dagblog - Comments for "Alan Grayson must apologize now! Democrats must always stay above the fray"

Where you see equating, I

Nebton — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:09:53 +0000

In reply to I disagree. There's clearly

Where you see equating, I merely see comparing. I don't see these as the same thing.

If it's wrong for Limbaugh to do it all the time, it's probably wrong for Miller to do it occasionally. I don't follow Miller, but from the discussion here my impression is that Miller is someone who is usually rational, but occasionally goes to the Limbaugh well. Limbaugh, on the other hand, I'm familiar with as someone who not only says outrageous things, but also can never seem to make a true factual statement, even about things that don't matter.

I disagree. There's clearly

DF — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 00:22:09 +0000

In reply to If I may interject, in order

I disagree. There's clearly a need to incriminate "both sides". The dichotomy is false on its face, but without any sort of qualitative judgment it's simply a non sequitur. I could also say that an umbrella is not a piece of furniture. It isn't. So what?

Equating acts that are obviously different in degree, if not in kind, is an exercise in false equivalence. Comparing Miller's flip remark about executing Limbaugh on the grounds of treason to Rush's comment about wanting America to fail is such an exercise. They aren't equivalent, but the need to make them seem equivalent is pervasive.

If I may interject, in order

Nebton — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 00:11:51 +0000

In reply to It absolutely is salient.

If I may interject, in order for Larry's argument to be in the realm of false equivalence, he has to be saying they're equivalent. As far as I can tell, he's not. He's just saying they're both bad. Killing an abortion doctor is not the same as slaughtering millions of Jews (*nods to A-man*), but the fact that they're not equivalent doesn't make killing an abortion doctor OK.

It absolutely is salient.

DF — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:13:12 +0000

In reply to Whether or not Miller has the

It absolutely is salient. Look, this is no different than the discussion about people who go violent. It's not really informative or meaningful to dwell in this realm of false equivalence. Can you find someone you're comfortable with labeling as a "wingnut" on "both sides" of the political spectrum? Sure, but so what? It's essentially a non sequitur.

Why? If I don't turn on Mike Malloy, I don't hear about him. Your mention of him is the first I've heard of him in years. Meanwhile, Limbaugh makes headlines weekly. Does Tim Kaine have to ask Mike Malloy's permission to do and say? No, I don't think so.

That's the trouble with the "both sides do it" analysis. It's a reduction so extreme as to be meaningless. The left and right are not structurally equal monolithic entities. In fact, it's really all that much better if we generalize even further and simply say "people do it".

Meanwhile, it's not Stephanie Miller on the cover of Time magazine.

Neb, don't judge a show by

Larry Jankens — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:48:45 +0000

In reply to That's definitely not one of

Neb, don't judge a show by one episode. There are so many other good shows that will rock your socks. There's one on immigration, the drug war, astrology, and so many more you would dig. I promise. check: www.tvshack.net under "Penn and Teller's Bullshit"

Whether or not Miller has the

Larry Jankens — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:46:52 +0000

In reply to I'm a big fan of Bullshit!

Whether or not Miller has the ear of the dems is not salient to my point, which is why I avoided it. Malloy says some salacious sh*t, perhaps he would have been a better comparison to begin with, but my point remains, the left does it too. So when you are hating on the rightwingnuts who do it, hate on the leftwingnuts too.

I agree you don't turn the other cheek when the wolf is at your door, you are supposed to use your superior intelect and figure out a way to get rid of the wolf. Call animal control, shoot it, or sick your pack of dogs on it. What you don't do is send a wolf to somebody else's door, because that doesn't solve your problem.

You trancend to a new plane of discussion by addressing the "wolves" head on and debasing them. Unlike the the dems who usually just wimper or ignore the problem, if you can sucessfully deconstruct your opposition people will eventually learn that the opposition is full of crap and next time the opposition starts to hoot and holler ridiculous accusations people will just think that they are crying "wolf."*

*extra point for using the wolf metaphore in two different concepts relating to the same point.

That's definitely not one of

DF — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:17:39 +0000

In reply to I hate to break with all of

That's definitely not one of their best episodes. They tend to rely too much on stock libertarian stances and frequently have people from Cato on the show. IIRC, there is a very funny bit in that episode where they trick well-meaning folks into signing a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. The stuff they do that relies on a libertarian economic perspective generally falls flat with me, but the show has plenty of other redeeming qualities.

I hate to break with all of

Nebton — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:09:42 +0000

In reply to I see your point with this

I hate to break with all of the Bullshit love, but this is about all I've heard about it, so don't include me in the fan list.

I'm a big fan of Bullshit!

DF — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:56:00 +0000

In reply to I see your point with this

I'm a big fan of Bullshit! and was glad to hear that they got signed for another season. I would pretty much be a libertarian if their economic stances made any sense, but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax as it were.

I really don't follow Miller myself, but rather know of her pretty much through clips on the 'net. I used to listen to a local Air America affiliate years ago, which syndicated acts like Malloy and Randi Rhodes. I don't really care for the style no matter what the point of view is, but many people apparently dig it.

However, that brings me back to my point about Limbaugh. No one in the Democratic leadership is making public apologies at the altar of Stephanie Miller. Simply trying to make this seem like an apples to apples comparison misses real differences like this. Sure, there are partisans with radio shows on both sides, but the comparisons between the two don't seem to go much further.

More to the point of the thread that we've sort of hijacked here is Alan Grayson. Now, we can probably agree that the stuff about Neanderthals and knuckle-dragging is just name-calling, though I would point out that there are some prominent members of GOP congressional leadership that believe the planet is only about 6,000 years old. So, maybe Neanderthal is a bit much, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to categorize someone who holds such beliefs as primitive.

However, what Grayson says about the GOP's prescription for America's healthcare woes is just the truth. It's not an issue for the GOP that the system is broken. In fact, the only real criticism I have for Grayson's assessment is that he left out the five ostensibly Democratic Senators who are enabling the party of "no".

Now, we can decry Grayson for supposedly sullying the discourse, but I want to know how exactly we're supposed to transcend to this new plane of discussion. I don't think it's going to happen because people don't really think and decide in purely rational lines. Emotional response is powerful. It drives the process.

That, I think, is William's point here. You don't turn the other cheek when there's a wolf at your door. What Grayson is doing is re-framing the debate in terms that are visceral. If it's true that emotional response is a necessary component of the decision making process, then it's necessary to do this.

I see your point with this

Larry Jankens — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:17:51 +0000

In reply to She deserves it as much as

I see your point with this specific comparison. But what about Stephanie calling republicans morons, or dopes? Isn't that Limbaugh/O'Reilly-esque? Have you ever listened to Mike Malloy (I think that's his name)? He's pretty out there shock-jocky-ish.

My basic point was that while the left may do it more infrequently, they also degrade the national discourse and they can't cry foul just because the right does a better job at being dickheads than they do.

I love Penn Jillette, btw, I don't always agree with his politics, but at least he's entertaining. His show Bullshit is amazing!