At the Rally to Restore Sanity
Gos and I are here at Tom‘s here in DC about to head over to the Rally. Anyone here or watching on TV? I really have no idea what to expect. I’ve been super busy the past week so I haven’t even had time to watch the Daily Show to see what sort of stuff they have planned. Pretty pumped, though, if not for the people-watching alone.
Comments
I’ll be watching it on TV while doing my homework.
So glad I only wasted three hours watching this on TV instead of an entire weekend by going.
So glad I didn’t watch on tv or go. I love Stewart and Colbert but I hate false equivalencies (“Well both sides need to be more civil”) and that seemed to be the entire point of this.
I’m really looking forward to Hutch explaining to us why the Kid Rock performance was mind-blowing.
This thing was decent at times but cringe-worthy otherwise.
I’d love to explain it but I still haven’t seen it. There were so many people that we couldn’t see or hear even the furthest jumbotrons and speakers. The trip, however, was a blast simply for all the people watching and things going on around the mall. It was like a huge party.
Kev, looks like Bill Maher made your point for you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/06/bill-maher-vs-jon-stewart_n_779944.html
Yeah, he pretty much summed up almost 100% my exact feelings. That comes as close as anyone in the media in any format on any side has come to being in my head.
When I saw that clip posted on liberal sites and people in the comment sections complaining about and saying he just doesn’t “get it” it was a total facepalm moment.
i wish i could say my feelings, without being labeled a right-winger. cause umm…i’m not, but if i disagree with anythign these jokers say, that’s what i get labeled as. sooo. carry on.
Ryan, I think we have more than a few people here (or did… I miss Derrick) who defy labels, so by all means, say what you think. And if someone disagrees here, I’m pretty sure they’ll disagree with your points, not your label.
fair enough, and I love arguing. I just feel like whenever I say something contrary, I get called a Glen Beck lover. Like the fact that I hate Keith Olberman and think he’s just as bad as Glen Beck and nowhere near “usually on point.” (i think someone said in another post) Both of those douches make me sick to my stomach. Most of the talking heads give me “angry time.” that’s where i mahr goes wrong, i think, “the left” does have a Beck, it’s Olberman. I’m really tired of left-right nonsense in general.
speaking of vomitous talking heads, do any of you know who Nancy Grace is? I think everyone needs to put aside their differences and attack her. left, right, up, down. urgh. SHE IS THE WORST.
I think there is one primary, all-important factor that separates Olbermann from Beck and makes what you describe a false dichotomy: Glenn Beck makes shit up. He completely invents facts, theories, accusations, you name it.
Olbermann has a lot of opinions and he gets pretty frothy over them, but he never tries to sell his opinion as fact and he doesn’t invent false truths or doctor photos or purposefully misquote people. Olbermann gets outraged, but he does so at actual news stories, however insignificant. He doesn’t invent new news stories based on pure supposition and hearsay.
That difference, I think, is so important a difference it puts the two far out of range of one another. It’s easy to get on Olbermann for overreacting and his false furor. But it’s another thing entirely to completely make shit up.
Also, Evan did or still does work for Nancy Grace. She’s fucking awful, but at least she doesn’t have followers like Beck. She gets into more sensational bullshit for ratings, not Beck’s “take back America” new world order aspirations.
I’m glad I waited for John to post because he made my point for me about Olberman vs. Beck. If people were making the comparison of Bill O’Reilly and Olberman….o.k. I can see that. Both do the faux everyman thing, both get off on their own sense of righteous indignation, and both slant things to fit their own preconceived agenda, but neither actually makes shit up (or when they do I’ve seen both correct themselves). To John’s point Beck just flat out lies. And even worse, he flat out incites violence and uses scary eliminationist rhetoric.
One of the highlights of 2006 for me (it was a bad year) was when Nancy Grace got schooled by Elizabeth Smart. Nothing says “I am bad at my job” more than being shot down on air by an 18 year old Mormon. Also a young mother killing herself after being bullied by Grace doesn’t help her credibility either. I would hold hands with anyone who disliked Nancy Grace.
Huh, Rachel Maddow asked him his thoughts on Maher’s comments:
Better link (full interview and uncut): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/40141311#40141311
Maddow is really such a great interviewer. She does what nobody on either side or even the supposed “nonpartisan” journalists do, which is listen to the answers.
Anyway, I felt like he was stumbling a lot and not responding to what she was saying. He totally does not answer the main charge which is that the false dichotomy is false, not because crazies don’t exist on either side but because one side has completely absorbed their crazies and taken on their traits and personalities among their leaders, whereas the other has all but exiled theirs to an extreme fringe. So comparing crazy beliefs of Code Pink which as she points out is like a dozen old ladies, with those of people actually elected to positions of power on the right who believe Obama is a secret Kenyan Socialist Muslim is completely disingenuous. Someone on the right says something batshit crazy and they get a show on fox and recruited to run for congress. Meanwhile the Democrats actually pass resolutions confirming that they want no part and have nothing to do with anyone on their side that does or says something perceived to be crazy or uncivil (MoveOn, Michael Moore, etc.)
I agree for the most part, but I think one thing he did managed to get across in regards to your criticism is that he’s talking about the people (ladies shouting “warm criminal” in meetings) as much as he is the representatives. It doesn’t take away from your point, but it’s worth nothing that he’s not just addressing the politicians. He’s addressing everyone.
I do like seeing that he’s becoming a bit more forthright that he does, in fact, have an agenda. It’s just not the liberal agenda he’s accused of. It’s more raising the level of discourse when it comes to politics in country. And I think anyone can agree it’s an admirable agenda. I just wish he’d politic a little less a be willing to be a bit more honest about it.
I agree, but it’s only an admirable agenda in the same way that “world peace” is an admirable agenda. Yeah, it’s admirable, but it’s just laughably unrealistic. When one side has gone so far off a cliff, and managed to dominate so much of what is out there both politically and in the media culture, asking everyone to “tone it down” is as naive as asking “Can’t we all just get along?” Well, no we can’t.