes
Sorry,
Blogger wouldn't give me a box to put my name on that one. If you didn't guess, it was from The Remittance Man.
Damn! It won't let me take credit for this one either.
Guido! Blogger's got it's head up its bum again.
RM
ps Guns don't kill people - criminals kill people. People kill scrotes.
I like that.
Anytime ;-)
RM
Back OT (I think) - Ms Coulter was quite right about Darwinism. Although Darwinism is a convincing theory, science (in the way science is thought of by Popper) it ain't. Although parts of the theory can be predictive (eg the survival of the fittest woodmoth) and there is a lot of evidence in its favour, the theory of evolution as put forward by Darwin cannot be tested in a controlled experiment and thus cannot be refuted. This doesn't mean it's wrong: it's just not provable. However, to believe that the world was created in 6 days in 4000 BC isn't provable either and there's very little evidence going for it.
The point I believe she was trying to make is that Darwinism is rammed down the throats of children in the US public schools as if it were a provable fact, and this she resents. She overstates her case but it is a respectable case.
I wonder how many liberal cretins on this blog have actually read her book, or are just rubbishing it out of natural bilious hate?
May I add my voice to the pro-Coulter crowd? If she were to curb the ridiculous 'ragheads'/'camel jockeys' line then she would be untouchable.
twils - Agreed! She speaks to millions of Americans who have never heard of Tony Blair and his iron-fist of school-marmish political correctness in a Britain diminished by no longer having freedom of speech as a birthright.
She can still say 'ragheads' in the US. Why not? On the BBC, financed solely by "licence fees" taken at the point of a gun and under threat of imprisonment, they've admitted that they don't even use the word "terrorist" (as in suicide bomber who kills hundreds of - or even two or three - innocent people) unless they are quoting someone else. They don't want to be "judgemental".
So the BBC, supported solely by the licence fee extracted from British citizens (I'm assuming the illegal aliens don't pay) at the point of a gun, have made a decision that terrorists be "insurgents". Oh. OK, Tony. Black's white. Day's night.
I prefer Ann Coulter's confident, breezy free speech, as a free American, to the controlling and frightened Tony Blair, and the BBC's, suppression of expression of thought. Who doesn't?
I'm glad her book's sold out in Britain despite having little to do with Britain or Europe. People in the Anglosphere are hungry for candid opinions and they are not going to find them in Blair's iron-fisted Britain.
That, however, is their fault and I have no sympathy with them.
twils - why on earth would she censor herself? Why should she "curb the ridiculous ragheads"? Why? That is what she wrote. That is free speech.
When did you lose it, you sad British person? Someone should "curb" their opinion? Why not let the market decide?
The market decided: Ann Coulter's book is at No 1 on the NY Times Bestseller List. And now it's sold out in Britain, to where it doesn't even apply.
Hmmmm ... I wonder what that means?
Chris Palmer
I saw the books on the shelf of my local Kinokuniya bookstore.It doesn't take long to read them.
To use the American word-garbage. The books are garbage.Don't waste your money.
Anonymousette
I work with Americans and enjoy doing so.I have to put up with an Irish manager though!(The Christian Brothers have a lot to answer for!)
There are plenty of places you can get reliable statistics from. The homicide rate in Britain is much lower than the US.
If Britain is a violent society, then it is something that began during Margaret Thatcher's time.
And by the way-the fellow from Texas who I worked with underwent a sexchange operation.
Does Ann Coulter have large hands?
O'Brien,
You obviously haven't been paying attention when you look at tranny porn. It's not the size of the hands that's the give away, it's the presence or not of an adam's apple.
Funnily enough Ms Coulter doesn't appear to have one.
Case closed methinks.
RM
o'brian - I don't care who you work with. As I said before and you have not addressed my comment: I would need to know the murder-by-gun statistics over every state in the union as they all have different laws and I would need to know how many killings were murder and how many self-defence.
The murder rate in states which have banned guns is usually higher because only criminals have guns and they have them for a reason.
In states where the citizenry is routinely armed, the statistics are skewed unless you distinguish between murder and self-defence. What may appear to be a high "murder" rate may just be 7-ll clerks and gas station attendants who were faster on the draw than druggies and drunks who staggered in with a gun to rob the till, or someone who shot a burglar. The figures can also include perps shot by the police.
Unless these issues are addressed, the comparison with British gun deaths is meaningless.
Anonymousette
When did extra-judicial killing become legal in Texas?
And no free Alcazar Show tickets for you Remittance Man when you are in Pattaya if your going to be like that!
O'Brian - It has always been legal to shoot an intruder in your home in Texas. The minute they step over the threshhold, you are absolutely free to blast their brains out. Then you call the police, who call an ambulance to remove the body. The police ask you to come down to the station the following morning and fill in a report, and you do so. Case closed.
This is why there is so little burglary in Texas. Even the dumbest, drunkest, most drugged-up burglar is aware that there may be someone on the other side of the door with a gun pointed at it.
Then why are there so many state executions if you have shot all the criminals?
Not all criminals are shot by homeowners. Not everyone, contrary to belief, has a gun. I have a friend who doesn't have a gun.
Murder happens outside the home, you know. People who work in gas stations and convenience stores get murdered from time to time. Or banks. Someone walking through a dark parking lot to their car ... someone raped and murdered so she can't tell the tale. The number of perps who get shot in people's homes in Texas is small, because most, however addled, are not stupid enough to go where they know there may be a gun and the owner can legally shoot them dead.
There are not, in any case, "so many state executions". I don't know where you get your impressions from, but certainly not from anyone with a grasp on the reality of life in the US. Have you ever even been to the United States?
When there is an execution in a state that allows capital punishment - not all do - it is a big deal. First, the perp will have gone through around 10 years of taxpayer-funded appeals. Sometimes the death penalty is commuted to life in prison. (Life means life in places like Texas.)
When someone has exhausted every taxpayer-funded appeal, he is then executed by lethal injection. That is always mentioned somewhere on the front page. It is not an everyday event.
Coulter talks about "liberal hegemony" yet ardently supports a political movement that is fundamentally based on the direct exportation of its baroque world view onto an impervious population?
Coulter deserves nothing more to be thrown into Iraq and attacked viciously by a group of swarthy, starving insurgents – we’d soon see if she'd continue to discharge her absolute drivel.
anonymousette
Where do I get my impressions of the United States from- the writings of Ann Coulter of course!
Texas is number one in executions,but Virgina may exceed it in the future.
Will have gone through tax payer funded appeals-only the poor get executed?
Yes I have set foot in the US.I have relatives there.
Most Americans have never been to another country.Which countries have you been to?
Which countries have I "been to"? around 14. And your point is? This disqualifies me from being familiar with gun law in Texas?
PS - You seem to be under the impression that I'm an American. I'm not. You don't have to be American to love and respect the United States.
anonymousette
OK 'gone to'!
Your disqualified period.
No point in discussing anything if your not a true Texan. As I said I work with Americans so I can ask them.
If you have lived in the DDR I would be interested in what you have to say.
I lived in Texas for eight years. I have lived in several other countries, but that doesn't diminish my knowledge of the US. But ask your American colleagues whatever it is you are going to ask them. I haven't the faintest idea what the DDR is so no, I probably haven't lived there or I would have noticed.
This is my last comment on this thread. You have a chip on your shoulder about the United States and capital punishment, meaning you are a lefty with predictable arguments.
Paxo's stunned desbelief was the best tactic in emphasising the woman's stupidity. You cannot argue against someone who revels in their 'all-America' ignorance and lack of an argument.
It is alright to be stupid, as long as everyone is stupid too - the current attitude of Fox-news watching, Ann-Coulter reading America.
anonymousette:When we were....
Not going to tell us how super Rhodesia was?
It would be a shame if she left. I'd like to see her apply the same extreme scrutiny to the "#1 best seller in a country of 350M" claim as she does to her country's lamentable gun crime statistics. Obviously, since every single book in the average bookstand claims to be a #1 best seller, it can't all be true. Funny how no book is ever #2 or #3.
On the other hand, when we say that the US is #1 for gun crime, murder, and incarceration among all developed nations, she's not so happy to swallow it. As usual, the facts don't matter. An endless stream of made-up excuses, myths, and pointless requests for further elaboration on the statistics is enough to avoid contact with reality.
Anyone following the non-terrorist plot story in Miami? I laughed when I heard that their only contact with Al Qaeda was an FBI agent. So soon after we had a similar debacle in London. It's sad that in America the justice is so dysfunctional they can imprison and torture people for years when they are innocent.
To Verity,
I believe she should curb her offensive vernacular because the terms 'raghead' and 'camel jockey' which she used are neither pointed or amusing.
Frustratingly it also allows the more sane lefties to ignore her crucially important insights and dismiss her as a racist. I'd like to bet that the majority of people who bought her book think the same.
If she could 'censor' her burning desire to be controversial for its own sake, then she'll be right back on track in my eyes.
I thought it was a rather tame interview. You should see Coulter when she gets fired up, this was a snooze.
Paxman was pathetic.
An only slightly interesting set of comments. The most obvious observation being; there was plenty of personal comments on the woman . . . very little of substance on the topics she brings up.
How European and liberal. Kill the inconvenient messengers who don't see the world as you know it to be.
It must be frustrating attempting to counter the lawyer with such "sophiticated" and "nuanced" petty comments.
How does it feel to be watching yourselves fade . . fade away into insignificance, as you rail at a world no longer of your own making. Being a Yank I can only imagine.
Tyranno