Ow. Ow. My ears are bleeding. Make it stop. I'm sure John Stewart is going to do a much better job with this than I am, but let me take a few stabs at it right now.
0:30:
Sarah Palin: "(Some completely nonsensical platitudes about how everything's fine.)"2:04:
Katie Couric: "(Factual information that entirely contradicts the above statement.)"
Sarah: Long pause... "Again, my understanding is that, uh, uh, (Repeats platitude with no indication that she just heard what was said)"
Sarah: "Americans are waiting to see what John McCain will do about this. They are not waiting to see what Barack Obama will do. Because everybody knows John McCain has the track record and the leadership."Yeah! We mavericks don't think about silly things like "polls!" We just SAY what the American people think, and we're always right!
Katie (dumbfounded): "Yeah, but polls show that Obama has gotten a boost from this news, because more Americans trust him to handle this correctly."
Sarah: "Ya know, I'm not lookin' at poll numbers. I just think Americans think like me."
Christ. It's one thing to pretend that you don't care what popular opinion says. Quite another thing to actually say that popular opinion is lying about what they really think.
5:00:
Katie: "You've said John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business, but in 20 years he's almost always sided with people who want LESS regulation, not more."
Sarah: (gears grinding) "He's also known as 'THE maverick,' though, takin' shots from his own party. "
Katie: "I'm sorry, answer the damn question, can you give me one example of him pushing for more regulation EVER?"
Sarah: "I'll try ta find some and I'll bring 'em to ya!"
"Ahhl try to find some and bring 'em to ya, donchaknow. Aren't you jest the cutest thing? C'mere give grammy a kiss."
ReplyDeleteholy crap that was a painful interview. Did Palin really get elected to anything? It is amazing that anybody likes her. No wonder McCain was hiding her from the news after the convention.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of the ID/Evolution squabble, and also reminds me why I stay the fuck away from politics.
ReplyDeleteInstead of explaining your side, you are bashing the other. Not equating Obama with ID at all, but equating the modus operandi of the "debates" that I see more often than not.
Best,
Phil from NYC
P.S.
The only thing I got from that youtube is Sarah Palin flapping her gums, which is the same thing I get from Obama's youtubes and McCain's youtubes. They are talking heads. "Multifaceted solution." Nuff said.
P.P.S. Keep an eye on who is giving their "foes" half-jest nicknames, and exaggerating/fabricating their quotes. These are the people who are taking it personal, and are processing the data with excess bias. The "C'mere give grammy a kiss" b.s. and the "Bushies" monickers float up as prime examples.
ReplyDeleteThere are technical terms for these (rhymes with ad hominem) but we are all familiar with these already :)
Not equating Obama with ID at all, but equating the modus operandi of the "debates" that I see more often than not.
ReplyDeleteActually there IS one person in the race who has expressed support for creationism, and it's not Barack Obama.
Keep an eye on who is giving their "foes" half-jest nicknames, and exaggerating/fabricating their quotes.
If you insist. A quick search of Snopes.com for the term "Barack Obama" reveals the common beliefs that:
* Barack Obama is not a citizen of the United States
* Barack Obama is a radical Muslim
* Barack Obama is a black racist
* Barack Obama is the antichrist
* Barack Obama supports the teaching of comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners
Call me crazy here, but I don't think you're in any position to say that "ad hominems" are exclusively the territory of liberals. May as well say that people on both sides do it, and it has little relevance to the facts in evidence, especially when stated in the form of a joke.
Again, instead of explaining your side you are bashing the other. E.g. "creationism may not be a science, but Evolution isn't one either!" As you well know, this is called "bait and switch".
ReplyDeleteIndeed, both sides are guilty (Republicans probably more so, since their constituents are arguably formed more from the so called silent majority, vis-a-vis they do not have as an outspoken/activist public as the democrats do) of invalid argumentation but that is not the point.
I am not talking here about the merits of any of the candidates up for discussion, but about the way in which this discussion carries on. Granted this is your personal blog and you can and should do as you please, but I know you can do better than the creationists. Unless this election is a joke for you :) which I can understand.
See, I'm confused by the above comment. To begin with, I've never seen or heard of you before your recent comment. You don't have a profile, so it's not like you've offered any particular insight into your political leanings, or what you think about anything.
ReplyDeleteThis is, as you say, my personal blog, and I've spent many years writing about my various opinions on matters both religious and political. If you're really interested in what those opinions are, you're free to browse through the archive -- you can save time by clicking on the "politics" tag -- and you'll find numerous posts detailing various thoughts on politics, economics, and science.
But your complaint is a little weird; it's as if you expect me to do a complete recap of everything I think each time I want to post additional thoughts on a topic I've done before. If you want some kind of detailed analysis of what informs my opinion of Sarah Palin, you're free to just ask me, and I'll be happy to refer you to several articles. But to just come in here and imply that my opinions are shallow without doing any basic background reading yourself, that seems awfully presumptuous on your part.
Although we've spoken briefly before, that's not important. The take home message I want to make is a lot of what I see on political blogs amounts to the bashing of the other side. This is done by selective quotation and name calling in the posts and in the comments. Who is doing it to whom is not at all as important as the fact that it is indeed being done on a massive scale by everyone and it is extremely sophomoric and not at all to the benefit of the political process. If you have any free time to waste, take a look at http://brain-terminal.com/ for a counter-example. I have a harder time finding openings on that blog such as "Ow. Ow. My ears are bleeding", and it at least spells out what he is quoting instead of replacing it with "[completely nonsensical platitudes]" You are nowhere the worst of the personal political blogs, but you're the only liberal blog I care about.
ReplyDelete(For reference, I called in to the Atheist Experience a couple of times, a show on which you are my favorite host along with Matt)
Best wishes,
Phil
P.S. Maybe this misguided, since you are trying to imitate Jon Stewart in your post.
ReplyDeleteBut I still wanted to make this point to you.
Phil,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you mentioned The Daily Show, since I was just about to do it myself. I'm sure you're aware that I am a huge fan of Jon Stewart myself, and even used TDS as an inspiration for my Master's Report topic.
Interestingly, you might have heard that there was a study performed not long ago, which concluded that Daily Show viewers tend to be much better informed about current events than the average American. I think you'd agree that Jon Stewart uses sophomoric humor and ridicule all the time... and yet the point here is that it works.
Clearly we have a difference of opinion on what qualifies as legitimate tactics of discussion. If you are a regular viewer of The Atheist Experience, I'm sure you're well aware that we don't mince words with people who appear to be ridiculous. I regularly refer to creationists as clueless, ignorant, or morons; last week I more or less described Dominionists as creepy and evil. That's not name calling just for the sake of filling space because I don't have any real arguments to launch against them. That's name calling because sometimes that hits home, when pussyfooting around with remarks like "They have their views and I have mine" is a pure waste of time. While this may upset and offend people who think that all views are equally legitimate, offending people doesn't really bother me at all.
If you really want to know details about my opposition to Sarah Palin, you can listen to the episode of The Non-Prophets from last month, when we went through a list of signs that she has no idea what she's talking about: Her position on science is very close to that of a standard creationist. Her church appears to be associated with Dominionist groups. She thinks the pledge of allegiance was "good enough for the founding fathers." Supporter of abstinence-only education.
You can disagree with these reasons if you want, but don't come here and tell me that I haven't put forth legitimate discussion about exactly what makes her a bad candidate. The fact that she sounds like such a vapid idiot in the above video is really just icing on the cake of a discussion that has already occurred -- and no, I won't apologize for referring to her as a vapid idiot; and no, it is not the absence of informed discussion that makes me say so. Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade.
I'm of the school "If you got nothing nice to say, say nothing at all." Proper argument is nice; TDS-esque humor is good for a cheap laugh, but it is not nice for me, and it becomes free "ad hominem" claims for the opposition, and ultimately it becomes noise to clutter your actual arguments.
ReplyDeleteIn my humble opinion, I would rather in every hypothetical one of my posts on a subject of argument, dictate the relevant points and reason that supports them, rather than do imitations of comedians.
That is probably because I'm not very funny to begin with... :<
The socratic method to me is more effective than ridicule although I agree with you ridicule has its place. Something like religion which has (by my definition) no real reference in reality is possibly best assailable by ridicule insofar as epistemological methods do not apply. But I don't think the same can be said for Political discussions, which affect the world right now more directly. Therefore, I wish people who talk politics would employ it more in favor of other strategies. If they did, there would be More Reason For Change, and the change achieved would be Better Supported and Understood.
I'm of the school "If you got nothing nice to say, say nothing at all."
ReplyDeleteDisagree. And I can't understand how you could remain a fan of our shows if you really think that. :)
Proper argument is nice; TDS-esque humor is good for a cheap laugh, but it is not nice for me, and it becomes free "ad hominem" claims for the opposition, and ultimately it becomes noise to clutter your actual arguments.
Disagree. If you don't like The Daily Show's style, then it's not my place to tell you that you have to watch it anyway. But I don't see how you can seriously make the case that (a) it's not popular, or (b) it doesn't ultimately inform people as it amuses them. As someone who learned to read at an unusually early age thanks largely to Sesame Street, and as a sometime educator myself, I very strongly hold the opinion that you can and SHOULD use humor, sarcasm, and entertainment in the process of conveying information. If you don't like that style then it's your right, but I haven't seen any concrete good reasons presented regarding why I should change on that account.
In my humble opinion, I would rather in every hypothetical one of my posts on a subject of argument, dictate the relevant points and reason that supports them, rather than do imitations of comedians.
That is probably because I'm not very funny to begin with... :<
Maybe you should consider learning from comedians. As the cliche says, in medieval societies, the court jester was often the only one who could speak truth to power while keeping his head. In modern times, I consider folks like Jon Stewart, George Carlin, Douglas Adams, Monty Python, and other irreverent fools to be among the most insightful social commentators alive.
The socratic method to me is more effective than ridicule although I agree with you ridicule has its place.
IMHO, the Socratic method is useful as a rhetorical tactic, but it's not some kind of unbiased way of infallibly getting to truth. As three year olds and The Terminator know, you can make any proposition sound foolish to some people by just asking "Why? Why? Why?" repeatedly. Often the Socratic message is not used to promote a defensible position, but just to throw confusion into the argument. It certainly doesn't have a clarity of a good mocking.
Something like religion which has (by my definition) no real reference in reality is possibly best assailable by ridicule insofar as epistemological methods do not apply. But I don't think the same can be said for Political discussions, which affect the world right now more directly.
And here again, I disagree. You CAN tell the difference between political views that are defensible in light of the real world, and those that are nonsense. And there IS a difference. One common political technique is to whine about "the media" being "unfair" to a certain political candidate or point of view, as if equal time for both sides was all that should matter. And yet sometimes, one side is provably WRONG. When Sarah Palin says "The pledge of allegiance was good enough for the founding fathers" or "John McCain has been a consistent supporter of strong regulation" -- these are not subjective philosophical differences; they are concrete facts which can be demonstrated as true or false (within the bounds of what definitions we can agree on). The way I form political opinions is not distinct from my opinions about religion; I see them as coming from the same place. In both cases, I can't *prove* my opinions beyond a shadow of doubt, but many of those opinions are, in principle, open to investigation and verification against history.
And just as with religion, there are times when the situation calls for a carefully constructed logical argument; and there are other times when the situation calls for merciless, unapologetic ridicule.
I don't know if you have seen the saturday night live spoof of this interview, but it is on youtube, and I suggest watching it. It is so funny and will make you laugh like crazy.
ReplyDeleteI also recommend you look for (also on youtube) some of the side-by-side clips of the real one and the spoof one. Tina Fey and Sarah Palin often speak IN UNISON. This is scary and will make you cry.
P.S. Here are the links:
ReplyDeleteSaturday Night Live Spoof-
http://www.fmqinc.com/
Side-by-Side-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqdfzi1Ega0
(skip to 1:07)
P.P.S. As far as the little debate between phil and kazim, I agree with kazim. Just my two cents.
Sure, we all don't like being criticized, but I still wanted to make that point. It's not just humor, its the snippy holier-than-thou attitude political outspeakers take (an attitude which you, btw, never take on the AE. you are always patient and guiding, even when you ridicule.)
ReplyDeleteMaybe what I was trying to say would be clearer if you heard it from your own mouth: http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wf52c the time segment between 1:04:00 and 1:08:00 where you explain how a professor is caricatured to use aggressive argumentation. Your main point there is about the scientific method and how it is straw-manned, but you also make a point of how this is done particularly by emphasizing his aggressive nature of yelling at his opposition. (As an aside, the professor is actually being a lot more socratic than most of the political blogs out there right now, some of which are just saturated with snididity.) (I like inventing words.)
It isn't only that political discourse has mostly degraded to bashing the other side, but also how often a strawman is set up (under the guise of ridicule or what-ever) in their stead to do so.