... when he wrote that too many Americans are just plain stupid. How can we expect to have meaningful discussions, applying critical thinking skills to verifiable facts, when (as Barney Frank says above) we may as well be talking to pieces of furniture? Seriously: How many Americans are as dumb as this woman? I'll give Maher some credit for compiling these stats (though I'll elide some of the hacky jokes):
... a majority of Americans cannot name a single branch of government, or explain what the Bill of Rights is. 24% could not name the country America fought in the Revolutionary War. More than two-thirds of Americans don't know what's in Roe v. Wade. Two-thirds don't know what the Food and Drug Administration does. Some of this stuff you should be able to pick up simply by being alive. You know, like the way the Slumdog kid knew about cricket.
Not here. Nearly half of Americans don't know that states have two senators and more than half can't name their congressman. [...]
People bitch and moan about taxes and spending, but they have no idea what their government spends money on. The average voter thinks foreign aid consumes 24% of our federal budget. It's actually less than 1%....
The stupidity and ignorance of the woman (a LaRouchie) in the clip above is demonstrated not only by her flagrant violation of the Rule of Nazi (basically that anyone who invokes a comparison to Nazis -- almost always an invalid one -- is not interested in reality), or her inability to acknowledge facts. Her question isn't even a legitimate question, being of the "When did you stop beating your wife?" variety: "Why do you continue to support a Nazi policy?" (Would that there were some sort of time machine that could transport this woman back to, say, Germany in 1940 -- briefly, just long enough so that she could learn something about what "Nazi policies" actually were...) But Frank offers the only logical response, answering a non-question with a non-question: "On what planet do you spend most of your time?"
From the NPR Health Blog:
When Nazi references surface in online comments, it's a sign that any hope for civil conversation is lost. Seems like the same rule of thumb applies to town hall meetings.
So where are these Third Reich comparisons coming from? Take a look at this larger AP photo of an Obama-as-Hitler poster from outside the Frank meeting, and you can see it's the work of LaRouche PAC, which has been chronicling the coverage of its Nazi-themed protests around the country.
Lyndon LaRouche has been on the fringes of American politics for decades. We're not quite sure how to describe the highly personal political lens he brings to bear on the world. PublicEye.org examines LaRouche's history here and calls him a "fascist demagogue." On the right, the Media Research Group's NewsBusters site objects to the media's characterizations of him as a right-winger and says he's a Communist.
This is what I was talking about when I wrote a while back that nobody is "entitled" to an opinion that is founded on delusions. And, yes, it applies directly to film criticism: We can't discuss the knotty pine Nazi death paneling on the recreation deck of the Starship Enterprise in "Star Trek" (2009) -- mainly because it isn't there. If, in the face of the plain evidence, somebody (say, a LaRouchie) nevertheless insists that it is, any reality-based discussion can only proceed without them....
P.S. I know that many people elsewhere in the world are also too willfully stupid to function in society. Somehow that does not make me feel any better. How does stupidity excuse or legitimize stupidity when it's all stupidity?
P.P. S. I go into the hospital for a heart procedure Friday (an AV node ablation, thank you!) and I have responsibly filled out my "living will" and "durable power of attorney" so that, if I should become unable to make decisions about my care, my wishes will be known (regarding pain management, resuscitation, intravenous feeding, under certain terminal conditions). In so doing I have exercised my right to appoint someone I trust (my mother) to act as my proxy if I can't communicate for myself. Counseling that helps people make those decisions about their own healthcare, and fill out those forms so their desires will be respected, is what Sarah Palin and the LaRouchies are calling "death panels." See "I Want My Death Panels!" and here:
A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.
Let me put it this way: The Palinettes and LaRouchies and Gingrichers can pry my living will from my cold dead hands!
"On what planet do you spend most of your time?"
America...
This is a testament to our failing school system. This young woman has been done wrong by whatever schools (English and History teachers specifically) that she has ever attended. As a future High School English teacher, I feel overwhelmed already. This must be as bad for the thinking conservatives as it is for Democrats, because there are legitimate concerns that they have over the health-care bills. I may ultimately disagree with them, but their thoughtfulness would be helpful in this national discussion. See David Frum for starters.
Whew, thanks Jim. With all this Obama=Hitler talk, I thought I was missing something.
My question to you, should you know the answer, is how are these people drawing comparisons from Obama to Hitler? I have a friend who has been up to the same shenanigans, and I am always at a loss of words as to how this equation was conjured up and solidified.
Look, I don't know jack from shit about politics, and it doesn't help when I TRY to stay caught up on the world around me ... and people are, what appears to be, casually throwing words and phrases around like "socialist" and "nazi regime" and "Bush doesn't care about black people" and "We can see Russian Landmass from Alaska" and "Democrats are fundamentally better people than Republicans" and "Why are you, like Obama, supporting this Nazi regime." How much have I missed, exactly?
Does it make sense that a young and inexperienced person like myself is confused? Should I know exactly why Obama is pretty much Hitler? Where there are questions, hopefully there are answers, and here's to me getting better aquainted with things I should already know by now.
Again, though, thanks for this little tidbit, Jim.
I am reminded of heavy boots.
About 6-7 years ago, I was in a philosophy class at the University of Wisconsin, Madison (good science/engineering school) and the teaching assistant was explaining Descartes. He was trying to show how things don't always happen the way we think they will and explained that, while a pen always falls when you drop it on Earth, it would just float away if you let go of it on the Moon.
My jaw dropped a little. I blurted ``What?!'' Looking around the room, I saw that only my friend Mark and one other student looked confused by the TA's statement. The other 17 people just looked at me like ``What's your problem?''
``But a pen would fall if you dropped it on the Moon, just more slowly.'' I protested.
``No it wouldn't.'' the TA explained calmly, ``because you're too far away from the Earth's gravity.''
Think. Think. Aha! ``You saw the APOLLO astronauts walking around on the Moon, didn't you?'' I countered, ``why didn't they float away?'' ``Because they were wearing heavy boots.'' he responded, as if this made perfect sense (remember, this is a Philosophy TA who's had plenty of logic classes).
By then I realized that we were each living in totally different worlds, and did not speak each others language, so I gave up. As we left the room, my friend Mark was raging. ``My God! How can all those people be so stupid?''
* * * *
JE: That's beautiful! People are the most absurd of all creatures, unintelligently designed in so many ways... (Lemme tell you about atrial fib and congestive heart failure and how the body responds so that each exacerbates the other in a terminal feedback loop / death spiral... Bad design!)
"I know that many people elsewhere in the world are also too willfully stupid to function in society. Somehow that does not make me feel any better."
Yes! Thank you. When something is completely indefensible from a logical perspective, distraction is only position left to take (other than admitting that you're wrong, of course). "Hey! Look what they're doing over there! Those people are bad, too!" For example:
A: The town hall protesters are, at best, misinformed, deranged, and just plain rude. Is this really how the debate on health care should go down?
B: Well... there were people who said Bush caused 9/11! There are crazies everywhere!
Well, of course... but so what? What does the first point have to do with the second, other than acknowledging that extremism is bipartisan? Nobody is saying that it isn't. We should be able to call a spade a spade without pointing at other, completely irrelevant spades.
Oh, and good luck on your procedure sir. This stupidity will give us all heart attacks before its over.
I have a simple (and maybe obvious) theory about what's going on at these town hall meetings: Many have said that Obama's campaign in the primaries and presidential election energized and vivified a large portion of the population, spurring them to enter more into political discussion, pay more attention to policy-making, and generally become more active in government proceedings. This much has proven to be true. The problem is this large portion of the population has absolutely no idea how to do, follow, or discuss any of it.
The reference to the way discussions in online comment sections so often devolve to baseless inanity (not here, of course!) is terrifyingly accurate. The Internet has for a long time allowed crazies (of any political ideology) to spew their insanity with anonymity. Now they've just been inspired enough to think that spewing it to elected officials in person is somehow democracy in action. Of course it is, in the First Amendment-sense that Barney Frank noted. But in the civics sense of being involved constructively in the shaping of public policy? Not very much.
There was always great sorrow among those who did follow government, politics, and current events that so many of our fellow citizens for so long had no interest in any of it. We rejoiced when Obama seemed to be changing that once and for all. But now I'm afraid that in the final analysis, we'll look back and realize all we've done is awaken the sleeping morons. I write that with hesitance, because I don't want to so easily write off the intelligence of a large group of people I've never met. But if you believe Obama is a Nazi, I'm sorry, you're a moron. The nation would be better off if you had stayed on the bench.
(By the way, hope you stay in good health, Jim.)
The only thing I worry is that hostility breeds more hostility... If you use your wit to embarrass somebody in public like this, somehow I doubt that woman (or any of her supports) is going to go home now and change her mind about anything... Which is her (and their) own fault, I know but if the bottom line is you're trying to get people on board... Maybe Obama's careful approach works better... Maybe not, he seems to be having some trouble lately (which Jon Stewart has been having fun with...) I don't know what the answer is, I just worry that cracking jokes at these people won't ultimately solve the problem...
And the logic I'm using here comes from my experience trying to 'convert' people to better films. Sometimes I get frustrated in people's gaps in logic when talking about why they won't watch a certain type of film or why they watch junk and, I've learned, if you insult their intelligence, even if it is justified, they just get angry and then you lose them, they don't listen. Because they're idiots, yes, but still, nobody is any better off at the end of the day and, if anything, there's less a chance now that they'll listen because they've been 'offended' or ridiculed...
In fact, I've been on the receiving end too, where I was being an idiot... and eventually I realized that... But I don't think that's the only way I could have been converted and my first reaction is always the negative... Because nobody likes to be told they are fool. Being told they are mistaken though, that might be easier to swallow...
Then again, there really is no other way to get through to some people these days. But that girl... she's young, she's impressionable... The education system has been sucking for decades now... In that video, it seems almost like she's been peer pressured into speaking... Might a better response have been "Miss, I see that you're young and perhaps you haven't read enough yet about the Nazis or our health care system to know that the comparison you're trying to make cannot be made. Go home, do more research about the facts of both, understand what you're saying, and then you may come back here and speak with me."
And then he could take it from there... If they respond "Oh but I have done the research-" He can just reply "No ma'am, the comparison you just made tells me you have not." "You're killing people! You're gonna kill my grandma." "Ma'am, we are not. You've been misled. Do the research - real research, not just from websites friends and family tell you to go to - and then you'll know you've been misled by a false rumor designed to make you react angrily the way you are. Like in highschool, when somebody spreads a rumor just to get a fight going. You've been lied to, maybe even by people who mean well and genuinely thought they were telling you the truth. I can tell that you yourself mean well. But you've been mislead to fighting against something that does not exist."
^I'd rather see that on Larry King than a Barney Frank "oh no you di'int!"
Really, if I flipped on CNN and somebody had the presence of mind to lay that on a crowd (and have it recorded so that the rest of the world can see) that would be the day that intelligent news is back. Maybe I'm alone in that reasoning...
The US is reaping the fruit that Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have been sowing for so many years. That anyone would be so intellectually corrupted to actually publicly fling the word "Nazi" is pretty damned appalling.
Clearly the woman, like so many partisans, has ceased to care about the debate per se, or any debate. This is about a shouting match where the person with the most verbal vomit wins (I won't call it vitriol, because at least you can admire well-crafted verbal vitriol). I mean, it's just plain gross, like watching someone defecate on the street or urinate in a drinking fountain.
Frank's approach is, I think, the only appropriate one. There is no debating such people. The best you can do is highlight the sheer idiocy and immorality of their tactics, to demonstrate to others just how starved of any kind of meaningful capacity for real conversation these people have.
To be really honest here, from a canadian perspective, I'd rather spend two and a half hours in a theater watching Transformers 2 than spending 5 minutes of my time pondering over the fact that fellow neighbors can have such opinions.
At least with T2 (I have not seen it yet and don't plan to) you know your in for stupid fantasy. The clip you posted represents stupid reality, which is so much more depressing than the other one.
Good luck for friday,
Phil
I went to college in Baltimore, and on one occasion I found myself chatting with a Larouche follower at Baltimore Penn Station. He had a stand with a bunch of signs and pamphlets, and I happened to make eye contact while trying to figure out what he was promoting. I had never heard of Larouche, and allowed myself to get roped into a conversation to see exactly what the organization was. He asked me if I went to college, I said yes, he asked where, I told him, and he goes, "You know that your university president, along with about 100 presidents of most of the top universities in the country, belongs to a top-secret FBI organization that..." I'm sorry to say that I can't recall what followed because I was too busy trying to keep a straight face while he tried to convert me, but I do remember it being positively loony. He offered to give me a stack of pamphlets to hand out to fellow students, I told him I'd take one, read it, and think about it (just so I'd have something to read on the train for my amusement, but I can no longer find it). When I got home I wikipedia'd Larouche and found out he was a radical anti-Semite (most of the crazy ones are); I guess that explains the Hitler sign. Plus I recall reading (though I don't feel like fact-checking) that some brainwashed recruit ran out of their headquarters in Germany and killed himself. No surprise that this woman was willing to embarrass herself in front of a large group (and Barney Frank, no less); Larouche's organization is no different than any other cult. I don't know that it is stupidity, perhaps malleability. You could be a reasonably intelligent but exceedingly naive person and get caught up in a group like that.
Jim, I hope that your surgery is free of pain and complications and is a success!
My fiancee is not American, and she's often dumbstruck by some of the idiotic things that happen here in the US. I explain it to her like this:
Any time you see something stupid, inexplicable, or otherwise mind-numbingly irrational happening in the US, it's happening because someone, somewhere, is either (1) making a lot of money off of it, or (2) afraid that they'll stop making a lot of money.
This town-hall nonsense is happening because the insurance industry stands to lose billions of dollars every year if meaningful health care reform becomes a reality. Therefore, they're going all-out to stop it, any way they can. Spreading misinformation among the stupidest people in the country is only one small tool in their arsenal.
Make no mistake, this is about money and nothing else. All this talk about death panels, Nazis, socialism, and euthanizing the elderly? It's just commentary.
I'm going to have to steal that dining room table line.
Jim, best wishes for the surgery. Hope you're back to health and writing soon.
For the record, the phenomenon being referred to is known as Godwin's Law. I think there's a big cultural shift occurring that we're seeing evidence of more and more: as people who grew up with the Internet start to become adults, they make the mistake of believing that it's acceptable to behave in real life as you do on the Internet. (And of course, they believe in much looser rules for what constitutes acceptable behavior on the Internet than those in real life to begin with.)
There's no debating that the young woman in that video is stupid. I'm sure she's been proving it on message boards, in blog comments, and other similar venues for years. She just finally had a chance to do it in person as well.
Best wishes for your surgery, Jim.
Finally! Someone did what need to be done. As a Canadian I find arguments against universal health care odious in the extreme. Especially from the so-called wealthiest nation in the planet. Denying health care to the impoverished because of mercenary considerations and avarice is beyond contemptible. If anything I believe Frank should have been more forceful in his condemnation. This is one of the only subjects I find I can't contain my rage about. Seeing Frank put such terrible person (and she is terrible for the argument of ignorance only goes so far with me, a decent person could not spew such hateful rhetoric) in her place elated me. Finally a retort to the rabble who shrieks at town hall meetings in support of denying humans a basic right to life and health care because of their socio-economic background.
P.S.
All the best Jim. I wish you a speedy recover.
P.S.S I'm always embarrassed at how riled up this issue gets me
So, let me get this straight. When the American people elect Obama in a near landslide, you hail our genius. When we disagree with him on healthcare, we're uninformed dolts--"just plain stupid," as you put it. Thanks. Got it. Your intellectual standards are quite clear.
JE: Who is stupid enough to attribute "genius" to election results? Not me. We're talking about reasoning, not voting tallies. If you want to make a case that the LaRouchie woman above's argument is not idiotic, please do. But try using a valid method of reasoning. She doesn't.
"New rule: Stop calling everyone you disagree with a Nazi. Bush is a Nazi, Saddam is a Nazi, the Republicans are Nazis. They aren't. Hell the Neo-Nazis aren't even the Nazis!"
Is it possible that some of these people are smart enough to know that if they do use the Nazi comparison that this will inspire the stupid people to thwart any kind of progress?
Lyndon LaRouche -- boy, I haven't heard that name in a while. I remember the first time I saw him, must have been 1980.
It was late at night on television and he was posing in front of the Alamo, ranting about how Jimmy Carter's brother Billy was secretly a member of the Italian terrorist group, The Red Brigade.
And I remember thinking "what a brilliant satire of the paranoid fringe of American politics! This is the best skit Saturday Night Live has ever done!"
And then I thought, "Wait a minute, this is Friday."
So, not having google in those days, I called up the 1-800 number on the screen and asked if this guy was for real. And they said yes, would I like to make a contribution?
"Lord, no."
This sort of high-octane ignorance has been around a long time, but I think it's more "viral" now, as they say, and I think there are more sources of easy validation for it. I mean, why bother with critical thinking when there are so many people already telling you you're right?
Frank's remark to the woman about the dining room table and this whole post remind me of a comic strip I've had hanging over my desk for years. It's from The Quigmans (a one panel). The picture is of a man holding a drink as if at a cocktail party. He's looking down at a woman who is on the floor grabbing her stomach, her drink spilled next to her. The caption reads "Yow! That hurt! I must have risen above your conversation level so fast...I got the bends!"
Good luck with your procedure tomorrow.
I'm wondering how I could best say it...
I'm now in love with Barney Frank. Being able to put down a protester with no idea what she's talking about, and to do so quickly, that takes skill.
I would first look up the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research and the funding it would receive through HR 1 realizing its pushing bureaucratic decisions (started by Tom Daschle on health care with former lieutenant governor of NY Betsy McCaughey stating; "“Daschle says health-care reform ‘will not be pain free.’ Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them,”. The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research is headed by Rham Emmanuels' brother Ezekiel Emanuel, who is a bioethicist, works for the non profit eugenicist organization The Hastings Center funded by the Rockefellers. The founder director of the The Hastings Center was Theodore Dobzhansky who was chairman of the American Eugenics Society. Of course when you look at history the Rocekefeller family exported eugenics to Nazi Germany as the Kaiser Wilheilm Institute with Hitler praising the American Eugenicists in Mein Kampf. His first step in power was to implement massive eugenics laws across Germany. Of course we know what happened as a result of the psuedoscience and obsession of the global elite who control our governments today. The endgame is eugenics. Government health care is not only more debt/bankruptcy but eugenics. Don't get me started with the h1n1 and the facts about the vaccines that the America media are ignoring including the nerve disease Guillain-Barre syndrome as reported by the British press.
Two quotes from Norman Mailer shed light on this whole thing for me (though not solace):
"Before abstinent fools, we are all weak."
and
"There's just no stopping people who aren't embarrassed by themselves."
Sarah Palin to a T...
I don't have anything to add. I just want to thank everyone here for keeping my faith alive that there are sane people in this country and intelligent discourse is possible. The events of the past recent weeks have been nothing but surreal.
"Before abstinent fools, we are all weak." ??
Are drunken, sexual fools easier to deal with than the ones who practice abstinence?
Or is that supposed to be "obstinate fools"?
Anyway, brings to mind a middle eastern story I read about Jesus fleeing. A friend asks what he's running from. Jesus reples something like "I can heal the lepers and raise the dead, but I can do nothing about the fool!"
Jim, forgot to say, I'll be... doing nothing really but if I could do a little something for your surgery to go smoothly I would...
How about this then... In that crazy event that something terrible happened, rest assured at least one guy thought you were as heroic as Dan Dunne (who I'll praise over the overrated Atticus Finch anyday).
Hopefully that means something to ya.
We've barely touched on LaRouche. The man's followers claim that he went to jail "because he refused to sell you out." In fact, he went to jail because he's a crook. His followers stand outside universities and tell people that the government was responsible for 9/11. They look and sound like cult members, and in fact a lot of them do live together in communal housing. Anything LaRouche's followers do is bound to be wonky.
Riiight. So our election of Obama is in no way a product of our "reasoning." I misunderstood: you sincerely *do* believe the American people are "stupid," even when we disagree with you. So we don't even get credit from you when we get it right--thanks for clearing that up.
JE: Wow, I can't even count how many times I've addressed this issue on this blog: Intelligence is not a matter of jumping to conclusions, but of process. That, for example, is why I contend critics are not of particular value or interest because they "agree" with you in a "thumbs up"/"thumbs down" way, but what they have to say about the movie under scrutiny. If you can't address what I actually wrote (I know it's hard to accept that it's not about defending or criticizing Obama, but the nature of the defense or criticisms -- but try), the statistics Bill Maher quoted, and what the "Nazi policy" Dining Room Table was saying, then you have nothing to add to any discussion.
Why not just say exactly what you're thinking: Americans are dumb because they are not supporting policies you do in numbers you find appropriate. When people on the left regularly compared the last president to Hitler, I never saw anyone of your ilk raise the slightest complaint, nor did I see any of you berating the citizenry as "dumb" when Bush's poll numbers were crashing. Now that the same is happening to your guy (and in record time), suddenly you're appalled to be living among a nation so full of idiots. But hey, intellectual consistency was never your strong point, so complain away.
JE: First, don't tell me what I'm thinking when it has nothing to do with what I wrote and is so obviously what YOU are thinking instead. Second, what does any of your baseless speculation have to do with the actual stats Bill Maher cited, or the non-argument the LaRouchie was making at the town hall meeting with Barney Frank? Address the issues or, like Pinocchio, your nose will grow and you will become... a dining room table.
Good luck, Jim.
I seem to remember reading something somewhere (probably in one of the Bathroom Reader Institute books) that someone did a survey and presented a random group of Americans with 10 rights and asked them if they supported these rights or not.
Embarrassingly, most didn't recognize that the rights in question were the Bill of Rights. And most voted against them...
I suspect you know exactly what I am talking about but choose to play defense by asking me to explain a very simple and clear point as if you did not understand it. I'll oblige you and clarify: I'm accusing you of intellectual dishonesty by now declaring Americans to be "dumb" because you're frustrated that policies you support are meeting large opposition. If you're trying to imply that I agree with LaRouchie tactics, then save your keystrokes, because I don't. I'm pointing out that you only object to Hitler comparisons when the politician you like is bearing the brunt of them.
If my "speculation" is baseless, please link me to an article you've written where at any point you note that some on the left are taking their own rhetoric too far, and rhetoric against others on the left doesn't count. You've been writing constantly on here for years, and have had many opportunities to do so, so feel free to set me straight.
As for the stats about Americans not holding common knowledge, if it is unlinked to your own personal political beliefs, how come they so frequently show up during your political articles? You're also citing Bill Maher, who openly acknowledges that the politics of the U.S. is one of the reasons he thinks that Americans are dumb.
JE: Man, you're good at changing topics. You can't even stay focused on the facts in front of your face. Read the post. Note the quotation about the Rule of Nazis. Go back and read what I've said about Michael Moore, and about the people who attacked Joe Biden for calling Obama "articulate." Address what I'm talking about, not your fantasies about who you think I am. I don't have anything to prove to you beyond what I've written. If you take issue with it then Take Issue With IT. This is the insensible attitude that turns people into dining room tables.
Give Jim some room here. The fact is, Bush was very Nazi-like and Obama is NOT Nazi-like. The comparison we (okay, not all, but a few) made at the time was valid, if extreme. One more fact: The American people were wise to elect Obama, and are STUPID to reject health insurance reform. It always bothers conservatives when confronted with facts and reasoning (such as mine and such as Jim's) that correctly identifies and inventories when their opinions fall into foolishness. In almost every case, when you agree with conservative "ideas" [sic] then you have allowed your critical faculties to go off the rails (e.g., you are "stupid"); facts lead to certain correct conclusions that in most cases happen to align with the other side of the political spectrum.
Jim, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is what you are saying but that commenters here fail to "get." All the best, wM
JE: Yes: When the argument is reduced to "agreeing or disagreeing" with "conservative" or "liberal" ideology, that's no argument at all. As for Bush being Nazi-like, I don't know what you mean (he wanted lebensraum in Iraq?), but I would invoke the Rule of Nazi and say no valid discussion can take place once you go down that path.
Funny that you must resort to deeming me a liar. Perhaps I am a fool, an idiot, a moron, a stooge, but at no point did I ever lie about anything. And true to form, you've gone out of your way to switch the topic back to me, when what I've done twice is to point out that you take umbrage to attacks directed at your side of the fence and ignore those towards your own.
Example: A couple months ago, you wrote a post lambasting Bill Maher for his criticism of Obama. All well and good, except that you went out of your way to label Maher a libertarian, which he is most certainly not. I'm aware that Maher has self-applied that term long ago, but his issue positions are largely straight liberal, and you either know that and dishonestly pretended he was a libertarian in order to avoid labeling him as a liberal, or you didn't know it and exposed yourself as foolish.
I read the Rule of Nazis (or Godwin's Law or whatever). I've heard it for years and years and have always followed it myself. What I pointed out was that you only bring it up when your guy is attacked by such vile rhetoric. I understand that you might not believe all Republicans or conservatives to be Nazis, but I also know that you've never once posted anything that suggests it being applied to those groups seriously irritates you. You don't have anything to prove to me because you don't have any proof to the contrary.
And you know what? Fine. I've heard outrageous things said about the left and though I know it to be nonsense, I don't care as much as I would were it my side. However, I also don't scowl and engage in pretentious lecturing to others the moment I take offense, either.
Imagine this: the sides are switched. A Republican congressman is labeled a Nazi at a town hall meeting being held to promote a piece of legislation you disagree with. Would there be a post like this, or would you ignore it? Would you be lamenting the dissolution of polite discourse or would you crank out another entry about Quentin Tarantino?
As a result of this past election cycle, and the months since I've taken a personal vow to retire the words "Nazi" and "Hitler" from my vocabulary unless the conversation is explicitly about 30s/40s Germany.
Not that I used either much outside of said context to begin with, but I'm hoping that the act of said vow and being vocal about it will inspire others, and my dream is to get the words back to their original meanings. A man can dream...
Wanda M., despite my disagreements with virtually everything Jim writes, I sincerely hope he doesn't think like you! Any person anywhere who compares Bush or Obama to the Nazis announces to the world that they are clinically insane and incapable of being taken remotely serious by an individual with a shred of rationality or moral decency.
Really, the Nazis wrought incalculable evil and destruction to the world. To fathom but a tiny fraction of the suffering and misery they caused is a staggering task and one I suspect is well beyond any individual who hasn't lived it or something similar. To compare an American politician you hate (justifiably or not) to the Nazis or Hitler is indecent and vile, and callous to those who suffered at their hands.
Bill W.,
There is always an agenda.
Eric
JE: Yes there is: Think with your brain, not your reflexes.
Jim, hope your surgery was smooth and you are resting nicely. As for the post, everyone needs to do their best to put politics aside and ask: does the LOGIC that the woman uses in the video make sense?
Not to imply it's superior (at least compared to other college majors), but I think one of the real values of an engineering college education (that also builds on years of good primary schooling) was that you get more practice in, and improve your skills in, thinking LOGICALLY. While it's here applied to politics, the same thinking remains: if A is true, does that imply B is true, does that make sense? And if A is a FACT (not an opinion), and all the other ideas after flow from A and can correctly be inferred from it, then the conclusion is likely legitimate. Or at least you can have a good, clean debate about it.
Jim's comment of "think with your brain, not your reflexes" is absolutely true, and critical to sound, reasoned judgment. Reflexes and strong emotions (if I remember classes right :) ) are in the same part of the brain that includes "fight or flight" and other basic reflexes (the part of the brain we share with small animals/reptiles, NOT the areas responsible for our reasoning and intelligence).
I will note that it is telling that Jim will readily lambaste me for criticizing him but will let another go entirely for engaging in the same practice he ostensibly rejects as vile (aimed towards GWB, of course).
JE: To quote The Dude: "This will not stand." I guess I shouldn't be surprised -- but I want everyone to see this. Instead of noting that, somewhere in this thread, there is a "criticism" you feel is illegitimate (I don't know which comment you're referring to), why don't YOU refute it? Take it apart. Show how it is invalid. I do not lambaste you -- I lambaste your failure to rationally address or engage with any of the information or arguments in this post. You seem content to let the facts stand unchallenged -- but you dislike my motivation for posting them? Have you ever read this blog before? Particularly the recent posts about ad hominem attacks: "I criticize you! I criticize you back!"? Yes, I will say it again: For the many, many, many reasons I have outlined over the last nine years, I believe George W. Bush's administration has proven itself to be the most damaging and divisive presidencies in my lifetime and perhaps in the history of the United States. How does that change the fact that, for example, "Nearly half of Americans don't know that states have two senators and more than half can't name their congressman"? Or that "Why do you continue to support a Nazi policy?" is an invalid question that does not challenge any provision of any health care bill that has been proposed? I have been in favor of most of Obama's policies -- which is why I voted for him, and thos policies bear no relationship to Nazi policies as outlined by the Dining Room Table Lady. Now, can you get past that, or is that where the discussion ends for you? Do you have anything to say about a particular argument, or are you unable to say anything more than: "You like Obama and don't like Bush"? Because I already know that, and it does not constitute an argument. If you want to address anything I've written, please do. But merely telling me what "side" I'm on and what "side" you're on contributes nothing to any discussion. So, either contribute something or I see no reason to keep making room for the Dining Room Table here.
Jim,
Maybe we are all too stupid, but what exactly is your point in the posting?
Is it simply, "there are a lot of poorly informed or stupid people in the United States"?
Or are you saying something about health care reform? If you are, I suggest that if you are trying to have a reasoned debate, you should not take a loon from the opposing side and point out how stupid that person is as a proxy for the whole group.
And for the record, I am in favor of health care reform and some kind of safety net so that everyone can get some kind of insurance.
Eric
JE: The point of the post is what is in the post. (Also re-read the first P.S.) It is assigned to the "Critical Thinking" category. The Dining Room Table LaRouchie Lady could have been advocating world peace, or genocide, and her reasoning would be just as invalid. So, if you agree that she is making a loony argument, then that's fine. That's my point. She's just one example of lapses in critical thinking (including unfamiliarity with relevant facts) that I've been writing about here for years. Moving to nationwide statistics, I lament that our citizenry is so uniformed that, among the figures Maher quotes for example, "Nearly half of Americans don't know that states have two senators..." I am also in favor of health care reform and a social safety net that will enable universal coverage. So, why is the discussion about who has compared whom to a Nazi in the past, or whether I have properly condemned Nazi namecalling (despite my continued citing of the Rule of Nazi)? What does that matter? This just illustrates the difficulty some people are having separating valid methods of argument from ad hominem attacks. If something is true in the here and now, it is true no matter who says it or for what reason or what they have said in the past.
Jim, if you don't already read them, these two websites are for you:
Less Wrong
Overcoming Bias
Visiting those sites for the first time is equatable to receiving an invitation to Hogwarts.
Some of the posters in this blog entry are making entry-level mistakes and I can imagine the frustration you're feeling.
To be opposed to universal health care is to oppose one's own best interests. Democrats in Congress have proposed a system that will provide coverage for everyone who wants it. Therefore, the only reasons to oppose the Democratic bill are these: 1) you fail to understand the facts of the bill; 2) you oppose the concept of universal coverage (which is in itself illogical, going to Jim's point); or 3) you are opposed to anything proposed by President Obama because you are a bigot. That's pretty much it, and you can't really argue with that and still be a sentient human being. If you are against health care reform, you are either 1) ignorant; 2) uninformed; or 3) morally bereft. This is why so many of us understand instinctively the connection between Republicans and the Nazis of the 1940s: to align with the Nazis is to be either ignorant, uninformed or morally bereft. I know this doesn't sit well with conservatives, but it's not name-calling. It's just a cold distillation of fact.
Thank you Jim for giving us a forum to discuss the facts. I hope you will continue to call out those who purposefully misrepresent progressive ideas, and continue to call out those who attempt to defend the indefensable. Critical thinking is key to saving America from what the Republicans are doing to it. As of today, Republicans are simply incapable of accepting that they stand for bigotry, racism and ignorance in all its forms--and this is obvious by a simple examination of fact.
Hooray! It's a game of "Your Team Is Dumber Than My Team"
I think this post is a fantastic companion piece to the post you did a couple years ago in which you took the left fringe to task for endlessly calling Bush and the Republican party Hitler and Nazis.
I can't seem to find the link to that post... do you think you could provide it for me?
JE: Sure. And I won't muddy the issue by asking how you're defining your "teams." Your comment perfectly demonstrates the validity of the Rule of Nazi (see above), in which meaningful discussion is automatically derailed by any mention of Hitler or Nazis. Case in point: This post is about someone claiming that "death panels" are actually in a particular piece of legislation when they are not and never were. It's about getting the facts wrong, and asking a question that is not a question -- not about the usual inane and inapt demagoguery in which politicians or political groups are compared to Nazis. The truth is, EVERY American president since WWII has been compared to Hitler by fringe elements, and that in itself is not news and is hardly worth mentioning. That's what I wrote about "Death of a President" in 2006 -- a passage that seems to anticipate "Inglourious Basterds":
http://bit.ly/12w7hd
Is it possible to address the illogic rather than the particular subject invoked in demonstrating that illogic? The Rule of Nazi shows how difficult that can be. My favorite example of the craziness: Hitler was a vegetarian. Gandhi was a vegetarian. Therefore, Gandhi was a Nazi! Show me a clip where a Republican demolishes a stupid, ignorant person half as strongly and effectively as Barney Frank does here and I'll be glad to post it!
I envy those who have not seen or heard of LaRouche in some time. I am a recent graduate from Boston University and I have settled in the areas just outside campus. Unfortunately, the LaRouche PAC is a very common site in and around campus. They're almost like a tourist attraction. They park themselves around campus with their signs and their flyers and they try and scream at you while you walk by on listening to your ipod or are on the phone. What's most depressing is that these people who support him are my age. They appear normal and college-educated, which leaves me stunned as to why they would spout such nonsense.
Man, of all those decrying LaRouche and his folks as looneys since he came back into the spotlight because of the health care debate, I have yet to come across a thorough refutation of their claims. The point that I got out of reading their stuff is that the intention behind this health care reform is to impose austerity on the U.S. to pay for the trillions and trillions in bailouts, and that there are a whole nest of kooks in Obama's camp that believe in things like eugenics. They also want the government to pass the Conyers single-payer bill, demand HMOs be made illegal, and initiate a massive expansion of our health care facilities and infrastructure.
I think it's easy to dismiss a guy as a nut when all you hear is a soundbite saying things like the Queen of England is a drug-pusher or that the President is carrying out a Hitler policy. But, if we really take actual history (i.e., the British monarchy and the Opium Wars and the evolution of the American eugenics movement since WWII) into account, it's not all that far-fetched...
JE: This is what the whole Glenn Beck joke was about: Nobody has to refute claims until they've been substantiated with evidence. Until then, there's nothing to refute and a "claim" is just a fantasy/rumor. If you've found links that provide actual evidence for some of those Larouchie insinuations (eugenics, eh?), I'd like to see 'em. Especially anything that explains how health insurance reform would help subsidize bailouts.