Pajiba

This is why I love Stewart, and take his political insight over just about anyone else's. Even when he's not the "expert" on the subject matter, he's the one who's consistently made sense in the big picture. I just wish people would notice more when he rips the left, since there's still the stigma that he's part of that crazy Jew-run liberal media slant machine.

Best quote when interviewing Obama? "I hate to lump you in with other Presidents, but..."

I've never been able to stand Maher's particular brand of snotty self-righteousness. The only reason I've watched his show is for the interesting roundtable discussions (where other people were speaking, for the most part), but I could never watch his monologues or his "New Rules" segment. Watching him alone always leaves me feeling like some of his slimy douchiness has rubbed off on me, and I end up needing a shower.

I like watching Maher's show for the roundtable and the interviews. But he can be as over-the-top and bloward-ish as the loudest blowhard from Fox News.

And while I've not seen Olbermann in at least I year, I do have to ask, is he still doing "Worst Persons in the World"? Cause someone doing that kind of segment really shouldn't be saying anything.

The point of Stewart's rally was that the volume of the national discourse could and should be lowered. Ironically enough, by going after Stewart, the liberals are kind of proving his point.

Samantha- I think you mean Beck is a lunatic fueled by conspiracy theories. O'Reilly's lunacy pales in comparison to Beck's.

Word. Getting your panties in a twist about false equivalency is to completely miss the point. Maher and those who preach this perspective are letting their egos get in the way of getting shit done. It doesn’t fucking matter if lefties are right. It doesn’t matter how loud we say it. What, we want a fucking blue ribbon for not being assholes? The discourse is dominated by sportscasters, literal and metaphorical, and they turn government into the fucking Superbowl. Problem is, there are no ultimate winners and losers in politics. There's just an endless slog that we hope will move the country in the general direction of not fucking people up the ass. Any "news" organization that treats politics like a zero sum game (MSNBC, Fox, The NYfuckingTimes) is detrimental to the discourse. Just because a dude uses a condom and props up my head when he rapes me doesn’t mean he gets a cookie cause he didn’t beat me like the other guy. Jon Stewart is not a politician. He owes no debt to the left leaners. If Bill Maher wants to stand up and scream about what how liberals aren’t as big of assholes as conservatives, he can hold his own rally. I wonder how many people would show up?

Also, Stewart didn't name check anyone in that speech. If memory serves, he referenced cable news ONCE. That Olberman, Maddow and Maher felt the need to respond directly is a whole lotta Lady Doth Protest Too Much.

What mangrilla said.

Beckylooo, I think I love you.

I kind of got the vibe from watching the Rally that it was the same situation as a teacher reprimanding a whole classroom for a problem created by one or two kids. The whole lecture being designed to not single out any one person, but EVERYONE knows who really did the crime.

It's a little passive-aggressive. I never liked group punishment or being expected to exert pressure on my peers when those particular peers didn't give a shit about my opinion.

Mangrilla, have you ever actually watched MSNBC? Olbermann's donation is the tip of the iceberg.

it's funny people call Beck a Conspiracy Theorist. Is it really a conspiracy when people really are after you? And really how many people have actually sat down and watched his show? honestly? Doubt many of you really have, I'll be honest I've not watched Maher since he started making 9/11 truthers statements, and have watched a total of 10 minutes of Olbermann. However I don't critque what they saying based on what others tell me they say

MSNBC is not a coordinated political operation? Mika Fuckin' Brzezinski admits to getting White House talking points on the set of Morning Joe.
What an idiotic argument.
Incidentally, nice job with the election last week.
"Poor messaging" is to blame for the absolute repudiation of the President and Pelosi's policies?

I think politicans should be required to take Anger Management and Conflict Resolution classes before taking office because nothing will get done with all the hatred brewing.

Ever since W took and retained office by the skin of his teeth, arguments between the left and the right basically go like this:

"I hear what you're saying, but it's stupid."

"No. What I said was smart. YOU'RE the one who's stupid."

"No. YOU'RE the one being stupid!"

"NO! YOU ARE STUPID AND YOU'RE RUINING AMERICA!"

"YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!!! DID YOU HEAR THAT, AMERICA??? HE'S CRAZY! HE'S CRAZY!"

"See what I mean, America? You can't trust someone who goes to such extremes."

"What?! That's not true! You can trust me! Remember, this is all THEIR fault!"

"WHAT?!?! How can you say that with a straight face. Everything that's ever happened is YOUR fault and you know it!"

"OHHHH, that's fuckin' rich coming from the likes of you!"

And on, and on, and on it goes. I get physically ill watching every opportunity for cooperation devolve into a dick-waving contest.

"And I'm sorry, I cannot equate Olbermann, Madow, et al. with the likes of Bill O'Reilly. They may occupy the same spots on the spectrum, but O'Reilly is a lunatic fueled by conspiracy theories."

See, this kind of sentiment is only further pushing the divide in the country. As I'd have to venture a guess that the majority of us on this website are liberal, we fail to recognize that our disappointment, dissent, and disgust at the right is exactly the same way way that the other half of the country feels about the left. Fact has been replaced by personal opinion, of course, but by demonizing one side of the argument, or by manipulating arguments and points of view, you take a big fucking poison balloon, slap it in the middle of the room, and let the sonofabitch keep expanding until everyone is suffocating against the walls.

Eliminating any appropriation of "right" and "wrong", both sides combatting each other with the same tired reasonings is why we're at this juncture in history. I don't know if anyone has noticed, but no one, on either side, is going to have a sudden epiphany and say, "holy shit! Everything I know is wrong, I had better switch to the other side fast!".

However disappointing this makes you feel, or with whatever logic you wish to employ to contradict that last point, it doesn't matter. There's no mass movement to either side, just a small number of independents straddling the middle to see how the course of the country is moving, and then absorbing every ridiculous political advert until they make a decision.

I know "centrist" is an ugly, neutral term that conjures visions of taupe paint and a polific amount of shades of gray, but that's where the country needs to be moving in order to get us out of this mire of political venom. Whenever there's a political election in this country, total vote counts usually fall at a tally of +/- 5% from the middle. So, just because your side is the more impassioned one, no matter the state of the country, you need to realize that we need an aggregate of opinions from both sides in order to satisfy right and left.

I hate Fox News. I would gladly launch a missile filled with puppies into space to knock out their satellite on a permanent basis. But at the same time, I can't watch Olbermann/Maher/Maddow on a regular basis either. I'm getting tired of Rachel's insistence on using words like "bullpucky", and found it uncomfortably hilarious when she continually attempted to bait a gun store owner, and Republic local office candidate, into the same batshit vitriol that Sharron "don't let the door shoot you in the face on the way out" Angle used. Sure the guy sells automatic weapons that have no place in a common sense society, but at the same time, she was just looking to lump him in with the lunatics that she believed personified the state of Nevada.

MSNBC has clearly positioned themselves on the liberal and democrat side of the debate, which is fine and dandy with me; it's your organization, you can do with it what you will. But do these people need to feel so threatened by John Stewart that they need to remind us that we are part of a sanctimonious war against 50% of the country? What John has advocated for years is that the "news" channel should report the f'ing NEWS, not line up pundits for a game of self-aggrandizing grab-ass, or to show everyone in America that you're either "red" or "blue". The joke is not that news channels are slanted "right" or "left", it's that an organization that pleads with us to be trusted on the reporting of facts would actually have an opinion at all, instead of educating us and allowing the formation of individual opinions.

"If the general will is to be able to express itself, that there should be no partial society within the State, and that each citizen should think only his own thoughts ... But if there are partial societies, it is best to have as many as possible and to prevent them from being unequal ... These precautions are the only ones that can guarantee that the general will shall be always enlightened, and that the people shall in no way deceive itself."

--Roussea. You know, the guy who helped define what "Democracy" is supposed to be.

Now bring on BigTodd and let's have ourselves another round of "YOU'RE A BIGGER FUCKING IDIOT THAN ME"

So can I call bullshit on your calling bullshit on his calling bullshit?

I really don't want the reputation of being the guy who defends Fox News on Pajiba. I don't like Fox News and I don't agree with them, but some of you guys just have absolutely no perspective on things.

On MSNBC they "express their own opinions and support the policies and strategies they believe in."

But Fox is "a coordinated political effort taking talking points from Republican Party operatives and marching in lockstep with the party's strategy."

Are you capable of honest self reflection? Can you take a step back from your ideology and bias, read those two quotes, and see what is glaringly, obscenely wrong with them?

The real world is infinitely more complex then you seem willing to acknowledge. These issues do not have easy answers. People that disagree with you on political issues are not stupid or brainwashed or evil. If you really think that you have the right answer to any of these issues that will solve a problem without creating a dozen new ones in its place, well, you are probably an idiot.

As much as you may want to make it back & white, good & evil- I'm sure it feels good, in an ignorance-is-bliss kind of way to do that- you really ought to know better.

There is an equivalency. There are reasonable voices and reasonable points on Fox as well as MSNBC, but there are also a lot of blowhards driving ideological wedges into issues, polarizing the issues, and making it impossible for reasonable people to find a modest compromise between your crazy extremes.

The point of the Rally to Restore Sanity isn't that we should stop trying to make the world a better place. The point is that we should stop prioritizing winning arguments and scoring points in the debate over making the world a better place.

Did it help the discourse to label them all as racists?

No, it did not help the discourse.

Or did it have the opposite effect and made them less willing to hear any counter-arguments?

However, this is NOT the result. They already weren't willing to hear counterarguments. That train left the station long ago.

But, it did derail the so-called conversation even further down the non-productive path, and that's the real problem with focusing on poor spelling and the obvious lunatic fringe. It's a distraction.

To be fair, I think FOXnews is so blatantly GOP supportive because just about every other news source leans to the left. Maybe they balance each other out. I am confused about why the conservative right always have to shout about everything like Rush and Beck do. Of course, I don't think Maher/Colbert/Stewart are much better than Rush. If you get your political news from any of these fame and money seeking hacks then you're going to get a skewed point of view no matter what.

Skeetikus how often do you watch Beck? I watched last night and didn't see him yell once, I geussing your getting your info from other shows that show a 5 second clip and based your opinion based on that. I'm not such a Rush fan so I will not be defending him in anyway.

The thing about any discourse (political or otherwise) is that the most zealous people (or the most unhinged) are the ones who get the most attention, because they scream louder. I think this was Stewart's only point with the rally. He is basically saying (and seems to have always said), "Why are we giving the screaming assholes all the attention?" I don't think (contrary to what the screaming assholes on the "Left" say) he's implying that the two "sides" (Democratic and Republican) are equally assholish, I think we're all aware of his political preferences. I think he was simply saying, "Why the fuck are we screaming? It's not doing any good."

When he says he's not a politician or a journalist, he's not being hypocritical or disingenuous. He isn't a politician. And he isn't a journalist. He obviously has an interest in politics and he appears on TV. But as he has pointed out quite often, he wishes the actual journalists would do their jobs (fact-checking claims that politicians and their flacks make on TV) instead of giving TV time to the screaming assholes. One of the reasons I don't watch TV news is that I know I'm not missing anything. If I want to know what the RNC or DNC thinks about anything, I can go to their websites. And as I said yesterday, I don't care what the talking heads on TV news shows think about anything. They're not there to tell me what they think or what I should think. They're there to tell me what the fuck is going on. Too bad so few of them bother doing that. So anybody who wants actual information (as opposed to warmed-over opinion) tunes out and the only people watching them are the people who not only have to, but NEED to be told what to think. They're far too busy watching American Idol and Dancing with the Stars and the World Series, etc. to bother figuring out for themselves who's full of shit, so they depend on Fox and CNN and MSNBC et al to tell them who they should agree with. And the TV news people serve that up in short, easy-to-remember sound bites. They're happy to do it, because doing actual news is hard.

Sticking a couple of bobbleheads behind a desk to yap about what they think is cheaper and easier than actual newsgathering and production. That's why the news orgs do it. The politicians see TV news people as useful idiots, and no more than that. I bet Karl Rove rubs his hands together with glee every time some moron on Fox News says "Obamacare" or "homicide bombers."

" Fact has been replaced by personal opinion, of course, but by demonizing one side of the argument, or by manipulating arguments and points of view, you take a big fucking poison balloon, slap it in the middle of the room, and let the sonofabitch keep expanding until everyone is suffocating against the walls."

Sorry - those assholes lost me with the Birther and Tea Party movements, their moronic, self-defeating opposition to the health care bill, and their "Obama is a fascist" sentiments.

There is no mandate saying you have to pay attention to any of these assholes. They are part of the corporate media, which kowtows to corporate masters who set their agenda. Why make them part of your psychological real estate in the 1st place?

BigTodd, a lack of evidence does not mean one is innocent so much as it means guilt, if valid, is harder to prove. Watch a little less Glenn Beck and a little more Law & Order. You might learn something.

@BigTodd:

I "beleave" you need to work on your literacy skills.

I really would like an intelligent plan for counteracting the likes of Sarah Palin. Oh, and BigTodd? I've watched enough Beck to know he's a a self-serving master manipulator and nothing more. If he could get higher ratings as a devil-worshipper, he'd be pimping out real estate in hell. The man thought the Machine of Death campaign was a plan to keep his latest book from its "rightful" status as #1 on Amazon.

So, how DO you have a meaningful discourse with the Becks and the shouters and the Birthers? I'd love to know, because I have a friend who's mind gets foggy with rage whenever the word "Obama" is mentioned. If you're not saying what communist-baby-eater he is, you've lost her, and nothing can change her mind. Despite the fact that she cannot afford private insurance for herself or her daughter, she thinks Obamacare is a big scam to help the "bus riders" of the world mooch off the public teat. There is no proof strong enough, no fact solid enough, to change her mind.

I don't see how you can combat that. You can either shout yourself or retreat to your own little corner and hunker down. When one side is so extreme the middle ground is no longer the true middle. It's just a less extreme version of what they want.

The best solution to someone who repeats the whole craziness/distortion type of narrative that they heard on a talk show somewhere is to be reasonable, use facts, logic, etc. You probably won't make them stop buying into hyperbolic narratives right then and there, but they might go home and think about it.

Bonus: any bystanders will certainly see that your side of the debate is more willing to bring the rationality/seriousness.

@ Wednesday

You can't talk to the lunatic fringe. They are a lost cause and not worth your time or energy, and the crazy ones are (usaully) marginalized enough that they don't pose a legitimate threat to anyone anyway (The crazy fundamentalist creationist school administrator, the crazy 'gay kids should kill themselves' school administrator, Christine O'Donnell -- they all get drummed out by thy system which, we can be thankful, hasn't completely gone off the rails).

Focus instead on intelligent people who are capable of reason and understand the complexity of these issues. (That's why I actually allow myself to get pulled into these debates on Pajiba, my faith in the people on this site to at least listen to and consider my point of view, provided I am respectful in how I present it (ahem- Todd)) I would never have a debate like this on a political blog because it is all so much shouting and not enough listening.

And most important of all, don't let yourself get sucked away into the fringe. I hate to see bright people I would otherwise respect get so sucked into ideological arguments that they are incapable of reason. I think the biggest concern in the current political climate is that it is so polarizing that the number of people being pushed/pulled into the intolerant/extremist zone is becoming overwhelming and it is preventing good people from doing good things. Christine O'Donnell should never be nominated in the first place. Good, experienced, moderates should not be voted out of office to be replaced by extremists and ideologues. Compromise and collaboration shouldn't be a sign of weakness.
(both sides suck at this)

So the MSNBC anchors and NYT columnists preach to the choir of an audience that is already liberal, but at the same time they feed & energize the Right Wing who react to perceived (and actual) unfairness and bias.

And we all know how Fox News riles up the liberal base and gets you seething and the unfairness and hypocrisy of it all, of course they are re-enforcing the message to their base as well.

Do you see how this is counter-productive? Stewart has a good point. Maddow, Maher, and Olbermann need to take their fingers out of their ears long enough to hear it. (The conservatives would benefit to take heed as well, but they would never listen to Stewart so it's not really an issue. Plus, they have it easy right now being the opposition party. MSNBC's ratings will jump as soon as the Republican's are fully back in control. Rinse, repeat.)

You know, all this pleading for "reasonableness-meaning-compromise" glosses over the fact that we have in the US some fundamental disagreements about both goals and how to enact them. Are there legitimate, perhaps perfectly acceptable differences that we can tolerate? Along with civility, and, you know, actual content, how about we allow for some variety when talking politics and the role of government?

This is one reason I prefer localizing everything we can. Different strokes for different folks. I'm fine with letting other people make their own choices, even ones I think stupid, as long as they afford me the same respect. Besides, life is different in different places.

There's a great piece from The Manhattan Institute a little while back where a recently-displaced urbanite talks about the differences in rural living. There's a lot more that you can, and must do together with other people when you live stacked 5-high. Managing that same stuff the same way when people are 3 to the square mile is dumb, and BTW, doesn't work.

The Muslims were convenient
Posted by: Odnon. at November 9, 2010 2:32 PM

Really they were convenient? So they had nothing to with knocking down world trade center? USS cole? 2 US Embassies? the Marine Barracks in Lebanon? they don't practice a religion that encourages them to kill people who worship as they do? a religion the allows the to bury a woman to her neck and stone her to death under the suspiscion of adultery? They were convenient?Convenient is running out of gas as you pull into a gas station. Convenient finding 5 dollars in your jeans the day before payday... no my friend they were not convenient and the sooner you relieze that the safer you'll be

Actually, Yossarian raises a good, if unintentional, point:

The real world is infinitely more complex then you seem willing to acknowledge. These issues do not have easy answers. People that disagree with you on political issues are not stupid or brainwashed or evil. If you really think that you have the right answer to any of these issues that will solve a problem without creating a dozen new ones in its place, well, you are probably an idiot.

This willingness to see, and perhaps find enjoyment in, shades of grey is not something held by all people. Pew and others have done studies showing that for a significant percentage of the population, complexity produces something akin to pain.

Liking simplicity doesn't necessarily mean you are a simpleton, but it does get to why you see a post 1994 Republican party garnering a lot of support from people who want clear "us or them, right or wrong, up or down" kind of messaging.

This new era of Conservatism is bound up in clarity; messaging about "country, faith, morality" provides a pathway to an emotional response, rather than a weighing of the pros and cons.

Previously, big tent Republicans welcomed fiscally conservative, but socially moderate (or at least socially agnostic) Members of Congress into the fold. Now the modern primary system has really removed that kind of complexity from the equation.

Even though Dems still attract far more of the 'it's complicated' crowd, Pelosi has brought with her a much harder edge, one more reminiscent of the Conservatives modern movement. In an article that ran before the election in one of the Capitol Hill papers, Energy and Commerce Chair Henry Waxman came out and said he didn't mind seeing "blue dog" Democrats lose, because they were forcing democrats to compromise and negotiate within their own party, rather than with Republicans.

Waxman is a key supporter of Pelosi; and while his point is valid tactically, it does represent a shift towards a more disciplined, less "complicated" set of message points for Democrats

A friend of mine who helped write the Republican platform for several conventions used to tell me that the difference between Republicans and Democrats boiled down to "Republicans are about telling you what we believe, and asking people to join us. Democrats are about asking people what they want, and telling how they'll get it for them". Obviously, he found great distaste in the Democrat's version, but it is an interesting and telling comparison.

Democrats are not really a party at all, but rather a coalition. To illustrate, ask yourself what a gay, jewish lawyer living in San Francisco; a Catholic, Union, Ford plant worker living in Michigan who hunts deer for food; and an African American sharecropper living in Alabama have in common? This coalition leads to complexity, as the goals of all the members have to be given consideration, and weighed against the goals of the rest.

The conundrum for Democrats will be how to appeal to the near majority that responds well to simplicity, but maintain all of the branches of the coalition.

Bill Clinton's last 6 years in the White House were a textbook study on how to execute "complexity explained simply", watching Obama find his own way to do that will be interesting.

RE Fredo: Look, never underestimate the ultimate problem with modern news: news is now another form of "entertainment" on our dial. NBC and MSNBC are owned by GE. Fox News is owned by the same people who made "Who Wants to Marry a Midget?" AKA Newscorp. In the race to fill up TV time and ad space, they go to the well that they know gets them the most eyeballs -- and that's rarely the calm and demure way of doing things.

This.

The days of TV news being a reliable source of information are probably gone for good. They make more money playing to the lunatic fringe than they do the reasonable portion of the public. If you get most of your information about anything from a TV news show, most of your information is wrong. For people still naive enough to think that they can't broadcast inaccurate information on a news show, they can and do, all the time. If it wasn't so sad, it'd be funny as hell, the crap that passes for information on a typical news broadcast. They don't have to have their information approved by any outside entity, they're limited only by their own standards and practices. And libel law.

I find no humor in it at all neither would you if you spent time where they were actively trying to kill you... oh wait they are...

RE morganew: This new era of Conservatism is bound up in clarity; messaging about "country, faith, morality" provides a pathway to an emotional response, rather than a weighing of the pros and cons.

See, now, this is interesting (actually, the whole comment above is interesting and everyone should read it).

And it's true. People want to think they are complicated and give a lot of thought to arguments based on facts and logic. Lots of expensive research shows that many people (I believe it's most) are not complicated and do not make choices based on facts or logic. They make choices based on feelings and beliefs. The behavior of people choosing a political philosophy is not really different from their purchasing behavior. In fact, both parties use insights gained from consumer behavior to mold their PR. Marketers and political flacks basically put all of us in one of these categories: Hard Opposition, Soft Opposition, Undecided, Soft Support, Hard Support. Hard Opposition means someone will not consider supporting X (whatever X is). Politicians don't bother wasting time and money trying to persuade the Hard Opposition to vote for them, they concentrate (and given the recent elections, this will certainly be emphasized even more) on the Undecideds and to a lesser extent, the Soft Opposition people. And given how emotional many people are when discussing their political preferences, don't expect appeals based on logic or reason to be any more popular in the future than they are right now.

This constant screaming back and forth has convinced politicians that voters will only be persuaded by emotional appeals to their "values" (whatever those values are).

omg did you really just try and justify the 9/11 attacks.... wringing your hands saying, "oh what did you expect them to do?"... really? Yes we flattened 2 Cities...AFTER we were attacked and provoked into WW2, yes we do have the KKK, a small intolerant segment of our country, their entire Religion is intolerant, not some of it, not a part of it, ALL of it.

@BigTodd

their entire Religion is intolerant, not some of it, not a part of it, ALL of it.

No, no, no, no, no. Not true and just as inexcusable as suggesting that we brought 9/11 on ourselves. For every other time you've made a mess of your argument over here this one is unacceptable. I don't care about your personal experiences or the limitations thereof, you do not disparage entire races and religions based on the actions of a few extremists. For Christ's sake, man, if you are going to agree with me so much why don't you listen to what I am fucking saying?

I was referring to my comment about L&O, BigTodd, ya big dummy. Seriously, I know you're taking it from all sides on this site, but take some respite when it's offered to you.

how can anyone including liberals convinced of their superior
intellect listen to keith olbermann??? he is close minded , predictable to a fault and delivers his rote opinions in a strident
and humorless manner. noone ever came away from his long
winded monologues one iota better informed or more knowledgeable. just as conservatives pray that pelosi remains
in the public eye, they hope that keith serves no more ridiculous suspensions ... keep him front and center!!!

hey whatever appologize for people who want nothing more than to see you dead, it's no skin off my back, no wait it did come from my back, and it came from my knee, and that bit of elbow that is left behind, but hey you smart people tell me all about how I'm wrong on this one with all your experiance

Fucking BlackBerry.
Hang on.

"You never see the Right turning on itself the way the left does"?

Really?

Think Limbaugh vs. McCain.

Think most of the world vs. Palin during the last presidential election.

Look at what happened in Delaware in the US Senate race this year.

It's dim-witted to think that the political right is so lock-step and disciplined as to not shot those on its own team it disagrees with. The problem is that the Right can't seem to muster the will to torpedo those on its own team who are venomous and unsavory -- like Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson, or for that matter Glenn Beck. I respect Jon Stewart for saying that the problem with US politics runs on both sides of the aisle, and we should disown all the bastards who make politics dirtier than it to be.

I've taken two things from the comments here:

1. My crush on Yossarian burns brighter than ever.

2. They really need to up the dosage on whatever meds BigTodd is taking.

I like Jon, but I think he doth scramble too much. If you have to resort to "look, what I meant was..." after the fact and the only people you have pissed off are otherwise sympathetic ears, perhaps the rally wasn't such a good idea in the first place? Fox used their troll to goad the liberal clowns into another round of arguing with themselves. Well fed sir.

While I think both Stewart and his critics have a reasonable points, the problem for mine was not the message but the medium. Nuanced themes like media criticism work well from behind the TDS desk, but not so well from a podium of 200k people drawing outside national attention- to his credit, a point Stewart seemed to acknowledge that with his faux new rally call. The TDS crowd might get it- or at least be prepared to think the best of his intentions- but to an outsider the event looked pointless at best, preaching to the converted at worst.

It’s academic now, but had Stewart & Colbert limited themselves to "Keeping Fear Alive" they might have maintained a veil of satire, convincingly argued "this is a show, not a political rally” [wink], made exactly the same point and spared much of the butthurt of their ideological cousins by allowing people to make their own interpretations instead of spelling them out.

@mangrilla,

Are you an idiot sir? No seriously, I ask that question with all sincerity. Did you honestly just write "You are coming at this with the assumption that these people were willing to hear counter-arguments (which is an INCREDIBLY generous assumption that they had coherent arguments in the first place)."

Do you hear yourself speak? "These people", are doing EXACTLY what you are doing. Except they have a differing opinion.

Listen. Let's get it straight. Rush Limbaugh is a racist. Glen Beck is willfully ignorant. Sean Hannity is a fear-monger. Fox News is blatantly Republican and Sarah Palin is an idiot.

However, what you just did was lump the ENTIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY into the category of racist, ignorant, stupid, fear loving morons based on the actions of a the political talking heads. That is what we are talking about. There is no false equivalency when it comes to SANITY.

If you want to go ahead and call the entire Republican Party evil because their candidates generally take the "we don't believe in global warming" stance (and though global warming is real, its effects on our world are widely exaggerated by environmentalists) then go ahead.

Yea the Republican Party is evil and the Democratic Party is good and there is no line in between.

You're right. That's not like Fox News at all.

@BigTodd,

Umm...have you actually seen Glen Beck? Cause I have. I've watched his show, Hannity's show, the O'Reily Factor, Countdown With Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddows multiple times. Let me make this perfectly clear...Glen Beck is one of, if not THE, worst things about television. He does yell. He yells a lot. He points at pictures and draws lines with chalk and then claims those things as evidence that Obama is a Socialist/Marxist/Muslim who is single-handedly destroying America. He is the epitome of what the Rally to Restore Sanity was against. He willfully leads his audience to believe things that are plain untruths and does so in such a self-condemning way that one wonders if he has any shame at all. He is a hypocrite. He is unfair. And worst of all...he's a phony. I don't even think he believes in half of what he says. But he does it. For Money.

And if I hear the term "real American" one more time on Fox News I'm going to snap. What is a real American? Please explain to me how that phrase is not racist. Please. Someone.

"Do you hear yourself speak? "These people", are doing EXACTLY what you are doing. Except they have a differing opinion."
Eh, I used to be a Republican, so one would think that I'd heard the counter-arguments, since, you know, I used to make them. Also, are you really trying to make the statement that "If only people were nicer to tea partiers, they might listen!" Look, while I don't agree with everything the president has done, he's nothing if not patient and willing to explain his issues. Looking at every Tea Party rally (and I've been to some when they were in DC), this never looked like a group willing to compromise. Look at the republican representatives coming into Congress now. How many of them have explicitly said they would NOT compromise on their issues?
Finally, keep in mind that many Democratic policies these days have equivalents that existed in the Republican party of yesteryear ("Obamacare" was fairly similar to Republican proposals in the 90's for instance). Of course, the stance now is, unequivocally, NO, on every issue. The Republican party, and the people that put them in power, have no intention of listening to other people's ideas. To believe anything else is to live in a dream world.

"However, what you just did was lump the ENTIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY into the category of racist, ignorant, stupid, fear loving morons based on the actions of a the political talking heads. That is what we are talking about. There is no false equivalency when it comes to SANITY."
I wouldn't say that's what I did, but I did say they are, in their entirety, willfully ignorant. And anyone that votes for them is as well. Now, because of the 2 party system, you may infer that I'd believe Democrats are the end-all, be all, but that'd be an incorrect assumption. But there's nuance in the Democratic party. It's a large coalition of varying viewpoints (some completely anti-war, some anti-abortion, etc.)
As I said earlier, not a single republican candidate in this election cycle believed in global warming being man-made. You can try to mitigate it with the same tired lines, "and though global warming is real," (and keep in mind, not all or even a majority of candidates make this previous distinction) "its effects on our world are widely exaggerated by environmentalists," which flies in the face of all scientific evidence. Let us also keep in mind that few Republican candidates outside the North East will even dare SPEAK the word evolution. I'm sorry, but these candidates get elected for a reason: ignorant, closeminded people elect them. They don't make their constituents look badly, the constituents do just fine by themselves.

Some typos, no time to correct them all, enjoy. £10 to the first person that spots all 16 of them(number made up on spot)

BigTodd,

Fuck you with a splintered stick. I refrained from asking in past debates about your views on Muslims because it would have created irrelevant bickering but now that you've brought it up, I easily could have guessed that you'd be just that kind of bigot.

Yes, the terrorists on 9/11 were Muslim. This does not make Muslims as a whole, terrorists.

That is a foolish, dangerous accusation to make. Look at what happened when we were at war with Japan. Millions of innocent AMERICANS were locked up BY AMERICA because of their race.

You are condemning an entire religion because of what 26 EXTREMISTS did using their religion as a scapegoat.

I could compare any number of lunatics that have murdered under the guise of Christianity but I'm sure you've heard that argument already.

Thousands of computer geeks create viruses every day that can destroy a person's finances entirely and half the time it's for no reason whatsoever. Should we hate everyone with extensive computer knowledge? Of course not but that's exactly the same thing as you're saying by lumping in Muslims with all terrorists.

I don't give a fuck if you've been fighting Muslims in the military either. That experience might make you a bit biased but you should still be smart enough to see what a bullshit bigot view you have.

@mangrilla

Let's stop here and take closer look:

"[Republicans] are, in their entirety, willfully ignorant. And anyone that votes for them is as well....
But there's nuance in the Democratic party. It's a large coalition of varying viewpoints

Sorry, but the only thing I take away from these statements is that mangrilla is willfully ignorant. Thanks for missing our point.

not a single republican candidate in this election cycle believed in global warming being man-made.

False, and stupid.

few Republican candidates outside the North East will even dare SPEAK the word evolution.

Swing and a miss.

But let's go back to the global warming issue, because it is so perfect for illustrating my point and exposing your foolishness.

...the same tired lines, "and though global warming is real," (and keep in mind, not all or even a majority of candidates make this previous distinction) "its effects on our world are widely exaggerated by environmentalists," which flies in the face of all scientific evidence.

Now, I consider myself to be fairly well-read, but did I miss the part where we announced scientific consensus on the issue of global warming, exactly how it is caused, how it works, what the effects will be, and how to prevent them? By your comments you seem pretty confident that the issue is settled and it is simply willful ignorance that is obstructing our ability to move forward. Tell me, is there even a consensus on the left over this issue?

Let me be clear that the politicization of global warming and environmental issues is something that both sides are responsible for, but this is one of the best examples I can come up with for how destructive and counterproductive this practice of polarizing debate, digging in, demonizing your opponent, and seeing who can shout the loudest is at solving real problems.

We should all be able to agree on the fact that global warming/ climate change/ the consumption of fossil fuels at unprecedented rates/ the care for and stewardship of our Earth is a serious issue and a burden that falls on the leaders of the most powerful nations to solve together.

But we should also acknowledge that there is an awful lot that we do not know about how things work and any predictions of estimations involve a lot of uncertainty. Any plans to take action in response to these issues need to be carefully considered. Hasty action is likely to have unintended consequences and may end up making things worse.

Unfortunately, when people like you insist on thinking you have all the answers and proceed full-steam ahead attacking anyone who opposes you (and that means trampling over the people asking for a modicum of restraint while we consider the potential shortcomings of your plan) you make things worse, you make things impossible.

No one knows exactly what the effects of Global Warming will be. Engaging in scare tactics and warning about the imminent collapse & end of life as we know it is ridiculous. Al Gore his documentary aren't that different from Glenn Back and his chalk board.

And the worst part about it is that it is counter-productive to your own cause! If you would tone down the rhetoric, acknowledge the uncertainty, and be truthful about where you (and your opponent) are coming from you might be able to do some good. But when you make it a YES/NO decision "Do you believe in global warming?" and you also proceed to define global warming for them and insist on a course of action to rectify it then you end up forcing a large percentage of people to reject your position by default. And then you label them backward-thinking global warming deniers who care more about making a buck than they do about saving the planet.

When you argue from an extreme you make it very easy to dismiss your position. I believe global warming/ climate change is an important issue, but I don't want anyone who fails to acknowledge the complexity of that issue and the complexity of any possible solution to be in a position to make important policy decisions about it.

it is so much easier to call me a nut and bigot then to look and see if there is truth in my words...
BigTodd

There is NO truth in what you say. You think I just dislike your opinion so I throw names at you? You're the one who obviously pays no attention to the other side of the argument. Where is this truth you seem to think is in your opinions? By lumping ALL Muslims in with the bad ones, You. Sir. Are. A. Fucking. Bigot.

Definition of Bigot: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.

Don't agree? Prove me wrong then. Explain to me why every single Muslim is supposedly evil and responsible for 9/11, BigTodd. What possible reason is there for that ridiculous view?

BigTodd.
I am sorry
In trying to make a larger rhetorical point I believe I may have triggered a more personal point with you that brought a shit storm down on you.

I don't know you or your experience in life, but I am guessing you are a veteran of recent combat?

If so, I can only imagine your circumstances. It can't be easy. And so I wish you well. Especially today, of all days.

I don't know if you or anyone's still reading this thread. I just want to put aside the rhetoric and say......

Something.....

All the best.

Also, stellar posts Yossarian and Littlejohn

Well I've fallen foul of the mods or internet fairies that steal posts so, sans links...

BigTodd: "it is so much easier to call me a nut and bigot then to look and see if there is truth in my words..."

Ok...

"yes we do have the KKK, a small intolerant segment of our country, their entire Religion is intolerant, not some of it, not a part of it, ALL of it." [talking about Islam]

Ok, we have to be clear what you're talking about here. Text is an imprecise communication tool.

When you say 'their entire Religion is intolerant' what do you mean?
1) The majority or entirety of Muslims believe they must be intolerant
2) The correct interpretation of the Koran is that you must be intolerant.

Have a look at this:

Muslim Populations - link to venn diagram showing tiny no. Al-Quaeda (approx 10,000) vs total muslim pop. (over a billion) and 2,500,000 Muslim Americans

If 1) were true wouldn't we see a whole lot more violent attacks from the whopping 2,500,000 Muslims you mention in the same breath as the KKK?
The fact is Muslims do not all subscribe to hardline fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran. Just like Christians are not all fundamentalists a la Jack Chick [link] and all of the others. Unless you have some pretty damning demographic statistics of religious belief to prove this point you have nothing to go on. Youtube clips of Muslim protestors burning flags and cursing America or the textual equivalent don't count for anything, you can't judge everyone from the few who are shouting.
Regardless of what you might think they should believe, if you want to claim they do believe it you need evidence.

And if you think that 2) is true, and you know what they should believe then you are a more learned scholar of the Koran than I am. You may be right, certainly many Muslim clerics agree with you. But many do not. Are you really willing to pit your knowledge of the Koran against theirs? Or would you cite the religious authority of the Muslim Clerics who preach intolerance and their interpretation?
If you are a reputed Middle Eastern Historian, ancient Arabic scholar, or Islamic Theologian then you can ignore all this, but if not then you just don't know enough to make any kind of pronouncement with any kind of certaintly on what the only correct interpretation of the Koran is.
And if you have a quote, or series of quotes, quotemined from the Koran, that you think are explicit and unmistakeable evidence that the Koran promotes intolerance, consider a) all the quote mines that you can do with Christianity b) it's a quote a tiny portion of a very long book, unless as mentioned, you are extremely well informed which I certainly am not, you just cannot know what it means. Does it say "Kill all infidels, preferably in their sleep"? Is it a series of passages stating "Beat your wife if she ever gets out the left side of the bed?" - how do you know that the first is not a historic instruction for some specific instance, or a rule for when living under enemy rule? And do you know whether the more accurate translation of the second is "reprimand" rather than "beat", and if it's true that 'the left side of the bed' was an idiom for being too strict with the children? - You don't know so you can never use short quotes to prove anything about the correct interpretation of any long complex document.

they don't practice a religion that encourages them to kill people who [don't] worship as they do? a religion the allows the to bury a woman to her neck and stone her to death under the suspiscion of adultery?

a) Suspicion of adultery? I think the majority of Muslims and even the medium rabid and misogynist fundamentalists would require more than suspicion before they would condemn her. So I'm looking at your words here and I'm seeing not truth, but inflammatory exaggerations.
As for whether Muslims 1) do believe this or 2) should believe this, please see above.

"hey whatever appologize for people who want nothing more than to see you dead, it's no skin off my back, no wait it did come from my back, and it came from my knee, and that bit of elbow that is left behind, but hey you smart people tell me all about how I'm wrong on this one with all your experiance"

What? Who are you talking about here? Whose apologising for Muslims who want you dead?
And which Muslims want us dead? All of them? The Entire Religion? No... fanatics... people who are really pissed and blame America for many things (some of which it actually did) but certainly not all of them.
I'm sorry to hear about your injuries, I'm sure they were earned in brave service, but your experience with Muslims who did want to kill you does not make you any more clear-eyed than the rest of us when it comes to judging whether the Entire Religion is intolerant or wants us dead.

So how's that BigTodd? I didn't call you a nut or a bigot, I've looked to find truth in your words, and I don't find it. Just evidenceless generalisation and scaremongering.

He makes a good point though, not everyone who says the things I quoted above are nuts and bigots. That's kind of what John Stewart was on about. Don't buy into the polarising rhetoric. Reserve your judgement. Maybe he demonises 'the entire Religion' because he's a bigot, or maybe he demonises it because he's got bad information. Got the impression that Muslims are more monotone and homogenous than they are, and that the radicals speak for more than just themselves and other pissed off folk, not because he's evil and not looking for truth, but only because all our experiences differ. Perhaps you would agree with him had you lived his life.
But on the other hand he may just out his biases when he talks more. You can't keep assuming good intentions forever, eventually, given enough rope a real bigot will hang himself. In the mean time you should keep spooling it out so that there's enough there that a genuine misunderstanding, or understandable difference of opinion can be straightened out.

it seems like something we all expected but and it never became reality Now it is so, terrifically to be aware that it is already here!