"Now, getting over 200,000 people to come to a liberal rally is a great achievement, and gave me hope. And what I really loved about it was that it was twice the size of the Glenn Beck crowd on the Mall in August. Although it weighed the same."
-- Bill Maher, "Real Time," 11/06/10
Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear was all about tone. As Stewart said in his speech, "I can't control what people think this was. I can only tell you my intentions." And that boiled down to this: "We can have animus and not be enemies." Stewart and Colbert are masters of tone, and I have often argued that Bill Maher is not only tone deaf in his delivery (some find it funny; I find it sanctimonious and condescending), but too often plays fast and loose with facts and logic. And yet, he provided an important perspective about false equivalencies in his remarks about the rally on "Real Time" this week, which he summarized like this:
With all due respect to my friends Jon and Stephen, it seems to me that if you truly wanted to come down on the side of restoring sanity and reason, you'd side with the sane and the reasonable, and not try to pretend that the insanity is equally distributed in both parties.
Keith Olbermann is right, when he says he's not the equivalent of Glenn Beck. One reports facts, the other one is very close to playing with his poop.
the big mistake of modern media has been this notion of balance for balance's sake, that the left is just as violent and cruel as the right, that unions are just as powerful as corporations, that reverse racism is just as damaging as racism. There's a difference between a mad man, and a madman.
Again, I think Maher's words (and I should definitely credit his writers, too) are better read than when you see/hear them delivered, but it looks like Maher himself was trying to tone it down this time. I first heard about his commentary on Twitter and then Googled it and found the full transcript at Daily Kos, where a blogger named BruinKid also made some observations that I intend to take to heart. (More about that below.)
The point Maher raises about "balance for balance's sake" is, in fact, one Stewart himself has made many, many times over the years, and if you compare Maher's remarks to Stewart's rally speech, you'll find they agree on many principles. For example, Stewart said:
The country's 24-hour politico pundit panic conflict-onator did not cause our problems, but its existence makes solving them that much harder. The press can hold its magnifying glass up to our problems and illuminate problems heretofore unseen, or it can use its magnifying glass to light ants on fire, and then perhaps host a week of shows on the sudden, unexpected dangerous-flaming-ant epidemic. If we amplify everything, we hear nothing.
There are terrorists and racists and Stalinists and theocrats, but those are titles that must be earned. You must have the resume. Not being able to distinguish between real racists and tea partiers, or real bigots and Juan Williams and Rich Sanchez is an insult -- not only to those people, but to the racists themselves, who have put forth the exhausting effort it takes to hate. Just as the inability to distinguish between terrorists and Muslims makes us less safe, not more.
Maher also talks about making those crucial distinctions, but comes at them from a different angle:
The message of the rally, as I heard it, was that if the media would just stop giving voice to the crazies on both sides, then maybe we could restore sanity. It was all non-partisan, and urged cooperation with the moderates on the other side, forgetting that Obama tried that, and found out there are no moderates on the other side.
When Jon announced his rally, he said that the national conversation is dominated by people on the right who believe Obama's a socialist, and people on the left who believe 9/11 was an inside job. But I can't name any Democratic leaders who think 9/11 was an inside job. But Republican leaders who think Obama's a socialist? All of them! McCain, Boehner, Cantor, Palin, all of them! It's now official Republican dogma, like tax cuts pay for themselves, and gay men just haven't met the right woman.
As another example of both sides using overheated rhetoric, Jon cited the right equating Obama with Hitler, and the left calling Bush a war criminal. Except thinking Obama is like Hitler is utterly unfounded, but thinking Bush is a war criminal? That's the opinion of General Anthony Taguba, who headed the Army's investigation into Abu Ghraib.
You see, Republicans keep staking out a position that is further and further right, and then demand Democrats meet them in the middle, which is now not the middle anymore. That's the reason health care reform is so watered down; it's Bob Dole's old plan from 1994.
I don't think either Stewart or Maher are wrong here. And I don't even think the paranoid "9/11 truthers" are quite as nutty as the "Obama's a socialist" know-nothings or the birthers, either. It's unavoidable that ambiguities and unanswered questions will forever swirl about the complex of events of 9/11/200. Those are the kind of things that conspiracy theories have always been made of. It's much easier to look at the the Obama administration's actual policies, and the president's birth certificate, to disprove those other rumors. (Actually, any dictionary listing the word "socialism" would be enough to discredit one of them.)
BruinKid at Daily Kos adds:
We all get things wrong sometimes. I don't agree with Jon or Stephen or Bill or anyone else 100% of the time. And we shouldn't. If we did, we're nothing more than sycophants or robots, dutifully repeating what we're told.
I think Jon is quite wrong with those false equivalences. Isn't the first time he's wrong, won't be the last. But is that bad enough you're going to write off all the times he perfectly NAILS it? Not for me.
Or take Bill Maher, for example. Horribly wrong when it comes to vaccines, very misguided when it comes to distinguishing between Muslims and Muslim extremists (talk about false equivalences!), and treats all religions the same (I'm Taoist, and it's rather offensive). But does that mean I'll do a self-boycott of his show, or despise him as a result? No, because he's right on so much of the other stuff.
I will never enjoy Bill Maher as a comedian, simply because his style is anti-funny to me, and it's painful for me to watch his show. But I am going to try to less dismissive of him in the future. As Daniel Dennett says (in the upper right-hand corner): "There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear." I expect Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin to say absolutely crazy, indefensible things, but I get mad when Maher says them because -- even though, like Beck and Palin, he's just an entertainer who uses political material -- I hold him to higher standards. Why? Because when he's on-target (or close to it) he can make solid arguments, something Beck and Palin can't do and don't even try to do. When he goes moonbatty he diminishes the credibility of his better arguments.
UPDATE 11/09/10: John Stewart responds to Olbermann, Maddow and Maher:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| MSNBC Suspends Keith Olbermann | ||||
| ||||
79 Comments
I'm from the UK but live in Ireland, and you could imagine how all this looks to the rest of the world. I get Maher's point about how the "center" is being shifted by the constant demand for balance - the BBC does that too - but the "center" in the USA is already to the "right" by global standards. (What, you're STILL arguing about health care, while spending $trillions flattening other countries?)
PS re Maher's comedy style: there's something British about it that appeals to me e.g. the deadpan delivery of "news" hints at the Two Ronnies, I think. As for his "moonbattery": I think he's learning from his mistakes, and can imagine Richard Dawkins giving him a good talking-to after the latter's recent appearances on Real Time.
I’m not going to claim that I know what Stewart & Colbert were actually thinking as they may have been perfectly transparent about their intentions, but is there room for the possibility that they are smart enough to know that even if they do believe that the Right is more unreasonable than the Left (or vice versa), it was still in the best interest of their respective rallies to suggest that both sides were equally guilty of the same crimes?
In order to get someone to consider something that they strongly opposed to, it helps to start off on common ground. Simply stating “but you’re wrong and here’s why!” isn’t going to bring anyone new to the table regardless of the veracity of the statement. If the idea behind the rally was non partisanship they went about it with exactly the right tone I’d imagine. I’ve only seen a few of his shows, but the tone Maher uses is unlikely to get anyone who strongly disagrees with him to listen to his arguments, they will have tuned out before he reaches the end of his first sentence.
I hope I’ve articulated my thoughts properly and that it has some relevance to what you were suggesting Jim.
Speaking of false false equivalences: saying "I cite one example from each side of the political spectrum of less than sane behavior" is NOT equivalent to "both sides are equally guilty".
This is exactly the kind of stupid "Team Edward" side taking the the Daily Show constantly takes to task. As best I can tell, Maher is saying that because there are more Republicans guilty of insane beliefs, the sane thing to do must be to join Team Democrat. The point of Stewart's rally (again, my interpretation) was to reject the terms of that argument. Demanding that people put on a red or blue shirt and ad-hominem attack opposite each other to death is not sane. The possibility that one team does it more than the other is irrelevant.
So he's implying Democrats are the Left?? I suppose that's the funniest statement to ever come out of Bill Maher's mouth.
There's no "Left" in the US. As the saying goes "No Left left". And the so called liberals who presume to be the left are probably the biggest barrier to progress. Wishy-washy liberals like Maher are worse than tea partiers because a lot of people actually consider him as sane and rational.
And his comments on the media - "One states the facts" - gimme a break. It's sad, all so very sad. What passes for journalism is in everyones face, and uncompromising sites like "Counterpunch" that don't have to answer to advertisers and corporations are struggling to make ends meet simply because they depend solely on the donations of their readers and writers(which consists of uncompromising journalists from around the world).
I feel sorry for Ron Paul. He tries to keep the torch passed to him by Robert Taft, but all these morons who should be wiping tables at Perkins are using his message for their own purpose (witness the outcry over the "victory mosque."
Also, Ibsen beat Maher to the punch a century earlier with "Enemy of the People."
I know, it pains me as well to watch Beck and Palin and co. hijack Paul's rhetoric but ignore his true message.
But his views are becoming more and more mainstream, as shown by his incredibly frequent appearances on cable networks. The country has moved in his direction, and Palin and Beck are trying to hop on the wagon. I doubt they'll be able to stay on long.
Even Pat Buchanan has his moments where insight comes out. Too bad its surrounded by so much bull****
It happens with Bill Maher . . .
I agree and laugh with him MOST of the time.
However, he also can be surprisingly distasteful.
Napoleon Complex + Brains = no hold barred
Just be glad he's not repug.
First, this is inadvertently hilarious: your link to Obama's birth certificate goes to 404 Not Found.
Second, the real problem with the crazies is not where they fall on the political spectrum, but that it stifles actual debate. Do we want our government to control a car company? Do we want to bail out failing banks? How much power should our government have to shape our economy? How is the tax burden actually shared, and how should it be shared? What's the actual effect of any of thes policies? Slapping the "socialist" label on one side and the "corporate crony" label on the other just serves to solidify unconsidered support for whatever each party wants (hint: it usually serves the interests of the party, not the country).
The problem is that people cannot debate the pros and cons of (for example) taking over a car company (BTW, "The Economist" recently admitted that they were wrong and the car company bailout was very well-handled by the Obama Administration).
Instead of debating the pros and cons of the proposition, they debate the murkier issue of what kind of people it makes us. The latter issue is messy, and emotional, and cannot be debated rationally.
Just to be clear, I find the broken link hilarious not because I think Obama wasn't born in America (he was) but because it sets up the loonies so nicely.
It's PROOF! That is hilarious. I mucked up the HTML. Conspiracy or coincidence? You decide!
So Colbert and Stewart should have just held an openly "progressive," left-wing rally, and in doing so ruin everything that makes them so cool and watchable (mainly a lack of partisan BS on their shows). How many people do you think would have shown up?
Maher is so convinced of his rightness that he refuses to even address arguments from the other side, and he is the king of cherry-picking examples that support his claims while ignoring contradictory evidence. Colbert and Stewart (Stewart more so) are mature enough to realize that yes, reasonable people can disagree ("animus does not make us enemies"). Maher has never said anything like that.
I agree with you pretty much entirely about Bill Maher as a comedian. When I read about this, I didn't watch the video, and perhaps that made it sound more rational and sane to me.
What struck me as especially true in Maher's critique, and not true in Jon Stewart's, was the point he made here:
"When Jon announced his rally, he said that the national conversation is dominated by people on the right who believe Obama's a socialist, and people on the left who believe 9/11 was an inside job. But I can't name any Democratic leaders who think 9/11 was an inside job. But Republican leaders who think Obama's a socialist? All of them! McCain, Boehner, Cantor, Palin, all of them!"
It's just fallacious to compare the lefties who believe 9/11 was a conspiracy to the righties who believe Obama's a socialist (or not born in the USA, etc.), especially with regard to the actual makeup of the Republican Party in office today.
Maher is right on this point, more so than Stewart, because he actually recognizes that there is NOT an equal distribution of "crazy" in the national conversation today. The left is not "just as responsible" as the right for the insanity Stewart described, in the media OR in political office.
If we really want to be sane, we need to recognize that balance for the sake of balance ISN'T sane at all. If that's the case, why not just force the fairness doctrine? I'm sure that'll make everything better...
Eh, for argument's sake I'd say the truthers are about as nutty as the birthers. Maher is right though that no major Democratic candidate has taken the position that 9/11 was an inside job.
Does anybody REALLY think that Colbert and Stewart believe both sides are equally shrill and irrational? I think he genuinely wants calm reasoned dialogue and by conceding to this false position of "the left can be just as bad as the right", he hopes that the right will be more willing to drop the rhetoric and approach the issues logically. If he never admits wrongdoing, the right will become defensive, shut down, and dig their heels in that much harder.
I totally agree with Dean Craig above. The moderate Republicans in congress will be more likely to actually consider working with Obama if there's a balanced attitude about things, rather than "we're right and you're wrong".
The question is who are the "moderate" Republicans today? They can read historical trends as well as any of us, and they know that if the economy is improved and unemployment is down in two years then Obama is favored for reelection, like Clinton was. Mitch Mcconnell came right out and said their number one priority is to make Obama a one term President, and under that basis it's not in their interest to work with him on anything. Jon Chait wrote a good analysis a couple days ago:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/78960/what-everybody-misunderstands-about-the-gops-choice#comments
As soon as I saw the Beck-Olbermann comparison (which is NOT an equivalency), I knew Stewart was going to be in trouble. Speaking as a Christian socialist, I'm never surprised by the knee-jerks of the quasi-Stalinists. I watch (OK, watched; funny how things go around and come around) Olbermann for his sinners-in-the-hands-of-an-angry-liberal outrage (and for the Thurber readings), but there's something in his eyes that reminds me of "Animal Farm." Still, I hope to see him back; those TP-ers ARE sinners, and Keith is just angry enough.
Some may hate him, but I very much like Olbermann. He's made plenty of mistakes in the past, but more often than not, he owns up to them. And he seems to be aware of his position as a political commentator, not a news anchor. He's funny, and angry (impassioned, perhaps?), and (let's face it) often right. The difference between him and people like Beck and O'Reilly is that, while he channels his frustrations in his speeches, he uses facts to back up his opinions. He's gone off the deep end a few times (like I said, he usually owns up to it), but I still trust him more than most political commentators. I think we need his voice.
See, it's not an equivalency, because my side is right and yours is wrong. Why can't Stewart see that?
It's not an equivalency because not all comparisons are equivalencies--including Stewart's. That's all I meant. For the record, Olbermann is more often right than Fox. But he does overstate.
The problem with all these people who think that Stewart was saying that Beck and Olbermann are equal is that he didn't. As a former member of the media, the truth is members of the media have the thinnest skin of just about any group you can name. They may have been who Carly Simon was singing about. There is no such thing as "cable news." It is all conflict, all the time, even during the non commentator hours. They don't take time to explore issues in depth, unless it's hours on end to let us know that Michael Jackson is still dead or to follow the balloon boy nonsense, which everyone could tell was a hoax within about 5 minutes but which people such as Phil Griffin (the man who just suspended Olbermann for contributing to a candidate, but not Scarborough) forced his political shows to cover. Dig up the tapes of Ed Schulz trying to defend his coverage of balloon boy when Lizz Winstead called him on it and you can see a prime example of their thin skin or how they all leaped to Juan Williams' defense, forgetting his Clarence Thomas-defending and own charges of sexual harassment because they all are on the same D.C. party circuit. TV news is a joke and that's what Stewart was railing against. Look how they all rushed to televise Christine O'Donnell's concession speech and give her post-loss interviews. You didn't see Chris Coons, the winner, anywhere, but they couldn't get enough of the kook who lost by 17 points. Fox and MSNBC and CNN are not equivalent when it comes to passing off lies as truth but they are when it comes down to just plain bad reporting and missing what's important.
Ian Rosen--
I generally agree with that, but we really are facing a time where "moderate Republican" is an oxymoron. Even the ladies from Maine couldn't be called on to vote on healthcare--which was a plan nearly identical to a right-wing plan from 1992--despite concession after concession. The right-wing of the right-wing has successfully built a block of opposition that has given Obama exactly nothing for legions of compromises.
Unlike many, I don't blame Obama for trying. But it's clear that no Republican in the Senate, precious few in the house, and certainly none in the leadership have anything on their agenda but destroying the Obama presidency, regardless of the cost to the American people.
I agree with others that Stewart and Colbert probably don't believe that the left is equally at fault for the current mood in political conversation. And I also agree it is probably wise to just accept equal fault anyway if it might help us to all move past this moment.
However, totally not in that sprit, I have to wonder -- is the 9/11 truth movement really based in the left? I might be wrong, but, as far as I can tell, it has just as much support (if not more) from the paleoconservative tin hat crowd, led by Alex Jones (who likely not only believes Obama is a socialist but also the antichrist). For example, just about every truther I've ever met was gaga over Ron Paul.
I do not share Maher's politics, but I enjoy his social commentary. It angers me, it makes me laugh, makes me think. Whether I agree with it or not is irrelevant. It's alive, sharply observed and breaks form so it does interest me from that perspective.
I watched this clip and found certain touchstones in the argument that rang true. The bit about climate scientists or balance for balance sake (pointedly emphasized in the later MLK example).
And while I don't wish to throw the baby out with the bathwater, these kinds of grandstanding moments fail to capture genuine scrutiny from pundits when said pundits agree with the socio-political worldview in the rant. Although, unlike many personalities today, I do not hold programs like Real Time or The View to any journalistic standard to warrant such scrutiny, but more on that later.
Aside from standalone, right-wing Fox News, the mainstream press has an undeniable leftist bent, which is why the White House, major news networks, and comedians like Maher & Stewart focus their venom on Fox and give a pass to liberal equivalent MSNBC. Jim correctly pointed out in the last Maher entry that had Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity uttered the same sentiments about muslims as Maher, the presses would literally stop. Consequently, this makes it more about the politics of the speaker behind the statement than the actual statement. Thus, if you don't adhere to the doctrine of this secular humanist herd, you are an outcast and villified. NPR being a case in point.
NPR, nary a conservative voice to be found here, has been able to remain a public funded idealogue without serious challenge until recently. They can target a left-moderate analyst like Juan Williams for contributing to Fox News (not for professing an irrational but benign fear on air) yet overlook more radical statements from his leftist counterparts who remain in their teflon positions.
And i am supposed to believe that Keith Olbermann is not Glenn Beck because he deals in facts? Whose facts? I encourage everyone to watch excerpts of his coverage of the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts between Martha Coakley and Scott Brown, which was ripe with lies and distortions intent on subverting the outcome of the political process. It had no impact because his program has no cultural impact, but should that disqualify him from accountability? Apparently so.
I think the elephant in this advocation for critical thinking and facts before politics is the fusion of entertainment and news and the death of print journalism amidst the rise of unqualified blogging. Jim, is it not ironic that you continuously call for critical thinking in a medium where facts are generally unwelcome guests? And your politically charged entries are often supported by Jon Stewart clips, which underscores this very problem.
Conservatives do favor big business, less regulation, and are less environmentally conscious to be sure. But, Maher neglects to point out that liberal policies create a climate without personal accountability. One of overextended government intervention, frivolous lawsuits, union supported teacher incompetence - a warm benefactor to a soft and undisciplined America.
But, this is not an assault on liberal politics. It is not a referendum of Obamanation. What I am suggesting is what Maher was duplicitous in suggesting. That it's the ideas, stupid, and not the party. That no one party has a monopoly on the truth (though he ultimately states otherwise). If that were so, voters would not have overwhelmingly challenged the Democratic party's ideology on November 2nd. And when people like Maher attribute that to anger or stupidity on the part of the American people, we drift further apart from each other and any viable solutions.
Perhaps Twitter will be our salvation. We can bridge the political divide with tweets. You can read more about it on the Tony B. blog.
I think there are several examples of crazies on both sides of the aisle. I don't think many of them are actually in congress (though each side may have officials who have opinions that are a bit wackier than the majority of their parties.) The voting public however, that's where the above people mentioned by Stewart reside, and IMo the reason so much evil credit is given to the "right"(will explain quotes in a second) is because their entertainers are louder and more well... entertaining!! I mean the Becks, Coulters and Limbaughs of the world. They are funnier, better at combining their rhetoric with humor and also better at putting it all in terms that strike a chord with the average working person. The left when they try to do similar tend to come off sounding elitist, snobby and dismissive of the average person as someone who needs to be taken care of because they are too dumb to do it themselves..... Thats not very appealing (and the largest reason why there hasn't really been a successfull left wing radio morning show...) But one interesting thing about Maher is that he lists Coulter as one of his best friends. They have vastly differing opinions yet seem to be able to exist as buddies which seems to be disappearing in our world now. In this age of hyper specific news opinions one doesn't have to hear or discuss differing opinions anymore. If your a militant black lesbian who enjoys roller derby and flower arranging you can probably find a blog or newssite that caters to you!!! This leads to a society of dogmatic people and that just isn't healthy. One of my favorite politicians of all time was Tip O'Neil (and i'm a registered GOP guy!!) the reason was he was good at getting people together and getting compromises done. But back then , they got done in bars over single malts and Coronas.... Now the two parties members don't seem to hanging out together in bars after work..... Okay, the quotes around "right". One thing that bugs me is how people claim that the GOp is moving right. I completely disagree... well partially... if you mean retarded social policy? yes. But when it comes to economics you are wrong. It used to be "Daddy Republican keeps mommy Democrat from spending all the money" Now it's "Mommy and Daddy fight over who gets to spend all the money" Thats not conservative! Thats not a tru smaller govt or taking washington out of peoples lives! Thats just eliminating the other sides pet projects so you can institute your own... It seems to have become so much hokum.
I happen to like Maher.
I don't find him (or Real Time) to be particularly funny, but there is something to be said for political humor, and so I watch. And while he can, indeed, play fast and loose with the facts, he is almost always near the truth. Near enough that we get the point.
Of course, near enough isn't good enough, but any informed person who watches the show won't allow themselves to be fooled. I suppose what I mean is that Real Time isn't an echo chamber in the same way that a Glenn Beck or O'Reilly Factor is.
Which leads to an interesting idea, in that it seems to me that liberals are primarily concerned with facts, while conservatives are more concerned with an agenda. As much as I like Maher, I will fact-check something that he says that piques my interest (something that Jim does as well; I suspect there are many others like us), while people who watch Glenn Beck take his word as gospel.
This idea reminds me of Jimmy Carter's recent appearance on Real Time, in which he said something along the lines of, "natural born Democrats care more about helping others than most." I find this to be very true, and I believe it points to two very important ideas.
First, that there are "natural-born" partisans. I think a person is either selfish or selfless (with much grey area in between, or course), and that this is a huge determinant in their future party affiliation. Carter astutely pointed out that he and Clinton have done much for humanity in their post-Presidential time, while the Bushes and Reagan have done next to nothing. To be fair, GHW Bush has worked with Clinton for Katrina relief.
Second, that if there are natural-born partisans, this can be used to explain a number of things, amongst them the differing weight given to the importance of the truth. Liberals love to criticize their own (even their own country, which is where the "blame America first crowd" meme comes in), because of the importance put on the principles of their platform. If America is doing wrong, we want to right it.
Take, for instance, Jim's post on Maher's comments about Muslims. I am a raging liberal, but agree almost entirely with Maher. The Democratic party, of course, disagrees with our stance (as do most Americans, I suspect). This is both heartwarming for the great willingness of Americans to be rational and give individuals a chance and disheartening because I believe liberals to be much too soft on this issue. I think that Islam is intrinsically anti-western, anti-American, anti-Democratic, etc. The counter-argument is that one ought not to generalize all people of a certain religion, but I believe that the problem lies in the religion itself, and that people, who obviously think God is on their side, can too easily be led to fight the bad fight. After all, what better justification is there for a religious person than God him/her/itself. The point is that I am willing to diverge with my party and criticize it, as I think all liberals are. I can't say the same for conservatives.
To finally end this long post, I'd like to say that what I like about Maher are his earnestness and his anger. There aren't enough angry liberals out there. We are intrinsically too rational, too confident in human goodness to be genuinely angry. And we are too dependent on the intellect, even when we can use our own to see that the other side just doesn't give a damn. I think the lack of lefty anger is the main reason why the center has shifted to the right, and this angers me more.
See, I think Stewart and Colbert both know damn well that lunacy isn't evenly distributed across the political spectrum (if I may use such an old-fashioned, quaint term), but THEY HAVE TO PRETEND IT IS. It's a rhetorical ploy to get the "right" to watch and maybe introduce them to the feelings of (gasp!) cognitive dissonance.
In other news: There are beautiful shades of irony everywhere.
i completely disagree with the comment re: there being 'beautiful shades of irony' everywhere. the irony is causing us to disengage en masse, to watch stewart skewer hypocrisy and chuckle hedonistically before running into the sweet arms of whatever slanted biased news coverage we prefer. the irony is a deep part of the problem.
I think it's ironic (and cute!) how Jake failed to see the irony in my ironic comment about irony. Oh, the irony!
I guess there really ARE beautiful shades of irony everywhere. Thanks, Jake!
If you have to ask whether Olbermann is more of a commentator than an anchor, then you need to work on your critical thinking/viewing skills. Is this really up for debate?
You've heard of the rhetorical question?
Wasn't he using one?
What makes you so sure?
OK, ignore my comment. I was trying to be cute and answer yet another rhetorical question with another rhetorical question, and then I clicked send and realized my question wasn't really a rhetorical question.
So. Carry on, then.
Opinions, opinions...
I'm okay with what Maher said, but the false equivalencies of Stewart/Colbert have one thing right: the media is no longer providing Americans with content, only slant on content, which is not the same thing. Here's how it works: Glenn Beck (or Rush or whoever) says something outrageous, something even he probably doesn't believe, knowing full well the media will jump all over it and spend the next few media cycles debating the accuracy of his claim, and that a few handfuls of idiots will take him at face value and come to hate the president that much more. Jon Stewart jumps in and points out that Beck once espoused beliefs the other side of the argument, and is thus a hypocrite, and that the media have stupidly taken his claim at face value, have used the "controversy" to generate ratings, and haven't bothered to actually fact-check (a) its accuracy or (b) the possible hypocrisies and/or media manipulations of its source. Repeat. Ad infinitum. Every damn day.
Turn on CNN right now and you'll get the sort of thing you used to find only on cable-access sports shows: prognosticators, charlatans, and mind-readers, all of whom seem to know what someone else was thinking, what they'll do next, who's going to win tomorrow, and what the repurcussions will be. This is not news. This is fortune telling. And the fact that these fortunes are wrong, always wrong, seem to have no impact on the media's desire to convey them. We are a nation of people less interested in a news story than in the way the news story will affect the current Presidential administration, of people less interested in getting facts than in confirming pre-existing opinions, of people not at all interested, apparently, in history, context, source material, or the finer points of argument. If a debate can't be watered down to ten-second soundbites of partisan cliches, it's not worth having.
If you're one of these journalists, let me help you out: Shut up. Find an issue, get out of your chair, and get to the bottom of it. I don't care what Limbaugh thinks of it. I don't care what Olbermann thinks of it. America is an immeasurably poorer place because of these nonsensical arguments and controversies over nothing. I just want the damn news, thank you, and I don't want you to tell me what to think of it, and if you can't do that, then please, for the love of God, stop talking.
This doesn't directly deal with the topic under question. It's just that in the last few months some critic on a blog completed a list of his ten favorite movies of every year from from 1920 (or even earlier) onwards. Now I've forgotten the blog it was on. Can anyone help me with whom it was. I think the critic or the blog started with a c.
The Cropduster.
It's Robert Horton's excellent blog, The Crop Duster: http://roberthorton.wordpress.com/
"Natural born Democrats care more about helping others than most" can you cite a fact to back this up or was this just pulled out of your ass?
Facts are that Republicans give more to charity, volunteer more, give blood more often.
"Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so."
Source: "Bleeding heart Tightwads", by Nicholas Kristof, New York Times, Dec. 20, 2008.
Give critical thinking a try!
To clarify, I don't recall having said the quote that you cite. In fact, I quoted President Jimmy Carter as saying them. I followed up the quote with my own words, "I find this to be very true."
Give proper citation a try.
So while I do agree with Carter, I can't accept having said that statement, because it never happened. Furthermore, I never pretended that I would try to back up the quote with factual information, only that I FELT it to ring true. So, perhaps you are correct, and that my feeling is wrong. I am not closed off to that idea. Let's call my opinion a tentative one, that can be changed as I find more information on it.
That about sums up my whole post above. I am concerned with the truth, and if it is contrary to my beliefs, I will change them.
As to the stats you cite, they are interesting, but sort of hollow. It stands to reason that conservatives give more (gross) to charity, because they have more. It would be interesting to find out who gives a higher percentage of their income. Again, I don't suppose I know the answer, but I would like to.
The Google study is one I will look at. A few things must be looked at as possible confounding variables. First, because it deals with gross totals, one must compare the number of reported conservatives versus liberals. If conservatives give at a 2:1 rate, perhaps this is due to some similar ratio of people that describe themselves along those lines. Again, I don't know, but I'll look it up. And of course, the same principle applies as in the case above; conservatives can generally afford to give more, as they have more money (chicken/egg: does them having more money make them conservative, or does them being conservative lead to them going into more lucrative fields? The intelligentsia is overwhelmingly liberal, and they get paid peanuts, while similarly bright conservatives may use their brainpower to go into the private sector).
And, of course, it must be noted that even you and I can agree that much incentive for giving to charity is tax-related. So the act of giving isn't a perfect measure of truly helping others, as it isn't always perfectly selfless. For example, a person who is capable of doing much more (such as being President) works as a community organizer rather than applying his skills for a corporation. How much should something like this count? Is it equal to a certain amount of charitable donations? Who knows? Not me. Not you.
In short, I applaud your use of facts. This is something to lot of you generally fail to do. But let us try to understand these facts rather than just shout them. Your argument, so far, has been more factual and perhaps convincing than mine, which is great. But it isn't as cut and dry as you'd like those facts to make it.
Your facts are obnoxious.
That study was based on self-reporting. Christian conservatives are more likely to SELF-REPORT that they give generously to charity. That doesn't mean they actually do. It's the same reason women report twice as many sexual partners when hooked up to a lie detector: peoples' responses to surveys are coloured by their desire to look good, even if the survey is anonymous.
The United Way found that the most generous city in all of North America in 2009 was Toronto: a liberal enclave which holds a huge Gay Pride parade every year, and which broke their record. Keep in mind, they were looking at actual dollars coming in, not just self-reported claims of generosity.
An addendum to my previous response:
I have since looked at a few studies, such as the Google one you studied. It seems that conservatives do give more, not only total, but in percentage of income. So, you are absolutely right.
And while I did find this surprising, the studies all point to a few confounding variables. First is religion. The right pretty much owns that bloc of voters, but I happen to be a Christian liberal, and so I suppose that has something to do with my own views. President Carter, whose quote started this whole discussion, is also, famously, a Christian liberal. So, maybe it is a bit easier to understand why we would feel the way we do.
Second, every study points to the fact that the difference can primarily be explained by the liberal/conservative divide on the role of government and taxation. Liberals tend to believe that the government is responsible for "distributing the wealth", and that makes them less likely to give to charity. This seems to make sense. Most liberals are willing to pay more taxes for entitlement programs, something conservatives like to remind us of every day, as if that were a bad thing. Conversely, conservatives tend to put more emphasis on personal responsibility, and want little government "interference", which puts the burden on them directly to give. And to their credit, they do.
So, again, the stats look nice, but they must be examined closely in order to draw out their real meaning. In short, you are correct that conservatives give more to charity (in both gross numbers and percentage of income), but as I said in my previous response, that isn't the only measure of selflessness. Liberals are willing to pay more in taxes to support social programs, while conservatives aren't. Which is more significant? I don't know. You've certainly helped refine my opinion, although it still isn't totally formed.
Perhaps it is best to distill this dilemma to a stark question: if YOU were personally destitute, where would you rather be? A liberal region with strong social programs, or a conservative region with nonexistent social programs and a vague promise that they'll be charitable to you?
Keep in mind that charitable donations dropped 11% at the big charities last year according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy: charity has a nasty habit of drying up precisely when it is needed the most.
Conservatives love to muddy the issue, but the fact of the matter is that if you were personally poor, you'd be a fool to opt for a conservative area. They promise that their charity will replace social programs, the same way Homer Simpson promises that the cheque is in the mail.
Tom - Thank you for doing independent research and for being open-minded to alter your original opinion that liberals care more about helping others than conservatives. I am willing to accept your analysis that liberals are more prepared to spend taxes to help Americans in need, while conservatives are more prepared to give to charity to help Americans in need. Neither approach is necessarily hard-hearted or cold.
As far as Humphrey Bogart, we conservatives will claim him - he was cooler than Elvis, John Wayne and Clint Eastwood combined!
If a study showed that more Democrats than Republicans are fans of Humphrey Bogart movies, would that mean that there's something about being a Democrat that makes you like Humphrey Bogart?
There could be.
Perhaps some sort of psychological trait exists, whereby a person is more likely to become a Democrat AND like Bogey. I don't think that is unreasonable.
An old professor of mine from the Univeristy of Michigan, David Winter, has done a lot of study on authoritarian personalities, and his findings suggest that these people are both more agressive than most, but that they are overwhelmingly Republican. It probably explains why the wierdo stomped on the protester's head at the Rand Paul meeting, while you don't see such things on the left.
And so, if aggression can be linked to partisanship, why can't Bogart fandom? Human psychology is quite fascinating.
What I want to know is: when did comparisons mean the two items being compared had to be completely identical? When did mentioning two things in the same sentence require them to be absolute equals to one another?
The false equivalency strikes me a distraction spawned from that Magnifying Glass Stewart/Colbert talked about.
That disturbs me because I can easily see extremist nutcases on the Left eventually taking over just as they did on the right because I see so few standing up for their own integrity anymore;, they just look over to Limbaugh, Fox, Palin and Co and say, "Well, as long as we're not that bad, we're paradigms of integrity."
Or, to build on what Maher observed, if the Left isn't careful, I think the extreme Right is going to drag the reasoning, the integrity, the logic, and civility of the Left with it into insanity land. Just because one side is better than the other right now, doesn't mean it will always be. Just because there's no 9/11 Truthers in Congress now, doesn't mean we won't see one.
I really really hope that never happens, but, like I said: I can imagine it happening, and it scares me.
There's something I don't quite understand. You clearly despise Maher. And yet you write about him quite a bit. Why do you keep watching him?
I guess you didn't read the last few paragraphs above. I don't "despise" Maher. In 6 years of doing this blog, I've published four posts on his show (two of them in this last week) and one film festival report from Toronto on his movie "Religulous." So, an average of maybe one a year. Why? Because he appeals mostly to a liberal audience and he perfectly illustrates some of the logical fallacies that we often criticize in conservative pundits/comedians. And I haven't watched an entire show of his for years -- but when something he's done starts circulating on the web I sometimes pay attention.
Think about this: In basketball, there is a winner and a loser. There are two teams. Some politicians and pundits get all mushed up and confused when they are braying about bi-partisanship and cooperation. They act as though we're in a system where getting along means winning. No, it doesn't. Getting along means Democrats winning, because getting along means compromising on government programs which, by definition, expands the size, scope and reach of the government. When compromise wins, government wins and the people lose.
During the Clinton administration ("best Republican president we ever had," as they say) there was compromise between the parties and the executive and legislative brances -- except for that time Newt Gingrich shut down the government and then resigned in disgrace. In eight years the federal bureaucracy was cut back to the point where the national debt was paid down and became a surplus.
There is something so tempting, so seductive about the idea that "increase in government" is always bad for "the people". And yet, though government soared to huge size and enormous tax rates in the 1950s, many Americans still look back at it as a golden age.
Today, with tax rates dramatically scaled back from what they were in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, or even 1980s, we seem unhappier than ever with our government.
At the risk of oversimplifying, I have come to suspect that the real problem is a culture that has become, for lack of a better word, spoiled and whiny. For many people, the very idea that they owe ANYTHING to society is downright offensive: it is an attitude which reminds me of petulant teenagers.
The culture may have become spoiled and whiny, but I think the real problem is that we are stupid.
It is a crying shame that we allow the insanity to be sold to us. We should demand more from our politicians, but we seem to actually want less. Shorter debates, shorter catch phrases. Why discuss something at any meaningful level when "drill, baby, drill" sounds so easy and catchy?
In short, we make fun of intellectual politicians, but praise Bush and his ilk for going with their gut.
or "don't give them back the keys"... works both ways
(whoops, I twitched)
...and Madison Avenue," he meant to finish.
Not sure what happened to the first part of this which seemed to have been submitted before I was finished.
Doesn't Stewart regularly mock left-of-center people on his show --for "balance" purposes I am to assume?--and equate Marxists with racists in the rally for all y'all so very reasonable and enlightened "moderates"/Obama/Democrat supporters?
Just felt like pointing out John Stewart hates progressives and that minority of people that are truly Left-wing in America and has a record of it. Just sayin'.
Well, The Daily Show that I watch on a regular basis may take some jabs at the Left now and then but I have never ever gotten the impression that Jon Stewart "hates progressives". Even using the word "hate" to describe any occasional jokes or mocking done on the show at the expense of the Left seems pretty extreme. However, the show sure has spent a lot of time criticizing Dems and Obama this year. Just sayin'.
I still don't exactly get why you think Bill Maher isn't funny. Could you maybe explain in an extended article or in a reply to this post?
Could you explain why he is?
(Warning: boring, wishy washy post)
I am a fan of Maher, Stewart and Colbert. I think all three are smart, hilarious and that all three of their shows are classics. I think that on this issue of sane rhetoric vs. avoiding false equivalency that they (well, Stewart and Maher) have made good points.
Sorry for the boring rhetoric, I will try to evoke more fear and/or partisanship next time.
I typically voice the opposite opinion of the field I am discussing in, so in a Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh forum, this may emphasize different aspects, but nonetheless I proceed.
Maher seems to state and you seem to echo that it is false "to accuse the left of being just as violent and cruel as the right". This seems to be quite ungrounded. How is "the right" "violent and cruel"? The best thing you can bring against "the right" is some of the obvious pandering to divisions that a Beck and a Limbaugh engage in. Yet, from my curiosity and fascination, I hesitate to say, I have become verily convinced in a verily hesitant way something of an internal apologetic of the voices of the right. Why you ask? Sure, there are obvious pandering to those items which will always place them in the fascinating fringe (i.e. CNN = communist news network), yet the core message that screams through the loudest needs to be a bit more heeded. You have to understand that the brunt of the conservative message is a vast frusttration with the inefficiency of money taken from the populace and then filtered through an organization that uses these funds in an incredibly (intentionally designed to be) ineffective system. I believe the most profound example comes in the arena that seems to be incredibly, simultaneously the "fringiest" and "sanest" aspect of the conservative movement: Mounting national debt. This received some sort of "balanced" voice in the film IOUSA, yet we see how big of a voice such a "balanced" approach took... despite the zaniness, the hitler mustaches, the tea party/conservative movement at its heart is defined by this. The zaniness that surrounds everything else (which is just as much the fault of this movement) is just white noise. I have become quite compelled though at this line of reasoning. Despite whatever sympathies I have with other political sides (I did vote for Obama and actually still like the guy and will most likely vote for him again) this core issue is undeniable. This makes me have some sympathy with the idea that the conservative side is unduly trashed as "fringe" when they are simply attempting to take some fiscal responsibility. For instance, if a senator only voted for a balanced budget, this would not, for a long long time make them anywhere near a "center" position on budget voting. Now, sure, the Republicans are much to blame for this. Yet, the "tea party"/"conservative" movement has given one of its chief concerns in keeping the republicans accountable to this principle and not repeating the sins of the past in running equally large deficits.
The point of all this is that there is a lot that has to be learned from this movement. It is telling that Stewart's rally, one that was much criticized for leveling the playing field of dialogue, was simultaneously criticized and attended by people who can find nothing "sane" with a movement that's core principle is only to make sure that Washington will stop spending so much more than they take in from taxes (and therefore being dependent upon, primarily, the middle class to exist) and give more regulatory control to specific states. (I mean think about it... how much "sense" does this make? Our taxes go so heavily to the federal government, but the smaller portion that goes to federal/local governments seem to provide us with so many of the "services" that we expect as a society: schools, roads, public utilities... or let's take "social security", can you honestly tell me that this is in a sustainable place? I don't have any intention of receiving any of the funds back which I currently put in so robustly. To simply argue that all that is required is periodic tweaks (as Reid did in his debate, not that there shouldn't have been a better opponent picked than the selection that came through) is a bit naive) Most of the time this fact simply goes over my head, but much of the fervor of this movement comes from the perception that money is going out and nothing is coming from that.)
But in summary, let me say this is coming from an Obama fan (I did some canvassing actually). I believe Obama has indicated some sensitivity to these problems, perhaps even more so than George W did. Yet, the main concern at issue here is the question of whether we MUST demonize ONLY the right and withhold any "sanity" from their existence. Stewart, I believe, has done the best job in this area. Some of his recent interviews with conservative politicians have been some of the best television i've seen in a while. These conversations have been the "sanity" he has been expounding. the Cantor interview was particularly revealing. I have been so encouraged to see the level of dialog employed. What i've taken from these exchanges (also Perry, and particuarly Chris Wallace was exhilarating on Stewart, involving even Stewart cutely expouding "I like you") was this "The spending is out of control" "yes but look at all the good things that have been done by government its not ALL bad" "sure, but we cant afford what currently taking place" "thats true"... anyways. The left and right both need to tone down the rhetoric and reasonably engage the principles of conservatism. Which, the recent findings of the deficit reduction panel seem to do. Unfortunately (with a quick peek at the blaze and huffington post) both sides are demonizing these efforts. I guess they must be good then.
I am a fan of Jon Stewart, but I knew he had a penchant for false equivalence when he had guests on his show to discuss creationism versus evolution. He aimed for the notion that "reasonable" people can see the merits of both sides' positions.
Science is not based on opinion. It's not like politics. There is empirical evidence and logic behind its conclusions. They are not subject to negotiation, like a trade deal or a bill in Congress. It is exactly the OPPOSITE of "reasonable" to use words like "extremism" to define a scientific position.
1) So far as I can see, Maher wants the right to continue demonising the American Right. When the
man says anything sensible, let the world know.
2) Obama's no socialist. (I'm an Ulsterman, left of centre, so I wouldn't vote for a party like the Democrats as they are too right wing!)But because America does not have a viable left-of-centre party, I can see how the politically naive could make that mistake.
3) The second that you suggest that a conpsiracy theory has any credibility, even in comparison to a simple mistake about politics, it's time to stop writing. I was absolutely astonished to read that claim.
4) My concern about the level of political dialogue in the US grows. Comedians hold rallies. Elections are viewed throgh apocalyptic lenses. It's very worrying.
You hear Maher's tone all the time in Northern Irish poilitics. It's the tone of a bigot, who knows his opponents arguments are flawed, but just can't say how. At least religious bigots can appeal to a divine revelation. Where does Maher's sense of certainty come from?
And when he can't tell the difference between air pollution and anthrogenic global warming, why should I think he has ever listened to any climate scientist? Ever?
Google "Hitler" and "Bush", then "Hitler" and "Obama". Guess who gets compared to a genocidal maniac at the head of a "Reich" most often?
For the record - I would agree with Maher's position on climate change and on health care. Democrat/Republican policies seem horrifically right wing to an outsider. But is this where popular political debate in the US rests? Ill-conceived rants? Fox News? The Daily Show?
Is this what the leaders of the Free World have to offer?
goddamn, jon stewart is getting fat...
It’s a good thing Jon Stewart announced his next rally to correct for his error:
“The Rally To Determine Precisely The Percentage Of Blame To Be Doled Out To The Left And The Right For Our Problems Because We All Know The Only Thing That Matters Is that The Other Guys Are Worse Than We Are And/Or Fear.”
Maher is right: just because there are two opposing viewpoints, there are not necessarily two compelling arguments. It also does not mean there is even one compelling argument.
Funny, Jim, you state the right keeps going further right and expects the left to meet them in the middle. Conservatives see it just the opposite. The left has heralded some noble causes and forced America to deal with its demons. In doing so, it has righted some serious wrongs, but the liberals keep wanting to throw out the baby with the bath water. Socially, we have come a long way, but the fiscal irresponsibility is the reason Obama's House was rejected. Both parties must stop the spending madness. NOW!
Folks, it's the brainwashing of the media.
When Stewart says-
"The country's 24-hour politico pundit panic conflict-onator did not cause our problems, but its existence makes solving them that much harder.The press can hold its magnifying glass up to our problems and illuminate problems heretofore unseen, or it can use its magnifying glass to light ants on fire, and then perhaps host a week of shows on the sudden, unexpected dangerous-flaming-ant epidemic. If we amplify everything, we hear nothing."
-he neglects to mention the context of brainwashing, which makes all of this possible in the first place.
When you put your magnifying up to ants and then host a week of shows about the flaming ant epidemic, this sounds remarkably like people being put under a passive-inducing spell: because it is; that's how advertising works.
So, that's the first part of the problem is they are using all the tricks of brainwashing in advertising, which are kind of passive-inducing psychologically-manipulating non-sequiturs used as a bait-and-switch to make you forget that they are trying to sell you a product while it seethes into your subconscious desires, fears, etc.
In other words: "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" is happening right now, Folks.
I think, yes, I'd rather have the Jon Stewart strategy or tone or what have you, but I think he did not go far enough.
He's always talking about how GOOD the right-wing machine is on his show (if you watch his show, you know what I'm talking about) and how they spin the conversation around: so I think he should have focused on the METHOD in which they do this.
Perhaps, he, himself and many of us all are kind of trapped in this brainwashing of what the advertisers have convinced us of what is "accepted" "culture" (or have perversely perpetuated if not originated first).
But let's say he was above this somehow and has escaped the grasp of the machine, well then there's a problem, because you can't really start a war with the brainwashing of advertisers whose funding makes his show possible; so there might be a risk to do this.
So, I think perhaps the sanity should first be directed towards the marketing machine.
What kind of commercials could advertisers use, if not these psychological manipulations: good pieces of art? Well, maybe. Perhaps they could actually be good works of art, or kind of like a bridge, as it were, like music, to kind of entertainingly mesh with the show you are watching: I guess perhaps pop art; maybe they could just use straight facts kind of about why their product is so good; it might not work and I guess perhaps we should all just at least kind of be aware of their manipulations: See, that's one thing Jon Stewart did seem to get; he kind of put the idea forward that they use our fear of the dying as a basis for their psychological manipulations. He could have done a whole rally on that, perhaps, and shown how Marketing does this, political punditry being a mere branch of this or a pawn in the game. So, he highlighted the game, but then focused on the asterisk and made the kind of footnote as it were the entire piece, like "hey, they use the fear of death to market political ideas"...so, now let's have a rally about these political ideas, rather than the fear of death part? I think he kind of glossed over the most important parts.
So, the most important part is that, not what came as a result of that; so that's what I mean by perhaps he is part of a brainwashing (and probably just about all of us, including myself) so much so to not see outside of it or at least that perhaps he'd have to attack brainwashing in general, and all of his advertisers I'm sure would be giving him "notes."
And I'm not talking about little subliminal messages when you play something backwards or some little images hidden in a diet coke logo or other logos, I'm talking about conspicuous things, which I'm sure most of us can imagine what they are, or at least, now, a little bit of how. How they do it is often buzzwords, which are strong emotional words, which is how the right-wing think tanks work. They use terms that you can't possibly disagree with; who's going to be against "death panels"? Nobody is who. Or "Intelligent Design" or "Tax Relief" or all of these other words. So, they get you into this passive state and then they throw things at your brain that your brain can't possibly disagree with.
But back to more conspicuous examples.
What happened with the invention of MTV? They soon merged the brainwashing of fashion into the music industry to the point where they would literally pick girls up off the street that they didn't care if they could sing or not and then make them stars (I can't think of who off the top of my head, but there were some). Well, we all remember Milly Vanilly as just one famous example, but now it's been brainwashed into us so much that we just "accept" that the image has been sold to us: but to what extent is what I'm saying; probably a very unhealthy extent. And how much other music has been sold to us like this? This is probably a large reason, on top of the already large reason of psychological manipulations (and aren't so many songs kind of psychological manipulations that make us unhealthy), why so much music is pretty bad; we've become worshippers of an image, which is an extent of the other manipulations.
So, I think we need another rally against brainwashing, which would include political punditry as just kind of a footnote.
Hopefully, people at least got the message that they use the fear of dying to brainwash us, but I'm a bit pessimistic that this message was widely received.
Part 2 (as an extension of my last post)
I think Jon Stewart could have used some Bill Maher in the sense that they are using the brainwashing to attract troubled people, such as psychopaths, meaning people without empathy (genetically), like many murderers, racists, or face stompers (Rand Paul) or child abusers or just can't listen to other people and put on an accepted act that appears very much like other's people's behavior who really do listen to other people; they might look just like anyone else if you look superficially...or very troubled people.
These are the people the crazy right-wing talk radios are trying to attract as their core audience.
It's a very big problem when you combine brainwashing with an attractive psychopathic successful personality; people are going to look at being psychopathology as kind a kind of form of self-help, meaning many people who are already screwed up think they are doing something right, and many others who are just a bit lost, now think that these psychopaths have a personality to be emulated and then the brainwashing into that means that a lot of people who have no tendencies to do these things, but who have been brainwashed to do certain things, are going to unconsciously let their "attractive psychopathic" side slip out every now and then.
You mix this together with politics and you have a funky looking America who isn't going to listen to each other.
So, what, if the brainwashing comes from manipulating us psychologically, such as the fear of dying, do the brainwashers do in these trying times? Well, as they use this fear: they're going to use this fear, as well as the positive aspects of these manipulations, as it's just part of its nature since time immemorial. Brainwashing, psychopathy, yeah, Bill Maher's got a point, and I agree that the brainwashing has gone to dangerous to the dangerous level where a psychopathic mindset is becoming mainstream, thanks to people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, who, let's remember, are just doing this to make some money, like selling gold, as the psychopaths come out or a new instilled and unnatural psychopathic side is shown by us mechanically.
Probably a typing error here, but the deficit became a surplus. The debt was only beginning to be paid down.
Matt,
I voted for Obama, too, and am likewise disposed to repeat that blunder. Now let me reply from the more fiscally liberal side of that demographic.
What you say can seem perfectly "commonsensical" to all of us that have to keep on a budget but there are several mitigating factors:
1.The federal government can do things with monetary policy that the average householder can't. And they have a history of doing just that in times of recession. The country's budget, in other words, is not necessarily in the red or black in quite the way it seems at a given moment.
2."Fiscal responsibility" is often cited as a "common-sense" argument against universal healthcare but since no healthcare often means that people die I would prefer the term "death panel" to "fiscal responsibility".
3.In this same vein, I heard many say something like: "Every family knows that in times of financial difficulty it must tighten its belt." True, but few families say "Sorry, Junior, we can't afford your appendectomy this year. Bye, bye."
4.You rather casually use the phrase "we can't afford it" when I would say that "we can easily afford it" when speaking of health care and many other policies that I happen to think of as essential to any country wishing to think of itself as a world power, morally decent, or simply answerable to its people--people here being separate from the recently in vogue term: "taxpayer", which implies, like a certain recent Supreme Court decision, that citizenship is magnified by the amount of money one has. The idea of affordability is simply based, these days, on the economy of the moment, and on the current tax policies, rather than on what is possible and historical (see Michael Wong's comments regarding the 50s and 60s.)
5.The use of the term "efficient" in a business context is antithetical to its use in a political context. A company, seeking efficiency, will simply lop off a large portion of its workforce or ignore a large demographic that is not profitable, in order to bring in the best return. I don't read the Constitution as giving the government such an option, although, clearly the Republicans are poised to do a lot of lopping. Those who didn't vote for them are of no consequence--not the "American People"--and are ripe for lopping.
I hope you find a bit of common-sense in these remarks and that you remain an Obamian in 2012. And more important, I hope that people actually go back to look for these replies, late though they may be!
I agree with your post to the letter.
Political parties were not created before people, so it makes sense that certain people gravitate naturally to certain parties. They are designed around specific attributes of human personality.
One thing that I have always said is that liberals expect too much. They (not including myself) always tend to look for the good and want to hold out that even if someone spits in your face, they can be turned around and the relationship can be mended through cooperation, instead of cutting that person/group off completely. They think that 'the people' will understand, while I, on the other hand, don't have a problem with saying that the people are stupid. A person is smart, people are dumb.
Those who have been dictators have the gumption to take over and tell people what they are going and how they will do it and they do awful things. Liberals, understanding that democracy is the way to go, would never take the reigns, even if it meant they could bring about world peace because the way in which it was done would not be right. It bothers me to no end that the most horrible people have the gall to do whatever they want (thinking of Cheney saying "So" when asked about the Iraq war and American response), while people like President Obama are still hanging on to this bi-partisanship crap hoping that it will work instead of using all his power to get good things done.
Ironic that Maher is attempting to argue there is no craziness on the Left, when he himself epitomizes that insanity in all his PETA-supporting, homeopathic anti-vac lunacy.
I enjoy Maher as a comedian and comentator and think he's more fair and quick-witted than you're letting on. I get that you're responding to style over substance when you call him tone-deaf, but I for one appreciate his raw delivery and find his unapologetic approach refreshing, smart, and, yes, oftentimes very funny. I love Stewart too, but there are times in his interviews where he tap dances to a point that Maher would have landed in one shrewd blow.
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad there are more nuanced liberal voices on TV. But Maher's is one-of-a-kind and I'm grateful for that. It helps that he surrounds himself with many experts who are often featured on the Real-Time panel. They add credibility to Maher's instinctive jabs. The conversation may be heated at times, but that doesn't mean it's not elevated. And what self-respecting liberal can't say they enjoy seeing his Republican guests dizzy from their own spin games?
Stewart and Colbert are also doing a great service with their commentary, but they have an anchorman artifice to maintain, and their job is to commentate on the commentators. Their comedy is more finessed because it's layered in irony. Maher's role is different. He simply has to speak his mind and throw in a few punchlines for effect. All three are talented social-commentators. You may not like Maher's inflection, but unlike the loudmouth hotheads that dominate the discourse, Maher is fair to his guests and is sincere in his presentation.
It is a good strategy. The dems will be attempting to shut him down anyway. We need to send a note for the reps that they either nominate Ron Paul, or they do not enter, period. And it's the smart move to make anyway, Ron Paul will beat Obama if he runs against him, We have undoubtedly about that, and the press won't be able to ignore him once nominated. He'll bring several more an incredible number of voters to his side once the media starts giving him a fair hearing.
Leave a comment