Colbert Pounds the Krauthammer

By -
Is there an uglier figure in our public discourse than Charles Krauthammer? Oh, yes, I forgot: Ann Coulter. But is there a second-uglier figure than Krauthammer? Here Colbert dismantles his ridiculous psychoanalysis of Obama:

Comments

  1. Ken B5:45 PM

    I think sometimes Krauthammer is shrewd, but yeah, Colbert destroys him on this. Blood on the walls.

    Next ugliest? I'd vote for Colbert myself, or Stewart. They encourage the kind of approach to debate you often decry. They have raised ad hominem to an art.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah7:57 AM

      Come on Ken: they don't always play fair, but at least they are humorous, rather than snarling, like much of the Fox News crew.

      If I wanted to pick someone from the left, I'd pick someone like Madow or Garafalo.

      Delete
    2. Ken B8:57 AM

      Well I don't watch Fox so I don't know how snarling. But from what I have seen these past 10 years these guys are the most effective and influential corruptors of debate.
      A friend in Canada asked me what I thought was the biggest problem in the US these days. My answer was that ad hominem is widely believed to be a valid argument. That and the idea that sneering is a good argument, which you just highlighted a few days ago with that New Yorker writer. But I agree those two you name are more like Coulter (who stands alone and incomparable) than my two.

      Delete
  2. Greg Pandatshang6:13 PM

    I'm having trouble remembering a single thing Ann Coulter ever said, but my impression is that she talks sense from time to time. I suspect that she understands the world pretty clearly but is "in character" as a movement conservative commentator most of the time and so the things she says are her character's dialogue. At her worst, maybe she's worse that Krauthammer; I don't really know.

    I have no idea if Krauthammer is similarly "in character", but, if so, I don't remember him ever letting the mask slip. He's been my personal least favorite since I was a teenager ... can't believe he's still a public figure!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ken B6:39 PM

      Yes. She first hit TV during the OJ trial, where she was sharp and insightful. Then she needed a new gig, and crazed wolverine was available. I think she was serious after 9/11 when she wanted to invade the muslim world , kill their leaders and convert them, but she's smart when it serves her.

      Delete
  3. Samson Corwell9:22 PM

    You really don't like Fox News conservatives, do you?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more