Who knew Jon was going to turn out to be an apologist for Bush, Faux News and the teabaggers.

[rainlillie]

[brettdale]

1. What did Jon Stewart say

What did he say?

[Pirate Smile]

2. He made excuses for/justified Bush's march to war in Iraq and torture.

I'm going to remember that as I watch him bash Obama for anything and everything from now on.

[brettdale]

4. is there as transcript

On the web or soemthing?

[Pirate Smile]

5. Video will be up soon I bet. Rachel said the entire interview will be on her site tomorrow morning.

[rwheeler31]

3. Why do you hate a real conversation?

[patrice]

16. Why do you hate those who disagree with "a real conservative"? You are the one characterizing it as

hate, so you should consider whether you are projecting.

People are angry at having deceived themselves about someone whom they disagree with on fundamental issues and values. That's not hate.

[RZM]

6. That's a bit of stretch

I'm not surprised DU is slowly turning on Stewart after the rally, because part of his message was intrinsically anti-DU -- that you're not supposed to demonize and hate your political opponents. On the torture thing, I certainly think there is plenty of fair room to disagree with Stewart. He himself said that he doesn't necessarily disagree with arguing that Bush is a war criminal, but that the term 'war criminal' conjures up images of Hitler and Pol Pot and while Bush dd some nasty stuff, he ain't them.

A corollary would be referring to the Japanese internment camps as 'concentration camps.' Yes, they were places where broad groups of people were 'concentrated.' But they weren't the same as Nazi camps, not by a long shot, and those who refer to them that way intend to evoke the image of the Holocaust when using that language and that's somewhat disingenuous. Same thing with referring to Guantanamo as an 'American GULag' (a favorite pastime over at Counterpunch). But Guantanamo ain't a Soviet camp . . . it's not even in the ballpark. I think that's what Stewart was trying to intimate. You can say Bush did some bad stuff, but it's not right to link him to crimes that occupy history's hall of fame of absolute evil.

[rainlillie]

8. Jon was splitting hairs and trying to muddy the waters..

Anyone who gives the authorization for human beings to be tortured is evil. Comparing a group of people trying to stop a war, to people trying to stop poor people from receiving health insurance is ridiculous. Saying Faux News is not partisan is a lie.

[cynatnite]

17. I didn't get that impression at all...

I think anyone can rationalize themselves into doing horrible things. It doesn't make them good, but it doesn't automatically mean evil. I don't believe in evil for that matter.

I agree with Jon about Faux News. It's not partisan. It's ideological.

Different perspectives.

[Lord Magus]

24. I do believe in evil.

And I believe that Bush, Cheney, et al. are evil. They're war criminals, and that's more than just "technically true", despite what Stewart said. They deserve the worst punishments our legal system can deliver.

[Kind of Blue]

36. +1000 Thanks. Splitting hairs

is the exact phrase that came to mind while watching last night.

[RZM]

46. There are shades of evil though

Not all crimes are equal and not all deserve the same punishment or to be remembered and mourned in the same way. That was Stewart's point and I agree with him. As far as the left/right equivalency and his characterization of Fox News, I'm not sure that I do agree with Stewart. But as somebody who studies history and looks for connections to the present, I get what he's saying on that front and I generally agree with it.

[sally cat]

71. Correct.

[rufus dog]

77. it was just mumbo jumbo b.s. up until he made the partisan comment

He was spinning, then when Rachel asked if they were ideological or partisan and he tried to claim they were just ideological he jumped the proverbial shark. If it was his show he would have shown five to seven clips of Fox hosts claiming one thing when a R did it and the exact opposite when a Democrat did the same thing, if he was so inclined to make someone look like a fool, in this case it was him.

I recall all the Fox suckers bitching about Bush deficit spending. :sarcasm:

He was in a hole and just kept digging. For the Stewart defenders, I have no problem with him most of the time, but he did make a false equivelency, rather than admitting it or ignoring it, he took the route of trying to talk his way out and justify his actions. He fucked up.

[defendandprotect]

93. +1000% --

[patrice]

21. Try telling that to 100K+ dead Iraqis, many of whom were children.

100K, 1,000,000 murdered people would not be a bad thing, if it weren't bad to murder just one, so the difference between Bush and Pol Pot et al is not a difference in the quality of their actions, but only the quantity.

[Lord Magus]

25. +1

And even on a quantitative level, Bush is most likely the worst mass murderer since Pol Pot.

[leftynyc]

70. Think Congo and Rwanda

before you spout off on that.

[SOS]

100. Rwanda - Iraq

Iraqi Dead May Total 600,000

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.htm

The Rwandan Genocide was the 1994 mass murder of an estimated 800,000 people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

[rainlillie]

31. Exactly! does this parsing of words anger you as much as it does me?

[patrice]

49. Absolutely! it does, because it is the SAME parsing that justifies stuff such as . . .

putting a cap on Medicare services, while not seriously or systemically addressing Medicare costs.

On a practical level, and I have seen this around my MIL, this amounts to using LEGAL chemical restraints, such as morphine, when someone exceeds a certain level of risk relative to your "care" resources. Especially with those for whom there is no one to advocate, or with those who do have advocates, but they are not effective advocates because they lack the levels of expertise to be so **AND** the system has capped their ability to seek that expertise . . . PLUS those advocates are overworked and maxed out themselves, standard operating procedures in risk assessments (and in manipulating government surveys of "care" resources, btw) inevitably results in suffering and death, which, of course, everyone rationalizes and indeed, in some situations, even bless, in much the same manner as do those who say that the significance of human suffering is calculated on spreadsheets.

One of the most significant things about the scenario which I just described is that often, VERY often, with the elderly especially, relatively SMALL things can make huge differences in their well being. My family has discovered this in caring for my 92 year old mother. Systems that function on logic that is analogous to "Pol Pot killed more people than Dick Cheney did, therefore certain actions are justified relative to Pol Pot and not justified in response to Cheney" are systems that will also assume that it is not necessary to make the effort to discover what that one, or a few, small, relatively inexpensive, thing/s is/are that will make a difference between Mom folding laundry and mom in the hospital, because she and each and every other one like her is ONLY ONE person. Yeah, you can put those ones on a spreadsheet and make them "more", but, because the basic assumption is that this is ALL about NUMBERS of persons, rather than the quality of persons' lives, that count can always be made relative to another count and justification be shown for what you are doing to that one person there in that bed (or whatever).

[Supersedeas]

67. But, but, but we don't know what is going on in Bush's beautiful mind...WMD was one of many

justifications.

[Kind of Blue]

37. +1000

[RZM]

45. There are a lot of things that can fall under the purview of war crimes

And they are all different, too. The Iraq War has been a humanitarian disaster and few people would argue with that. But the details still matter, especially when you start comparing crimes to one another. I'm far from an expert on the Khmer Rouge and I'd be much more at home dealing with comparisons to atrocities in Central/Eastern Europe, but I do know that Pol Pot rounded up literally millions of people based on their perceived backgrounds and imagined loyalties and forced them to perform slave labor or executed them in cold blood solely on those bases. The scale wasn't the same, nor were the reasons, both of which were far more heinous in the Cambodian case. A lot of Iraqi deaths have been caused by people who took advantage of the breakdown in order to murder their supposed enemies and the US does bear a good deal of responsibility for that. But that's a damn site from what Pol Pot did. Does it matter to a dead person? I don't think it does, but it SHOULD matter to everybody else when trying to make sense of it. I have no problem with an open discussion of Bush's legacy in Iraq and taking account of all of the suffering his administration is directly or indirectly responsible for. But why do we have to abuse history here? I'd prefer to leave that to the right. We can examine Bush's actions on their own terms and not bring in historical atrocities solely in order to lend emotional weight to the points.

Do you take issue with Stewart's equivalency of ideologues on the right with those on the left? Because if you do, I don't see how you could also turn around and argue that Bush is the equivalent of Pol Pot.

[patrice]

52. No, I am not in favor of obfuscating the differences between things,

n+ is different from n, but I am against negating their similarities, neither one is 0 and neither one would matter at all if that weren't true. n+ would not be significant if 1 weren't inherently significant. There just is no basis to say that more of something that is not significant independently in and of itself, at some point (?????), becomes significant, solely on the quality of quantity.

So, it appears that our argument is about, given the nature of their similarity (i.e. the intrinsic value of (even only one) human life), what is appropriate to their differences, i.e. the relative numbers of said lives experiencing suffering and death due to a given set of actions.

[BeFree]

64. Looks to me like stewie is saying

Bush wasn't as bad as Pol pot and Hitler, so don't worry, be happy.

Because, bush is ours and there is no way we'd kill anybody EXACTLY like those bad guys.

********

Excuses, excuses.

[Lord Magus]

61. The fact is that Bush caused hundreds of thousands of innocent people to die.

The reasons he did it don't matter, the fact that he did it is what matters.

[RZM]

65. Reasons do matter

They don't matter to the victims, but they do matter to the rest of us trying to make sense of all of it. Under your logic, Ted Kennedy and OJ Simpson are no different from one another. After all, they both caused somebody to die. Doesn't it matter to you that the reasons and circumstances were quite different? You're going to have to do better than that.

[Johonny]

48. I agree

[Matariki]

51. Someone needs to send him very graphic photos of Fallujah

of all the innocent men, women and children killed and maimed in Bush's illegal war. Oh yeah, and Abu Ghraib.

Just because the victims weren't American doesn't make it less horrific.

[RZM]

56. Do you really think that would change his argument?

All death violent death is horrific to look at, at least to me it is. That doesn't mean what Bush has done is the equivalent of other historical crimes. I'd probably get a similar reaction looking at photos from Fallujah as I would looking at pictures of starved children in early 1930s Ukraine. But I also realize that getting a similar reaction to those images doesn't mean I can equate the crimes with one another. Just because both are terrible doesn't mean that they are the same thing. To some people they are, but not to me.

Think of it this way. Let's say a driver runs over a pedestrian because they are speeding, drunk, not paying attention, and feel it's the job of pedestrians to look out for drivers, not the other way around (though the law says otherwise). Compare that with somebody who drives slowly until they find an unsuspecting person with dark skin and then deliberately hits the gas and runs them over, backing over them on their way out to make sure they are dead. Without knowing the circumstances of each incident, just looking at photos from the scene scene is going to produce a similar reaction. Indeed both drivers have violated the law and both deserve to be punished. But their crimes are not the same and they probably don't deserve the same punishment either (I'd give a stiff sentence to the first but probably put the second away for life). None of this matters to the victims of course, but it should matter to us when making comparisons between the two incidents.

[Lord Magus]

62. That's a false comparison.

Bush's invasion of Iraq and the death it caused were not accidents. It was entirely deliberate.

Bush deserves to be executed for his crimes. Pol Pot would have deserved even worse had he not committed suicide to avoid trial, but unfortunately there is no worse penalty available.

[RZM]

66. I'm not sure everybody would consider my first example an accident

After all, if you're driving drunk, not paying attention, and not respectful of the rights of pedestrians, is it really an accident when you finally kill one? Sounds like a gray area to me. In any case, it's still not the same as the other example. Look, I don't think I can convince you to change your mind here, so here's my final statement: The Iraq War has been a disaster for much of the Iraqi population. Many people have died who wouldn't have otherwise had the US not invaded. But it's not the same as Pol Pot's crimes just because people died in both cases and I think objective analysis of each set of events shows that. If you don't, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

[sabrina 1]

78. And the distinction he made between Bush and Pol Pot was

the we need to consider that Bush's intentions were good, that he was worried about the safety of the American people. Iow, we should forgive his authorization of war crimes because the end, in Bush's view which we have not reached btw, justifies the means. Well, so long Geneva Conventions as every war criminal could make that claim, and most do. Bush at worst, was misguided.

Pol Pot's intentions were probably good in that sense also. I'm sure he believed he was doing what was right for his country. All bullies and criminals are convinced of their righteousness, that doesn't diminish their crimes as far as I know.

This was the equivalent of saying that a murderer who kills a very unpopular person, was simply misguided in his thinking that the world would be a better place because of his illegal actions.

[RZM]

84. I think he did do that to a certain extent

And plenty of people have made your argument. One thing about Hitler was that he wasn't 'kidding' when he said that world Jewry was aiming to destroy Germany. He really believed it 100 percent and he carried out the Holocaust in large part because he thought it was necessary to protect Germans. The idea was totally crazy, but he did believe it was the truth. Same thing with Stalin's crimes as well. Up until the very end of his life, Viacheslav Molotov (he died in the 1980s at the age of 96) said that the Great Terror was necessary and that Stalin had been right. Sure, some innocent people died, but without it, the 'traitors' that had been rooted out might have prevented the Soviets from winning the Second World War.

But saying that both Bush and Pol Pot both thought they were right doesn't get us to equivalency. The Iraq War has been bad, but Pol Pot's violent campaigns in the 1970s were far, far worse in both scale and wanton brutality. Bush is directly responsible for Iraqis who have died at the hand of the US (and reconstituted Iraqi) military. He is also responsible for the many more deaths caused by foreign fighters/sectarian conflicts/terrorism, the conditions for which were made possible by the removal of Saddam's regime. But you could make the argument that he is 'indirectly' responsible for those, since the US created the conditions where such chaos could occur, but did not desire, promote, or envision that outcome. Doesn't let him off the hook entirely, but it's not the same as ordering the deaths of all of those people killed in 'internal' Iraqi violence. He shares responsibility for that with the people actually carrying out the violence. In contrast, Pol Pot is pretty much fully responsible for what went on in the 1970s in Cambodia. All of the repression, slavery, and death was the intent of his policies.

[sabrina 1]

85. The U.S. sent death squads to Iraq. They dropped White Phospherous

on innocent civilians, every single death in that country that has resulted from the invasion, is the fault of the Bush administration and everyone who went along with it.

Water-boarding, only one of the many evil methods used to torture Iraqi detainees, is a war crime. We have a president and VP who have publicly admitted to authorizing torture. It does not matter what reasons they had.

As you said yourself, every war criminal believes they are doing right. Stewart's attempt to excuse Bush because of his supposed 'good intentions' was pitiful to be honest. First, he has no idea what Bush's intentions were, he's making assumptions. Personally I think his intentions were to get Iraq's oil under control and had NOTHING to do with the 'safety of the American people' I cannot believe Stewart believes that. Especially since it is well known that both these invasions have only made us less safe, something thinking people knew before they began.

Sorry, he sounded confused, struggling to make a point, failing to do so, then falling back on the very weak and self-serving, xenophobic argument that we need to read the minds of people who torture before calling them war criminals, IF they are Americans.

No, we don't. He just made a good argument for excusing all war criminals. Our laws are clear. They were broken and the fact that the Bush administration went to such painful lengths to get lawyers to twist those laws and make them legal, PROVES they knew they were breaking the law.

It's interesting the lengths people, like Stewart and so many others, mostly on the right, will go to try to excuse American crimes, while having no lack of clarity on what a war crime is when it's someone they consider to be an enemy does it. Amazing really. During the Clinton administration over 500,000 Iraqi children died as a direct result of brutal sanctions.

We are not nice people, no matter how Jon Stewart tries to excuse us. And this country needs to start cleaning up its act, which has been pretty brutal for a long, long time.

I thought he was smarter than this.

[Mz Pip]

7. DId we watch the same interview?

I didn't come away with him being an apologist at all.

He didn't throw out black and white hyperbole but that hardly makes him an apologist.

[Taverner]

60. I was gonna say....

He was no apologist, he did what we like to call a REASONED ARGUMENT

Something I never see in political coverage

[fishwax]

9. I didn't see it as being a bush apologist

Saying that even though the administration clearly manipulated the conversation leading up to the war and is/was obviously incorrect about the material facts regarding WMD, bush still might honestly have felt that sadaam posed a potential threat to global security isn't really being an apologist for bush. Nor is it being a bush apologist to say that, even while approving waterboarding was clearly heinous, bush's motivation may have been a concern for safety rather than a perverse desire to torture.

Saying that it may not be the case that bush is evil is not being a bush apologist--though it may well be incorrect (as even Jon acknowledged). But one need not think bush is evil, sociopathic, etc., in order to believe that the bush administration was horrifically destructive to the country, that the iraq war never should have happened, that the approval of waterboarding is a horrific repudiation of all that America should stand for.

[rainlillie]

10. Jon tried to rationalize Bush's evil actions. I don't care what drove Bush to do the

things that he done. I don't care what was in his head, when he gave the go ahead for people to be tortured... people who didn't have a trial and wasn't convicted of a crime. Bush acted as judge, jury and prosecutor. Quite frankly, I thought Jon was full of $hit.

[fishwax]

13. you think that decision was horrible, as does Jon

But if one person says "Bush approved torture and that's reprehensible and bush is evil" and another person says "Bush approved torture and that's reprehensible but I don't know if he's evil," that doesn't make the second person an apologist.

[cynatnite]

18. Understanding why someone does a bad thing isn't the same as excusing what they did. n/t

[rainlillie]

30. Yeah, and the point is.. Who the hell cares why!

[Art_from_Ark]

29. Remember too that bu$h was in a big hurry to start the war

even while the weapons inspectors were confirming that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

[Major Hogwash]

11. Being down the middle didn't help. The only thing in the middle is "roadkill"

In politics.

He even derided the idea that there was a huge political divide in this country, saying it was a figment of the media's imagination, and ramped up by the media for ratings.

Tomorrow I expect him to say that he can see Russia from his house with a straight face the way Palin did and then realize that there was a slight chance she could be where Biden is today.

[fishwax]

14. yellow stripes and dead armadilloes, as Jim Hightower said

I buy that too, as a general rule. I'm not convinced jon was really in the middle here.

He also didn't say the political divide was a figment of the media's imagination--he said he thought it was real and significant, but not the biggest divide the country faces. I think he was generally wrong on the point he was making there. But he was certainly correct that it's ramped up by the media for ratings.

[cynatnite]

20. I do think the media hypes up the divide to a large degree...

The repukes and Faux Noise have manipulated it and taken full advantage of every benefit they can milk out of it. They get a large portion of the blame.

[Lord Magus]

22. He dismissed the fact that Bush is a war criminal as a technicality.

That requires an immediate on-air apology and retraction.

[fishwax]

26. not really

saying something is technically true isn't the same as dismissing it as a technicality.

His point was that leading with calling bush a war criminal is likely to kill discussion rather than promote it. Fact is, a discussion of the facts about bush's approval of torture is likely to lead most reasonable people to conclude that on their own, but leading with it will keep some of those potentially reasonable people out of that discussion.

[Lord Magus]

34. Anybody who's not already aware of the fact that Bush is a war criminal is probably not reasonable.

I don't care about having a discussion with unreasonable people.

[fishwax]

40. feel free to have conversations only with those who agree with you

and be sure to tell us how successful it is as a political strategy.

[JVS]

41. On the other hand, what's the use of promoting discussion if doing so requires handicapping truth?

If we are unable to discuss the fact that Bush is a war criminal, why not just talk about the weather or some hollywood gossip?

[fishwax]

43. I don't think it requires us to handicap truth at all

I'm not saying people ought not explain what exactly bush did or put that within the context of international law as a point of clear comparison and so on. And I think doing so leads to a pretty clear conclusion.

I think there is a relatively small part of the public that thinks bush's approval of torture, etc. constitutes a war crime. There is also a small (but unfortunately not small enough) part of the public that could never be convinced that bush did anything wrong. I think there is a sizable segment in between that would have a knee-jerk defensive reaction to the statement "bush is a war criminal," but could, through a reasoned and deliberate discussion of bush's decisions and international law, come to see clearly how the bush administration violated the law. I think some of my relatives are in that segment, and I expect I'll have that conversation more than once when I visit them over the holidays. I even expect that, in at least a couple of cases, I'll succeed in swaying their opinion. And I won't feel at all as though I'm handicapping the truth.

Now, for some people, that approach just isn't their style. And that's fine. And anyone who wants to take a megaphone to the back steps of the student union and yell/chant/scream that bush is a war criminal at passersby in the quad during lunch hour absolutely should. And, of course, there are numerous approaches in between, all of which can be effective in the right hands to at least some segment of the audience.

[RZM]

50. +1

Thanks for your intelligent and reasoned approach to this.

[Lord Magus]

57. I'm sorry, I just can't agree with that.

The facts that prove Bush is a war criminal have, despite the best efforts of the media, been out in the open for so long now that anybody who doesn't already see it probably doesn't want to see it. It's like treating people who aren't sure whether the sky is blue as if they're reasonable and persuadable.

[fishwax]

68. there's a huge segment of the public that doesn't pay much attention

but they can be reached. It's not as though most of the public watches (or even has access to) cable news (the three channels combined don't draw much more than 3 million during prime time).

[NotThisTime]

12. Good damn question....

[patrice]

15. I knew. I've known at least since 2008 that he doesn't care about the things I care about. Stopped

watching him a quite some time ago.

[JackRiddler]

19. Clear enough years ago if you were paying attention...

But earlier this year, at the latest: Stewart joint book appearances with the wonderful "Dr. Rice."

[defendandprotect]

32. Who's Dr. Rice .... and why Stewart alleged switch .....?

Is he dependent upon right wing viewers?

Never did get the Colbert show ....

Help!

[JackRiddler]

39. Condoleezza Rice, Ph.D. And it's not a switch, it's a consistent development over time.

[defendandprotect]

72. Thank you -- Bleech ... !!!

[ZombieHorde]

44. He did not switch, he wasn't talking about the things some people here think he was talking about.

Stewart was talking about the rules of classical debate, such as starting with a concrete premise, and people here are pissed off by those rules.

[defendandprotect]

74. Just watched the whole thing .... and it's outrageous equivocation .... Plausible Deniability ...

especially on Bush's behalf --

But, then he gets going in making the same kind of comparisons that the left

has already taken objection to -- comparing FDR and Bush, Clarence Thomas and Clinton.

Frequently it sounds like right wing propaganda --

And it seems he believes in a conspiracy-free-America --

Iraq was a war of aggression based on lies to control ME oil --

to suggest otherwise is inane.

Bush has admitted giving orders for TORTURE -- after lawyers selected by Bushco gave

them false legal standing to do so.

I REALLY, REALLY MISS RICHARD CARLIN --!!!

[ZombieHorde]

75. He was not talking about politics, he was talking about debate. nt

[defendandprotect]

81. The right wing NOISE machine was intended always to limit debate ....

and that's been going on for decades!

How long have we had Limbaugh -- a show based completely on propaganda -- which

short circuits thinking and raises emotional reactions?

How long Glenn Beck ?

How long Fox News -- where is the equivalent of that on the left?

Where's the leftwing equivalent of the T-baggers?

Or the "pro-life" murdering nuts?

Debate isn't "political" ... ????

Debate? We have a private corporation now controlling the debates in presidential

elections -- put in place by agreement of BOTH parties!

[ZombieHorde]

82. You are right about debate not really happening with our politician or our news media.

I think this is what JS was talking about.

Where's the leftwing equivalent of the T-baggers?

I am unaware of any left wing group which uses the violent terms enjoyed by them, but the 9/11 conspiracy folks on our side don't always make sense.

Or the "pro-life" murdering nuts?

Although all action can be viewed as communication, these murders are not really part of our national discourse, though one could argue they are the result of the discourse. In the JS interview, he was talking about American discourse.

Consider some of the infighting on DU. Some DUers use the term "pony" and some DUers use the term "Obamabots." These terms do help our discourse. We have seen these terms stunt debate over and over again. This is what JS was talking about.

[defendandprotect]

87. Jon Stewart's interview really cries out for a Richard Carlin sketch ....!!

You are right about debate not really happening with our politician or our news media.
Posted by ZombieHorde
I think this is what JS was talking about.

Again -- we've had three decades and more of right wing "Swiftboating," "Welfare Queen" type

propaganda, and 50+ years of right wing political violence unacknowledged by the Orwellian

TV readers which the public seems to be relying on to alert them if anything is wrong!

KO, Maddow, Schultz on the LEFT have only begun to respond -- this is something new on the

LEFT over the last 3-4 years. Whereas the right wing has been at this for decades.

As in most situations, in order for the right wing to succeed it does have to shut down

discourse and response from the left. Any bit of truth is like a pebble hitting a mirror --

it shatters it.


Where's the leftwing equivalent of the T-baggers?

I am unaware of any left wing group which uses the violent terms enjoyed by them, but the 9/11 conspiracy folks on our side don't always make sense.

First -- you have to acknowledge that there is NO equivalent. Then using common sense you

understand that if the LEFT did organize a group to counter them, the LEFT would not do it by

imitating them or their violence! However, it is quite a concern that this oil backed group --

Kock Bros. sponsored and run out of a PR firm goes unresponded to still.

Evidently, the Democratic Party again sees no need to respond to it?


Or the "pro-life" murdering nuts?

Although all action can be viewed as communication, these murders are not really part of our national discourse, though one could argue they are the result of the discourse. In the JS interview, he was talking about American discourse.

Consider some of the infighting on DU. Some DUers use the term "pony" and some DUers use the term "Obamabots." These terms do help our discourse. We have seen these terms stunt debate over and over again. This is what JS was talking about.

Of course, the Pro-life murderers should be part of our reality and regularly acknowledged.

Evidently, many of the protesters outside women's clinics were found and solicited to protest

from Methadone clinics. Additionally, those who study these groups connect them to White supremacist

militia groups and have tried to bring them to justice under our Rico Laws -- i.e., this is

organized right wing violence against reproductive freedom. And, you're suggesting that the

murders have taken place "as a result of discourse" ... ???

Presume you mean right wing discourse which encourages violent responses when they can't get

what they want by legitimate means? Kind of like the T-baggers ultimatum ... either they

get what they want by the vote or they'll get it "by the 2nd amendment" .... ???


DU is a debating board -- I really don't see that retorting with "ponies" to the "Chees Game"

crowd here is that offensive since they have been tossing "ponies" for two years now! Nor

do I think that "Obamabots" is the insult of the century. That's simply the result of summing

up the thinking when it gets in a rut. Kind of a shorthand, the way we refer to right wing

"Swiftboating" -- and understand what we all mean. And we understand it because we have all

discussed it previously -- at length.


IMO, Jon Stewart either made a turn somewhere which he hasn't found a way to hide or to explain,

or he has become confused in his own mission. Too bad, he was once effective.




PS: Realized I didn't single this out for reply ...

but the 9/11 conspiracy folks on our side don't always make sense.

First, perhaps you aren't actually familiar with what the challenges and questions re

9/11 really are? Architects and Engineers in large numbers are disputing 9/11 OCT.

Common sense is at odds with 9/11 --

I also thought it was interesting that Jon Stewart tried to ridicule on that issue.

What it suggests to me is that they need help. It was astonishing that Pres. Obama

had to address it at one point! That doesn't come from strength, it comes from weakness.

Aluminum airplanes don't go thru steel buildings like a knife thru butter.

Steel buildings do not succumb to fire and collapse -- they haven't in the past and they

haven't since 9/11.

[ZombieHorde]

99. Human have been studying debate for over 2,000 years.

Debate is an established discipline with rules. TV pundits have not been adhering to these rules. This is what JS is talking about. JS told RM he believed FOX was the worst offender, but all of the pundits often break the rules of debate.

Again -- we've had three decades and more of right wing "Swiftboating," "Welfare Queen" type

propaganda, and 50+ years of right wing political violence unacknowledged by the Orwellian

TV readers which the public seems to be relying on to alert them if anything is wrong!

KO, Maddow, Schultz on the LEFT have only begun to respond -- this is something new on the

LEFT over the last 3-4 years. Whereas the right wing has been at this for decades.

As in most situations, in order for the right wing to succeed it does have to shut down

discourse and response from the left. Any bit of truth is like a pebble hitting a mirror --

it shatters it.


This may be true, but this is not what JS was talking about.


First -- you have to acknowledge that there is NO equivalent. Then using common sense you

understand that if the LEFT did organize a group to counter them, the LEFT would not do it by

imitating them or their violence! However, it is quite a concern that this oil backed group --

Kock Bros. sponsored and run out of a PR firm goes unresponded to still.

Evidently, the Democratic Party again sees no need to respond to it?


This may be true, but this is not what JS was talking about.


Presume you mean right wing discourse which encourages violent responses when they can't get

what they want by legitimate means? Kind of like the T-baggers ultimatum ... either they

get what they want by the vote or they'll get it "by the 2nd amendment" .... ???


Yes, I was referring to the violent RW rhetoric. The fact that the RW has been using more and more violent language over the years is disturbing and has murderous results.


DU is a debating board -- I really don't see that retorting with "ponies" to the "Chees Game"

crowd here is that offensive since they have been tossing "ponies" for two years now! Nor

do I think that "Obamabots" is the insult of the century. That's simply the result of summing

up the thinking when it gets in a rut. Kind of a shorthand, the way we refer to right wing

"Swiftboating" -- and understand what we all mean. And we understand it because we have all

discussed it previously -- at length.


Yes, but the threads which use these insults do usually contain high quality conversation. The threads often turn into flame wars and become locked.

The 9/11 information should probably be for another thread. I am sorry I brought it up.

[Rex]

23. Hmm ya know, I can tell the people who have watched Jon for years

and those that might have casually watched him by who posts what. Jon has NEVER, EVER been the 'voice of opposition'. That would be MIKE MALLOY. Jon many many many times over the years has sucked up and puckered up to the worst Repukes to curse America. All while cracking jokes and making the audience laugh. Mostly at the expense of his neo-con guest. But still the buttkissing did happen and at times he would throw in the 'loony' left to settle down the GOPukers that would hate on his ass. I don't like the fact that he mischaracterizes the Professional Left, but I know WHY he does it. $$$.

[defendandprotect]

33. This would be very sad ..... but must say eventually the show deteriorated ....

into silly --

Often wondered if Olbermann had an effect on Stewart viewers -- and if that

was purposefully set up???

How many right wing viewers does Stewart have -- and what the hell is the Colbert Show?

Don't get it?

Anyway, too little going on with Stewart that would help America pull out of our situation --

actually thought FASCISM would be a continuing issue for him!!

[Swamp Rat]

76. exactly!

eom

[defendandprotect]

88. Terrific summation ... and I'm kinda glad that this is coming to light now ....

I called it "silly" and tuned out -- but as we can see from what happened with

the rally it is much more -- and very much needed to be responded to --

thanks KO and Schultz!!!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

96. And those who feel "betrayed" really need to get a clue.

I've watched The Daily Show for years, and it's clear that Jon Stewart is a bit of a hawk. He's been consistent in his condemnation of any protestors he believes to be over-the-top, right or left. And if anyone paid attention to that Fuck Fox News segment set to the gospel choir, his views are made pretty clear, and he's not the raging liberal that many DUers think he is. On some issues, yes, but overall, no.

He's nailed many assholes on his show, one of my favorites being Betsy "Death Panel" McCaughey. He's blown some interviews, too, like the one with Rick Santorum. He blew it with Jeremy Scahill, then apologized. Stewart is a mixed bag. He's a satirist -- pointing out absurdities and hypocrisy across the media and ALL political spectrums. Sometimes he's right; sometimes he's wrong; and sometimes the truth hurts. Sounds like people really need to keep their expectations in check...

[whoneedstickets]

27. its about ratings. He's trying to get Bush on the Show...

by seeming less hostile.

[ZombieHorde]

28. I don't think he was defending Bush, Fox News, or the teabaggers.

I think he was defending the rules of debate. The majority of that interview seemed to be about classical debate.

[OneGrassRoot]

35. He has a lot of sway with the youth

I haven't watched the interview yet but look forward to doing so. I can get the gist from reading through the various threads, however.

I can understand my teenage daughter's view on politics more now, looking at Jon with a new perspective.

I'm far from a "radical" left-winger, but I've gotten frustrated when my daughter seems to view me that way (her dad -- my ex -- is a Limbaugh/Faux person and she gets really disgusted with him, thank goodness).

I've thought it a good thing that she watches "The Daily Show" because that's often the best place to get a "current events for dummies" summary. His writers and the video montages can summarize a situation brilliantly in many cases -- especially the Faux pieces.

However, I can see that his point about "both sides" has had an effect, if my daughter and friends are any indication. To them, it isn't so much about the content but about the tone of the debate, and they're disgusted with the whole thing and turn away. So long as they turn away from Faux, I suppose that's one huge positive.

Still, how to engage them productively?

This whole thing frustrates me because I'm of the belief that there is no debating with liars, so how DO we get the attention of the "reasonable moderates" -- which describes many in the youth crowd -- with pure facts that they don't seem to pay attention to?

Maybe I'll gain some insight after watching the interview...

[defendandprotect]

89. I'm really grateful to KO and Schultz, especially, for getting this debate re Jon going ....!!!

I hadn't watched the rally -- only saw a small part of it -- but my daughter told

me it was great! :eyes:

Keep in mind I'm often confused that she doesn't quite understand when she's being

manipulated -- but I didn't question it until I heard KO and Schultz complaints about

it.

This whole thing frustrates me because I'm of the belief that there is no debating with liars, so how DO we get the attention of the "reasonable moderates" -- which describes many in the youth crowd -- with pure facts that they don't seem to pay attention to?

Maybe I'll gain some insight after watching the interview...


Telling people it is about TONE rather than content is a great way to get people to tune out

from political discourse/debate. We've seen this also with the propaganda of the "negative ad"

which came to apply not only or simply to the "Willy Horton" type thing, but to ANY AND ALL

criticism of candidates!


As I used to say when my kids were much younger -- "It's usually not about what's going on ....

it's about what's REALLY going on that you don't know yet!" ---


:)

[Kind of Blue]

38. Well, my suspicion was strong. He turned me

off during the '04 elections and haven't watched him since the bit I watched last night.

KnR!

[apples and oranges]

42. I did. I finally feel vindicated

When I called Mr. Stewart out before his rally, my post was unrecced and locked!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9405195&mesg_id=9405195

[patrice]

55. Yep. What if all of those ralliers had shown up for one or two of the Peace rallies? What if all or

at least a critical mass of them had been out there working hard this year for good SANE candidates?

Is waiting for someone to tell you to deal with insanity sane?

Action comes from the heart, so, if you are a person like I suspect JS is, when you don't actually care, you don't act, or solicit action, upon what you don't care about.

[Javaman]

47. I didn't agree with Stewart when he was saying that "bush* technically" is guilty

When says that we on the left are trying to lump bush* in with Pol Pot.

WTF?

We, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it technicalities that are used to prove a person guilty?

Bush* violated the international treaty on war crimes, as did Pol Pot and did Slobodan Milošević.

So is it a matter of quantity? Is that the technicality that Steward wants to parse?

I found that part to be very disingenuous on Stewart's part and found it to be a little bit of him enjoying himself speak.

Whether one person or a million are killed; torture is torture.

And as such, bush* needs to be held accountable.

But alas, we all know deep down that he* will not be held as such.

[defendandprotect]

91. +1000% ---

[AngryAmish]

53. George Bush personally slaughtered and ate 17 Iraq children

You want to get along with that/

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

54. Me! Me! I did!

:hi:

Seriously... everyone who has ever tried to be "fair" about the party/idealogical slit ends up sliding rightward.

There is a reason that David Broder, a man convinced he is the center, is a right wing nut. Same for Lou Dobbs.

The RW is far more extreme and destructive so any attempt to be a fair-broker (like being on a deficit reduction commission) becomes an exercise in coddling the right.

[SidDithers]

58. Unrec...nt

Sid

[Taverner]

59. I don't know what interview YOU watched, but the one on Maddow was not that

[HuckleB]

63. Hogwash.

:puke: :eyes:

[VMI Dem]

69. Given this guys past efforts at "comedy" and "acting", why are people so shocked?

:shrug:

[jillan]

73. When he said Fox wasn't partisan, I almost fell out of my chair.

[defendandprotect]

90. Wow ... I missed that -- !!! Unimaginable .... !!!

[walldude]

79. And who knew that when Jon called people out on their shit

they would be so vehemently upset. Seems to have struck a nerve, and judging by the response on DU which reminds me of a freeper feeding frenzy he was right. Because you sound just like a pissed off freeper.

[JVS]

80. Since he wants to live in some fair and balanced reasonable discussion fantasy land...

it's necessary for him to distort reality.

[Poboy]

83. "Pollyanna" I believe is his name. -nt

[defendandprotect]

92. +1000% ---

[deacon]

86. This is trolling bullshit. n/t

[Greyhound]

94. I think his motivation, beside the obvious, is to give President Obama a pass

on continuing the crime spree.

[Goblinmonger]

95. He's not your dancing monkey.

It is just fucking sickening that this site has talked about how great he was for years and if he even flashes the mirror back at us for just a goddamned second he is all of a sudden the anti-christ.

Yes, the left is perfect and the right is pure evil. 100% of the time. No exceptions. Jesus Christ on a pogo stick.

[AtomicKitten]

97. Nonsense. nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

98. Jon Stewart: "Fox News, Go Fuck Yourselves"

Pay attention:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_R9QisgRY