dagblog - Comments for "Obama: Doing it Again?"

A more accurate statement is

smithers_T — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:14:27 +0000

In reply to it would be very difficult

A more accurate statement is that Obama dreams of one day seeing the poor and underprivileged lifted up, and his method would be to have the government provide (what he deems) a fairer model to achieve it. Since a higher percentage of blacks are poor they would receive more help in the form of money (stipends or credits) and services. To say he wants to give black money? No, but he does want to distribute money to many who happen to be black as well as poor? If the people who receive the help feel that they've been put down due to race they stand a good chance of perceiving such action exactly how Limbaugh described it (even thought it's inaccurate).

Yea I don't see the point of dwelling on pundits or comedians., especially when it now appears to be forcing discussion of racism. I refuse to assign that label to any of the person's being discussed. I saw no proof of any hateful or racist ideas at those links. Just vulgarity... and as you know I weight Stewart's ridicule and mockery equally counter-productive. You don't see it like that. Fine.

it would be very difficult

AmericanDreamer — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 18:33:12 +0000

In reply to Dreamer, With all due

it would be very difficult for me to believe there's not pronounced bias

"Bias" is having a point of view? Nonsense. I don't subscribe to any sort of "equal opportunity" theory, whereby (often straw man versions constructed for the purpose) liberals and conservatives are both "biased" because they have a point of view whereas the person assessing them is somehow not. One might even say that is a kind of a political correctness in itself. Your point of view is free from "bias"? Please.

As for "objectivity", I don't believe in "objectivity" as a meaningful or even coherent concept. We each have points of view and are products of our own experiences. I'm not sure I believe that true "impartiality" is attainable but I understand, I think, what that concept means and think it is not without use. As I've written here many times I find the application of labels to describe political points of view often more unhelpful and misleading than helpful. Rush might try actually listening to those he castigates as "libruls" for a change (if he does, he certainly hasn't understood very well what he's heard.). He might find that real people, unlike straw man labels, can talk back, and often don't subscribe to his disgracefully dishonest caricature of what "libruls" believe.

Your note is filled with negatives toward someone who is known to be an arch conservative and adulation toward someone who is known to be an arch-liberal.

My view of Stewart is not one of "adulation". I did use negatives about Limbaugh, for the reasons I explained. But you want examples? Ok. That took prodigious research, perhaps as many as 5 seconds or so. I googled "Limbaugh quotes racist". Here are a few that turned up that exemplify my point, located at the following link

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/

Oh right, this website must be "biased"--the site is called "NewsOne for black America", after all. Do the folks writing things there have "biases" in the sense of points of view that inevitably reflect their experiences? Sure. Like I do and like you do and like all of us do. Does that make the information they are citing, all sourced, factually incorrect?

The comments after these quotes are those of the person writing the article.

“The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.” Source

Now Limbaugh is saying that an organization with a storied tradition of representing the positive black people for change in their communities are criminals and rioters. An organization that has been represented by intelligent professional African Americans, that has played a part in the Civil Rights movement and continues to be an intelligent, concerned voice for the African American community is degraded to common criminals. There you go Rush. Keep racism alive!!!!

“They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?” Source

Decent human beings care Rush. Someone out of that 12% is the President of the United States. Not caring about black people? Even George Bush wouldn’t admit to that.

[To an African American female caller]: “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.” Source

Okay, Rush, that’s classy. The old African bone in the nose stereotype. Wasn’t funny when the racist white school kids called the black kids that and it’s definitely not funny when a grown man with audience of millions of easily influenced dittoheads says it either.

“We need segregated buses… This is Obama’s America.” Source

“Obama’s entire economic program is reparations.” Source

So everything Obama is doing is a big plot to give money to Black people. Any evidence? Stop the racist fear-mongering.

(end)

Care to defend any of those statements? Go for it--make my day. But I should let you know in advance I'm not promising a reply. I have limited interest in continuing this exchange on Limbaugh.

Dreamer, With all due

smithers_T — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 17:17:30 +0000

In reply to Stewart is liberal. So are

Dreamer, With all due respect, You've not stated any specific actions of Limbaugh, i.e. quotes, issues or positions. The thing is I don't want to be on the side of defending him, so I don't want to delve far into those details.

But, for your case against him to hold anything but air, requires you state at least some specifics. You haven't provided any.

Also, you have it wrong at me liking him, I've never liked him. I have agreed with things he said though. In the nineties he did a piece recounting the accuracy of his predictions about Washington politician's behavior. It was astoundingly close to the way issues played out on a macro scale. Whether I like someone or not, I pay attention to whether or not they have good insight or instincts. Otherwise, it seems to me it's just pushing the latest trend or scheme into existence.

Your note is filled with negatives toward someone who is known to be an arch conservative and adulation toward someone who is known to be an arch-liberal. You find the latter fact-based, witty, insightful and the former to be coarse, wrong-headed and lacking insight.

You're right that I don't know you, but by the words you've chosen it would be very difficult for me to believe there's not pronounced bias. It might help if you share with me some of the liberal PC that you say you've opposed.

Of course you're not required to convince me of anything. But I don't find myself persuaded of a clear, objective, unbiased composition to your thoughts regarding the present issue.

Thoughtfully and respectfully,

T. Smithers

Stewart is liberal. So are

AmericanDreamer — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 15:29:36 +0000

In reply to "You say disrespect, which I

Stewart is liberal. So are you. You would naturally defend him as the standard bearer of respect.

I'm not defending him as "the standard bearer of respect." He makes a living at ridicule, which is just about inherently disrespectful in mocking at least specific actions people engage in. I do respect that, unlike Limbaugh, he does it through close attention to the facts rather than cheap, one-sided caricatures of whole categories of other human beings. And I like that he often does it with wit.

In my experience that is most often the rub. It's that he's effective. Part of the reasons he's effective though has very little to do with facts, it's that people are willing to escape the liberal PC of the society by momentarily tuning in to some one who hates it and can articulate what they're feeling. Unfortunately, it's sometimes disrespectful, done at the expense of others.

I disagree that he is effective and has a following because he is willing to challenge what you call "liberal PC".

There are plenty of satirists, including liberal satirists, who challenge "liberal PC." If you knew anything about me you would know that I go against "liberal PC" sometimes, including here. But apparently you can't hear that because to you, as to Rush, I am just a liberal and liberals don't perceive or go against liberal PC.

Limbaugh makes a living on indulging peoples' false and negative prejudices and stereotypes about others. He fosters unnecessary division and discord in our society by telling listeners who find it convenient to believe the vile prejudices and stereotypes he pedals what they want to hear. I don't respect that, no, nor am I bound to. Maybe you think that is somehow helpful or at any rate benign. I don't.

I don't find Stewart coarse, not because he is a liberal, but because he is not coarse. I don't say Limbaugh is coarse because he has right-wing, reactionary politics. He's just coarse.

But I don't think that's at all unrelated to his popularity, either. Take away Rush's coarseness and cheap appeals to peoples' preconceived and false or grossly oversimplified beliefs and assumptions and he's not Rush. Some would say if it weren't Rush doing this someone else would. Perhaps that is so. But he reinforces ignorance and exacerbates deep societal divisions and attitudes that make them even more difficult to surmount.

You forgive him, indeed have liked him, because he will confront "liberal PC". I think that may be what he believes, and apparently you believe, his actions as mainly about. But I don't see him as being mainly about that. I think that is his cover for engaging in the cheap, tawdry rhetoric and appeals that are at the core of what his work is about. He has few if any personal standards for what he will say on the air.

I will withdraw the charge of him being a "professional buffoon" as being overly essentialist. I stand by what I wrote above as specific criticisms of his actions.

"You say disrespect, which I

smithers_T — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 03:48:43 +0000

In reply to No offense taken, though I

"You say disrespect, which I think is true in the case of Limbaugh whereas I think Stewart uses wit, [h]umor, and, yes, ridicule, which I think might not seem that different than disrespect, but I think is..."

Stewart is liberal. So are you. You would naturally defend him as the standard bearer of respect. One might argue though that applying humor to take jabs at your political opponents is more base and underhanded than simply stating your position. To be fair Limbaugh uses plenty of rhetoric (which can, in the worst case, be base or underhanded)... and it's likely never going to be funny to the people being ridiculed. The ones who do find it funny to see humor at other's expense? I don't want to be that person. I'm not a conservative or liberal thinker and I have no allegiance to a pundit or political humorist. I think government and law is too solemn a thing to be directed that way.

"Limbaugh is a professional buffoon."

Like I said, I don't care for him, especially his coarseness, but I think your comment is uncalled for (personal character assassination).

"Stewart very much does care about facts.... Limbaugh, no. He's a frivolous person, who unfortunately appears to have a large influence in our society...."

In my experience that is most often the rub. It's that he's effective. Part of the reasons he's effective though has very little to do with facts, it's that people are willing to escape the liberal PC of the society by momentarily tuning in to some one who hates it and can articulate what they're feeling. Unfortunately, it's sometimes disrespectful, done at the expense of others.

It really is what Stewart does too, in substance. If it were enough for him to tell a joke without ridicule or sarcasm it would probable be good enough for Limbaugh to do his sound bites without being vulgar. But you won't see that..?

I'm guessing if Limbaugh were liberal and Stewart were conservative you'd see them entirely differently than you do, even if they used the same tactics as they do now.

T. Smithers

I didn't vote for a

smithers_T — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 03:21:15 +0000

In reply to So you only voted for George

I didn't vote for a presidential candidate either time that Bush II ran for that office.

So you only voted for George

NCD — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 15:18:28 +0000

In reply to NCD, You're wrong in your

So you only voted for George W. Bush once?

You are absolutely right. But

NCD — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 15:10:10 +0000

In reply to And Boehner's head will be on

You are absolutely right. But if the economy got even worse, Boehner would count on The Base blaming Obama as Fox News/Rush would tell them, and voting Republican anyway, even if they lived under that bridge Resistance talks about.

If Obama got an absolute lock on ending the Bush tax cuts on $250K or $500K and up, a raise of maybe 5% in taxes on the wealthiest Americans in an essentially bankrupt country, and not one that required a vote in 2012 or was qualified in any way, he would redeem himself of his endless compromising with that one action. I would place the odds though below 5%.

No offense taken, though I

AmericanDreamer — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 13:22:47 +0000

In reply to "Do you think his listeners,

No offense taken, though I strongly disagree that he is no different in substance than Limbaugh. In any case, I rarely get to watch him.

If we lived in a society where the level of public engagement with public affairs straight-up were higher (and there are plenty of reasons, by no means all invidious, why that is not the case; plenty of people are just trying to survive out there, working 2 or 3 jobs and trying to raise families, as an example), I might see more merit in taking what is a pretty strong broadbrush stance of condemnation towards using "sarcasm and disrespect" in engaging people on public affairs. You say disrespect, which I think is true in the case of Limbaugh whereas I think Stewart uses wit, rumor, and, yes, ridicule, which I think might not seem that different than disrespect, but I think is, as well as sarcasm).

My feeling is if the Stewart approach raises awareness, and raises the level of understanding and factually correct knowledge about public affairs, it's to the good. I see him as very much doing both. If he can get people to laugh in the process, what's wrong with that? Limbaugh is a professional buffoon. He doesn't care about facts. He has no concept whatsoever of giving those he disagrees with their due. He is a master at setting up the straw man. That's a cheap and lazy approach which degrades the level of public discourse, such as it is, about public affairs.

Stewart very much does care about facts. Not that he never makes factual mistakes. But he actually cares if he does, and will correct himself if he's wrong. Limbaugh, no. He's a frivolous person, who unfortunately appears to have a large influence in our society, much for the worse. He encourages a frivolous, lazy approach to public affairs in his listeners. Stewart is serious and substantive, and funny. He wants to get a rise out of his listeners but he does it the legit way, not by playing fast and loose with the facts or enabling ignorance, laziness and socially callous and sometimes vicious attitudes. Like what we need in this country is more people hating on one another. JMO.

I realize there are problems

AmericanDreamer — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 13:02:25 +0000

In reply to I guess that means I'm

I realize there are problems with that answer.

As with my answers.

I believe there are ways to contribute to moving the country in a positive direction both working as a registered Democrat and working as a registered Independent. I feel you, whether you remain a Democrat or re-register Independent over the next few days, are doing a great deal in that regard.

There are plenty of Democrats who I feel are going with the President because he's a Democrat and they are, and that (still) leaves them with what is clearly at this point, to my way of thinking, an unjustifiably high trust level to represent what they see themselves as believing for the country.

And there are plenty of Independents for whom being an Independent is almost entirely a negation, a rejection of the two major parties. Not just on the level of the public meaning of registering as an Independent, which I would argue is almost inherently in the present context an act of negation, affirming nothing in any socially meaningful way. But on a private one as well. They aren't doing or advocating anything positive, just throwing rocks pretty indiscriminately at just about everyone, except themselves. More quietism, checking out, self-isolation, or self-absorption at the expense of investing anything of themselves in what is public and broadly social. Just what we need in this country at this time.

The more important distinction, I would argue, right now, is not if a person is a Democrat or an Independent, but what are they doing, or trying to do, on the great issues playing out right now that are defining the present and the future for our country and our world. Ok, so sure I am disappointed that many registered Independents at dag I agree with on many things will not have a voting voice in who are the candidates for Democratic nominations to Congress this next cycle. I really wish I had them engaging on that with me and other Democrats here of a similar view, having preserved their fullest say in such matters. Because there are plenty in my party who are opposed to the direction I favor for the party and it's not at all clear whether the fight I want is winnable, even should Independents who want it to succeed re-register and fight that fight as Democrats.

But there are many different ways to try to contribute. I've argued here and at the cafe for pluralism instead of One and Only One Correct Way to get from here to there. Because just looking at historically successful positive change efforts in this country, I can't come to any other conclusion but that multiple people playing multiple roles, some "inside", some "outside", registering with different political parties or with none at all, is necessary for some measure of success and social betterment.

Attacking people because of the decision they've made on the Dem vs. Independent registration question, while obviously many of us have our views and preferences on that, is I think not a particularly productive argument to have at this time. I am gratified, or maybe just relieved, that in this thread as well as at the site generally of late, a number of denizens have apparently felt free and "safe enough" to write openly and candidly, respectfully and without rancor towards one another, about their views on that matter.

Which is not at all a trivial one. Just not one of the arguments especially worth having at this time in my estimation, and not worth creating division and ill will among many people who agree with one another on a great many public matters.