Dear, Dear Ann Coulter...

[Gemini Cricket]

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter cut short a speech at the University of Connecticut amid boos and jeers, and decided to hold a question-and-answer session instead.
"I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am," Coulter told the crowd of 2,600 Wednesday.
Source (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/08/coulter.row.ap/index.html)

Waitaminute?! She called the people who came to see her stupid? Well, she and I agree for the very first time ever.

:D

[scaeagles]

Well, they certainly didn't come to listen to her.

I just find it so amazing that Universities, which all claim to be about diversity and thought and whatever, have so many students who wish to disrupt a speaker. Protest? Sure. Go for it. No problem with that. But if someone has been invited to speak, then let the person speak, regardless of who it is. The University should provide for that or not allow the person to come at all - again, whomever it is.

[Gemini Cricket]

Well, they certainly didn't come to listen to her.
The whole thing is odd.

1. Why would anyone show up inside if they don't like her? I could see remaining composed until the Q&A section and present her with some tough questions at that time.
2. If there weren't a lot of people who wanted her to be there, why did the university get Coulter to speak? There are less in-your-face conservatives out there if they wanted to showcase the right's point of view...
3. Why would you call a group of people there to see you (obviously there was at least one Ann fan according to the CNN article) stupid? Wouldn't that lose you fans by calling everyone stupid?
4. Univ of Conn is a pretty liberal place, didn't she know that that was the kind of response she was going to get? Maybe she did...
5. The people booing her inside must know that by baiting her this just gets her more press. She loves that, they fell into her trap.
6. Ann needs to learn composure. You can attract more flies with honey than pure vinegar. She sounds like she's losing it.

[Kevy Baby]

1. Why would anyone show up inside if they don't like her? I could see remaining composed until the Q&A section and present her with some tough questions at that time.Because they (those booing) are stupid
2. If there weren't a lot of people who wanted her to be there, why did the university get Coulter to speak? There are less in-your-face conservatives out there if they wanted to showcase the right's point of view...What evidence is there that there were not a lot of people who wanted her to be there? Those booing were a very small minority of the campus population.
3. Why would you call a group of people there to see you (obviously there was at least one Ann fan according to the CNN article) stupid? Wouldn't that lose you fans by calling everyone stupid?One can only be expected to take the high road or so long. If the crowd was booing, etc. for 15 minutes (an eternity in a situation like this), I say she did pretty good.
4. Univ of Conn is a pretty liberal place, didn't she know that that was the kind of response she was going to get? Maybe she did...ANY commentator worth their salt would love to get an opportunity to speak with the opposition.
5. The people booing her inside must know that by baiting her this just gets her more press. She loves that, they fell into her trap.I think it stretches the bounds of imagination to believe that this was a premeditated trap. I believe that Ann went in knowing it was a potentially contentious crowd, but deciding to go with and see what happens. It is obvious that some people went in with the intent to not allow others to present an alternate viewpoint. The former is free speech. The latter is censorship.
6. Ann needs to learn composure. You can attract more flies with honey than pure vinegar. She sounds like she's losing it.I think Ann held her composure quite well (based on the article). If she had "lost it," should would have stormed off stage and not come back. If your opponent takes off his gloves for a street fight and refuses to put them back on, eventually you have to take them off yourself.

Regardless of how one feels about Ann, I think she did the best she could with a terrible and embarrassing (for U Conn) situation.

[Gemini Cricket]

Interesting point, KB.
Regardless of how one feels about Ann, I think she did the best she could with a terrible and embarrassing (for U Conn) situation.
The best she could do was to call a former president a 'buffoon' and her entire audience 'stupid'? Uh, that sounds a little juvenile to me. But it's not surprising coming from a person who entitled one of her books 'How to Speak to a Liberal, if You Have To'. Obviously, speaking with these liberals the way she suggests to speak to them is to name call. I think she deserved what she got. Ya get what ya give.

Not only this, but with her ideal president in office, how can she call any other president an 'executive buffoon'? Is she paying attention to what this president does at all?

And when I say trap, I mean that any time she says or does something outrageous she gets press for it. She knows that. I don't think she did this in a premeditated manner. (I don't think she's that smart.)

[scaeagles]

Well, I don't think she called the entire audience stupid. She called those who refused to shut up stupid. Refusing to listen to someone (and inhibiting others from doing so) with an opinion different than yourself, particularly when that person is there for the express purpose of speaking, is, well, stupid.

Name calling? There's name calling all over the place. If you agree with the name someone is being called, the person who does the name calling is witty or articulate or saying it the way it is. If you disagree, the name caller has stooped to a new low in ad hominem attacks. Do you think those that have called the current President names are juvenile? Or because you agree with them does that make it OK?

Bush is not the ideal Coulter President. I would offer that, as for most conservatives, Reagan is the model, and Bush is certainly not Reaganesque. Coulter was very vocal about the.....crud....what was her name? The female appointed for the SCOTUS that withdrew har name and Alito replaced? Oh, well. You know who I mean. Anyway, there was no one more critical, and she is often critical of his policies that do not fit in to the conservative frame of thought.

I have no doubt that Coulter likes controversy. She is a controversial figure. But engage in debate with her rather than shouting her down. If she speaks without incident, there is no press. If she is shouted down, it's a story. The outrageous part is not what she says - she is certainly no more outrgeous in rhetoric than many figures on the left. The outrageousness is that supposed students of higher learning have such little tolerance for opinions that vary from theirs.

[Gemini Cricket]

And as far as the booing goes, is it okay to boo Michael Moore at the Oscars and not Ann Coulter at the Univ of Conn? :confused:

------------------

Here are some more highlights for the Coulter speech:

One student asked what she would do if she had a child who came out as gay.
Coulter replied: "I'd say, `Did I ever tell you you're adopted?'"
She also aimed plenty of criticism at the Democratic Party, calling U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer of California a great candidate for Democrats because "she is a woman and learning disabled."
Source (http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-coulter1208.artdec08,0,3869031.story)

Nice...

[SacTown Chronic]

Coulter was very vocal about the.....crud....what was her name? The female appointed for the SCOTUS that withdrew har name and Alito replaced? Oh, well. You know who I mean.
You talkin' about Dubya's partner in hot and heavy abstinence? Harry something or other.

[scaeagles]

And as far as the booing goes, is it okay to boo Michael Moore at the Oscars and not Ann Coulter at the Univ of Conn? :confused:

Fair question. Not one that I believe there is a good answer for. I don't recall the circumstances in which he was booed at the Oscars. Was it from the moment he appeared on stage or was it in response to something he said?

Here's my thought - if you are invited somewhere as a speaker, then you should be allowed to speak without heckling. Moore and Coulter included. Here is where context comes in.

If Moore walked onto stage to accept his award, give him the respect of allowing him to take it. If he turns what should be a non-political event (the Oscars) into an opportunity to spout political rhetoric, then boo him. (Again, I don't know if that is the circumstance - I don't watch the Oscars.) That isn't what his appearance on stage is for - it is to accept an award. Stay within the context of your appearance or you deserve to be booed.

Just a couple days ago, a former member of the Phoenix Suns was booed when he came to town for a game. All he did was walk on the court to play. He hadn't bad mouthed Phoenix or the fans - the fans were mad that he left the Suns to take more money from another team. How classless of the crowd. Boo the Suns organization, not the guy who took more pay, just like how some of the current Suns players are in Phoenix because they were offered more money. Now, if he had walked out onto the court and flipped off the stands, that changes things a bit.

[SacTown Chronic]

I lost all respect for Michael Moore when he let Peter Griffin beat him in a farting contest.

[wendybeth]

Ann Coulter is a narcissistic nutjob who thrives on controversy, because she hasn't anything reasonable or enlightening to offer up to the table. She is the political world's Paris Hilton, nothing more.

[Gemini Cricket]

If he turns what should be a non-political event (the Oscars) into an opportunity to spout political rhetoric, then boo him.
However, the rules for the Oscars states that winners of the award can make political statements during their acceptance speech. The presenters are not allowed to do that. So, it is commonplace for political sentiment to be expressed on the Oscars.

So what does one do with the Univ of Conn crowd? Come out beforehand and say, 'No booing or else?' You can't do that...

Furthermore, I was thinking just now (as I was walking Frodo in the snow) why can't Coulter take the high road when she speaks? Why is her rhetoric all about accusations and hateful name calling? Maybe that's her thing but if that's all it is, then it's very easy to tune out.

Example, I watched the Daily Show the other day and the guest was President Jimmy Carter. He spoke very eloquently and pleasantly and yet had a lot of points to present about problems he perceives in the Bush II Administration. He did it in a way that was not demeaning or mean. Yes, he was there to push his new book, but the way a message is conveyed is just as important as the message itself.

Another example, I can listen to John McCain without tuning him out because the guy knows how to speak. He knows how to be civil about things.

Another example, although I think the man makes a lot of good points, sometimes I cringe when I hear Michael Moore speak or read the things he writes. It's too extreme at times and downright hateful at other times. AND he lost a farting match to Peter Griffin.

I guess my point is is that all of this yelling, name-calling, smug Crossfire type of communication that has sprung up post-9/11 has to stop. That goes for both sides.

[scaeagles]

However, the rules for the Oscars states that winners of the award can make political statements during their acceptance speech.

(snip)

I guess my point is is that all of this yelling, name-calling, smug Crossfire type of communication that has sprung up post-9/11 has to stop. That goes for both sides.

Well, not knowing the rules of the Oscars obviously affected my post. If those are the rules, then booing is certainly out of line. Let the man have his say in the forum that has allowed for it.

A while ago I was watching Leno - he made a political joke and a large portion of the audience did not like it and booed. I think that's fine - stand up is designed to be somewhat interactive and expecting a response to your jokes should be expected, whatever it may be. The Oscars is not the same situation, of course.

I agree with you on ad hominem stuff. The sad part is that one man's ad hominem is another man's truth. Like I posted earlier, many who would get mad at Clinton (GASP! I mentioned his name. Surely I shall be chatized.) being called something deragotary have no problem with Bush being called something derogatory.

[Alex]

If you'd like some insight into how tolerant university campuses are of ideas they (and generally "they" is some small minority of students) don't like I strongly suggest reading Free Speech For Me--But Not For Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006019006X/qid=1134063897/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-3690934-9789420?n=507846&s=books&v=glance) by Nat Hentoff*.

It is almost 15 years old now, but things haven't really changed and the practice of showing up and shouting down speakers has gotten worse in that time. Another tactic is to suggest that the ideas of the speaker are so evil that it will be hard to resist incitement to violence and getting the school administrators to simply cancel the entire event.



*If you're not familiar with Hentoff, he is no rightie, though he is an absolutist on free speech.

[Moonliner]

Well, they certainly didn't come to listen to her.

I just find it so amazing that Universities, which all claim to be about diversity and thought and whatever, have so many students who wish to disrupt a speaker. Protest? Sure. Go for it. No problem with that. But if someone has been invited to speak, then let the person speak, regardless of who it is. The University should provide for that or not allow the person to come at all - again, whomever it is.

"Universities" claim "Diversity". Students on the other hand...

Can't you remember what it was like when you were collage age? That incredible certainty that your views are unequivocally superior to anyone else’s combined with the youthful vigor and the certainty that you can change the world to meet your views if you can just get your message out there? That age does not lend itself well to tolerance of opposing viewpoints. Wrong MUST be righted, truth MUST win out over lies, ahhh I'm not sure if I miss those days or not....

[wendybeth]

There are plenty of other venues where these speakers get shouted down, not just Unies. We so-called adults spend a lot of time arguing about these people, why should college students be any different? As a college student, I would feel invested in that my tuition is helping to pay the speaker's fees for these people. Still, I always just stayed away when a speaker I disagreed with came to our school.

[€uroMeinke]

I'm a free speech absolutist - if someone's ideas are so reprehensible, then you should easily be able to combat that through excercising your own free speech, but expounding contrary arguments.

Shouting down someone is an attempt at cencorship, which to me leaves the message that the ideas are too good or sound too to engage in discussion about.

[scaeagles]

There are plenty of other venues where these speakers get shouted down, not just Unies. We so-called adults spend a lot of time arguing about these people, why should college students be any different?

And there is a time and a place. Coulter didn't storm off. She went straight to Q&A. Why? So she could just debate the people who weren't going to let her speak.

The issue is one of respect. Moonliner, I have always thought I was right on pretty much everything (as everyone who been reading my posts over the last few years in whatever forum will testify to). However, I would never even consider being so rude as to shout down anyone who was invited to speak. As a student, are you not to learn? How can one learn without listening? If one does not wish to learn, don't inhibit others from doing so.

It's an issue of respect. Of decorum. Of common decency.

[Name]

who's ann coulter?

I feel fortunate, I haven't seen or heard anything she says in a very very very very long time.....

(I bet I just jinxed myself, and now every channel I turn to will have coulter news.... :shudder:)

[wendybeth]

And there is a time and a place. Coulter didn't storm off. She went straight to Q&A. Why? So she could just debate the people who weren't going to let her speak.

The issue is one of respect. Moonliner, I have always thought I was right on pretty much everything (as everyone who been reading my posts over the last few years in whatever forum will testify to). However, I would never even consider being so rude as to shout down anyone who was invited to speak. As a student, are you not to learn? How can one learn without listening? If one does not wish to learn, don't inhibit others from doing so.

It's an issue of respect. Of decorum. Of common decency.

Ann Coulter is hardly a model of either decorum or decency. She also referred to her audience as 'stupid', which is incitive and immature. If she genuinely has a message she wants to get out there, why is she so damned insulting all the time? She wants to provoke people, and she isn't remotely interested in dialogue.

[scaeagles]

She wants to provoke people, and she isn't remotely interested in dialogue.

Have you ever seen her debate Bill Maher? She is perfectly interested in dialogue with those that are interested in such. Those who wish to shout her down, when she has been invited to speak, most certainly deserve to be called stupid. They are. And rude.

[wendybeth]

Actually, I have seen her 'debate' Bill Maher. That's precisely where I formed my opinion of her. I haven't seen anything since to change that opinion. In fact, I believe I owe Paris an apology.

[CoasterMatt]

Ann Coulter is WAAAY hotter than Paris...

[SacTown Chronic]

She also referred to her audience as 'stupid', which is incitive and immature.
Actually, she said "stupider".:D

And are these students really 'stupider' than someone who once argued that Canada fought in the Vietnam War?


Ann Coulter is WAAAY hotter than Paris...
Which is akin to saying a two inch dick is WAAAY bigger than a one inch dick. Technically it's true but hardly worth bragging about.

[scaeagles]

Which is akin to saying a two inch dick is WAAAY bigger than a one inch dick. Technically it's true but hardly worth bragging about.

You speak as if you have experience with this.:)