Well, one must thank the BBC for this thread, not that plenty other sources wouldn't have already prompted it. But this insipid archive of misinformation is too ludicrous to pass by; it sounds like the degeneration of the Democratic Party in the U.S., and the similarity may be strengthened as both pursue further isolation by means of conspiratorial-like self-affirmation:

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/357

quote:

"is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media." The series' explanation for this is even bolder: "In an age when all the grand ideas have lost credibility, fear of a phantom enemy is all the politicians have left to maintain their power." �

The Power of Nightmares seeks to overturn much of what is widely believed about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. The latter, it argues, is not an organised international network. It does not have members or a leader. It does not have "sleeper cells". It does not have an overall strategy. In fact, it barely exists at all, except as an idea about cleansing a corrupt world through religious violence.

If my profession were journalism, I would find this quite embarrassing. The story here is that many in the liberal media will believe, indeed, want to believe, the most far-fetched fantasies rather than to dispense with their own corrupting biases and prejudices.

Here's a related piece that shows how European attitudes toward the election are based on hate and how this isn't a good thing for them or for conservatives (something I�m trying to take to heart but it indeed takes quite a bit of self control to not have the venom and hatred of the left effect one). There's also a small bit about Arafat:

quote:

Must be a headscarf-confusion thing: According to Lib�ration, Jacques Chirac and half the French media are hovering over the soon-to-expire body of Yasser Arafat as if he were Mother Teresa. Maybe by the time you read this, the world's ugliest terrorist will be a goner, in which case I withdraw the wisecrack and offer condolences to his family and prayers for the peaceful repose of his soul, with all the heartfelt sincerity of a French diplomat.

What I'd like to know is how does it hurt anyone, including the Palestinians, to acknowledge that Arafat is a murdering terrorist?

Since most in the moderate Muslim community view Islamo-fascism as both a global ideology and an active security threat based on its cherished notions of radicalization, the denials among the liberal media of this danger must be seen not as a lack of information, but a deliberate (no pun intended) attempt to shore up a bias that favors a world of entitlement systems which foster dangerous affinities, and accomodations, to Islamo-fascism itself. No surprise then, when Europe is taken by surprise as Islamists throughout their communities foment hatred, and instigate violence, against the egalitarian systems meant to guard basic freedoms; their envy and hatred of the U.S. has made them bedfellows with Islamists, and the response has been, until recently, to pretend the company they keep isn't inherently untrustworthy.

I see a lot of you struggling here at Shalom Place with the fact that you were once a liberal (as was I). You see the clear contradictions of your old stomping grounds but aren't quite sure at all about this conservative side of the fence. Well, I've got good news. You needn't cast off liberalism as a disease, but you should recognize that it can be a handicap. Whether it's the dysfunction of a Michael Moore or of BBC documentarians, we have nothing but a distorted and limited view if liberalism is the only lens through which we see.

I remember enjoying photography, particularly black and white photography. It's a medium where one focuses on forms and textures. One uses different filters to bring out the various details. One might use a yellow filter to better photograph foliage. One might use an ultraviolet or polarized filter to better shoot water and skies. The same is true of political viewpoints. There is a legitimate viewpoint to liberalism* but it can't see everything. It is, particularly today's version of liberalism, blind to some of the most important structural elements that make our society a free, stable and prosperous one including, but not limited to, capitalism, personal responsibility, republicanism, the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, subsidiarity principles, and more.

Rather than there being 59 million idiots in America, as Europe is happy to believe, the true story of this election may be that a clear majority of the people saw through and utterly rejected the kind of propaganda that is even now smothering the people of Europe. We see Michael Moore and these BBC documentarians as the willful frauds that they are, but do people in Europe still have the capacity to make those kinds of judgments? I think they do but through years of political correctness, anti-Americanism demagoguery and statist socialistic indoctrination they may be afraid to. There habits of sincerely speaking out (as opposed to regurgitating the party line) have grown rusty. There *is* still something unique about the American spirit. It is capable of much subtlety, nuance and sophistication (but perhaps not as well dressed up as in old Europe) but there remains in our DNA the capacity to not get caught up in our own self image to the point of it being debilitating. If we see a pile of crap and step in it we don't go around trying to popularize the smell of dung or to change all the carpet styles to brown so that nobody notices. We wipe it off. We retain the capacity to think clearly for ourselves. We can easily, both high-brows and low-brows alike, dispense with the need to pretend that subtlety and nuance aren't just sometimes code words for inaction and uncertainty. We understand that at times the most sophisticated thing of all is frank action and plain talking. Most importantly, I think we still know best when to do one and not the other. These are not traits currently being taught and passed on by liberalism. In fact, these basic traits seem beyond the capacity of liberalism. That's why there is this huge gulf. Those who cut their cultural and political teeth under only liberalism are at a distinct disadvantage. They may, with all the powers at their disposal (and these powers are considerable), attempt to demonize and excise any traits that are not considered the purview of liberalism, but they do not yet own the world. Thank God. But I hope that you will notice that, particularly with today's variety, liberalism is so lacking in confidence (perhaps because it is so structurally and morally weak) that it needs constant positive reinforcement and buttressing or one gets the impression if would fade away in an instant. You might also notice that liberalism ideally wishes to be free of competing ideas.

This documentary is naked propaganda that, like Michael Moore, CBS and others, is dragging down the better attributes of liberalism. It's perhaps no coincidence that many of these attributes have been rolled up into conservatism. But still we need many lenses and filters. It just seems that we humans don't have the capacity to see everything at once. We must constantly switch perspectives, much like the bobbing head of an owl as it is zeroes in on a potential meal, to improve our vision. But keep those lenses and filters clean. Wipe off the mud of Michael Moore and the BBC documentarians.


---
*I confess I see no legitimacy to the radical leftist viewpoints of a Michael Moore or the BBC documentarians. They seem to represent nothing more than the rabid expression of paranoia, hate, denial and obsession.

Since most in the moderate Muslim community view Islamo-fascism as both a global ideology and an active security threat based on its cherished notions of radicalization, the denials among the liberal media of this danger must be seen not as a lack of information, but a deliberate (no pun intended) attempt to shore up a bias�

Yes, WC. You said a mouthful. "To shore up a bias." That's what this documentary in question is all about: to shore up biases. It's certainly a trait of us humans. We tend to repeat things over and over again to reinforce certain notions in our mind. That can work for the worthy purpose of learning the alphabet or for less worthy purposes such as crowding out doubts about the barbarity of slavery. In the Deep South it was obvious to all that blacks were fully human. Blacks and whites together could produce fully viable offspring and you didn't have to look farther than the North to see the blacks were capable of being doctors and lawyers. But still, to be able to justify exploiting an entire race for economic purposes, particularly in the face of such obvious and enormous contradictions, the notion of blacks as being inferior was reinforced every chance they got. How can one not see at least a little of this nefarious principle in operation concerning this documentary? To question how widespread, coordinated and connected the various terrorist organizations are is a worthy point of inquiry. But to try and portray terrorism as "a phantom enemy" is just bizarre and can and should bring the producers' motives into question.

Well, I suppose that he'll not have the benefit of airtime on the BBC1 or BBC2 channels, so I'll post him here.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n...asp?ARTICLE_ID=24475

http://www.fsbassociates.com/f...ightingterrorism.htm

I'm losing alot of liberal freinds these last few months, and that saddens me, but the time comes when neutrality is no longer prudent.

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

Sorry to hear your losing friends, Michael. My best friend and his wife are liberals, and there has been a noticeable strain at times, at least in the silent acknowledgment that there is less to talk about, or less freedom in talking as before.

MM said: I'm losing alot of liberal freinds these last few months, and that saddens me, but the time comes when neutrality is no longer prudent.

WC said: Sorry to hear your losing friends, Michael. My best friend and his wife are liberals, and there has been a noticeable strain at times, at least in the silent acknowledgment that there is less to talk about, or less freedom in talking as before.

Somehow I'm guessing that neither one of you requires that your friends think like you do. I get the impression that you're getting a lot of unsolicited garbage and, as a friend, you are somewhat required to give ascent to these remarks to prove your friendship, to show where you stand. Although politics is important, I don't get the impression that either one of you would throw away a friendship over these kind of differences. But I have the distinct feeling that some your friends are putting a great deal of weight into their politics and have become downright annoying about it.

I was at an open house the night before last. I guess I must look liberal or something, because a couple guys I didn't know sidled up next to me and were tickled pink to tell me that there were going to be some cabinet changes in the Bush administration and that, hope of hopes, Rumsfeld might be gone too. I simply looked at them and said I thought Rumsfeld did a good, although not perfect, job given the circumstances and then I walked away.

I'll engage anybody who wants to talk politics, but in real life I'm generally not obnoxious about it. Just remember: It was the left that was almost exclusively talking trash and some very mean trash at that. I suppose it can't help but rub off on their supporters. Say what you will, but the rhetoric of a Bush and Powell are worlds away from the rhetoric of Kerry and Carville.

Remain as classy and optimistic as you can and make it as real as you can. Be magnanimous. Be forgiving. And if you've advanced in your thinking to the point where you have little in common with you old friends then it may be time to search out new friends.

I'm posting this anarchist scenario here because of how the liberal media, inadverdently or not, supports such facile thinking, as in the recent BBC documentary denying the global nature of Islamo-fascism. The more the media generates their stories around such obvious bias, the less likely folks like these are going to ever get around to thinking openly and critically for themselves i.e, grow up!

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Ar...Article.asp?ID=15859

BBC reporter cried for Arafat

quote:

Senior editors at the BBC are understood to have remonstrated with their correspondent, Barbara Plett, over her "misjudgment" in revealing on air that she had cried when Yasser Arafat's Jordanian helicopter carried him away from Ramallah en route to hospital in France.

The BBC has received some 500 complaints about Plett's broadcast, which was broadcast on its Radio 4 program, "From Our Own Correspondent."

In her report, Plett said: "When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry . . . without warning."

She went on to reflect that, "in quieter moments since I have asked myself, why the sudden surge of emotion? I suppose there was a pathos about the strong contrast between this and other journeys Yasser Arafat has made."

In her report, entitled "Yasser Arafat's unrelenting journey," Plett noted that "foreign journalists seemed much more excited about Mr. Arafat's fate than anyone in Ramallah We hovered around the gate to his compound, swarming around the Palestinian officials who drove by, poking our microphones through their dark, half-open windows."

She lamented that amid all the media activity just a few hundred loyalists turned out to see him off from Ramallah, "waving and calling out one of his favorite sayings: 'The mountain cannot be shaken by the wind'."

Where were the people, she asked, "the mass demonstrations of solidarity, the frantic expressions of concern?" Then she answered her own question: "I think this history explains Palestinian emotions better than mine.

"For me, it was probably the siege. I remember well when the Israelis re-conquered the West Bank more than two years ago, how they drove their tanks and bulldozers into Mr. Arafat's headquarters, trapping him in a few rooms, and throwing a military curtain around Ramallah.

"I remember how Palestinians admired his refusal to flee under fire. They told me: 'Our leader is sharing our pain, we are all under the same siege'. And so was I. Maybe that gives me some connection to the man whose presidential compound became a prison.

Terrorism only became such a potent weapon because the West allowed it to happen
By Melanie Phillips

quote:

But Russia's weakness carries a dire warning for us, too. For the west is also weak, in its ignorance, prejudice and gullibility. Terrorism only became such a potent weapon of war because the west allowed it to happen. From the first plane hijacks in the sixties, the west showed weakness by refusing to confront the perpetrators and even rewarding them by paying attention to their purported grievances.

When the US was repeatedly attacked by Islamic terrorism throughout the 1980s and 1990s, it merely sat on its hands, made token responses, or decided to cut and run. Osama bin Laden concluded from this that the US was weak. We know this because he said so. And so he unleashed 9/11.

But instead of learning the correct lesson that the current horrors are the result of such a failure to act, the west has succumbed to historical amnesia over those previous attacks. It is convulsed instead by hysteria over the war on Iraq, with absurd conspiracy theories about Zionists and 'neo-conservatives' surfacing instead almost daily in the mainstream media and driving out rational debate.

And so the terrorists carefully calibrate their atrocities to exploit such weakness, confident that for every outrage it is not they but America that will be blamed. Those whipping up this hysteria, therefore, have blood on their hands.

I think this is a point that is undeniable true and wholly underreported. But the question then becomes, for a civilized and humane society, how do we become strong and resolved neither too quickly so as to promote hysteria and oppression nor too slowly as to promote deadly weakness and destructive behavior in others? If one has been following along then I think one can easily see how liberalism and political correctness unnecessarily paralyze our steadfastness and blur what should be so easily crystal clear. And baseless hysterical cries of "police state" aside in regards to Ashcroft and the Patriot Act and neocons and Rumsfeld, I see no harried or hurried overreaction by anyone. But if the situation and our enemy were clearly defined with no "softening" lies condescendingly laid down by the media between us and the truth, would we all run off half-cocked? Would we stamp on people's civil rights en masse? Would we start erecting concentration camps for Moslems everywhere?

One might have noticed during this past election the condescending views of the media and Europe toward most of America. We have proven ourselves to be nothing but of bunch of country bumpkins for voting for Bush, and apparently uncreative ones at that since the new line is that, oh, just wait until us blue states secede from the nation and take all the creative types with us. This is how the media and the elite left view the heart and soul of America who are the overwhelming majority of people. They are not the paragon of decency rooted in religion and American democratic values; rather they are the unstable pot always ready to boil over in irrational religious zealotry and unsophisticated prejudice. That is why you all can not be trusted. If given the truth about terrorism and world events you would go all hysterical and start stoning Moslems and mosques because, after all, you are all nothing more than primitive religious types. The truth of the matter is that decency and fair play are anchored in that giant swath of red-state middle America. They are not the ones apt to run off half-cocked. Indeed, it is the media (and much of Europe) who have 100% proven that they are the hysterical, the unreliable, the over-emotional and the dangerously narrowly ideological.

There is much good that can come out of this election. I think one of the greatest things is the renewal of freedom of speech. If the decent people of America are given the truth you may trust them to act resolutely, wisely and compassionately. The left may think they act as some sort of brakes on our primitive emotions and instincts, but again, the left, most of Europe and the press have proven themselves to be the ones needing to dip themselves in the river of truth. Their minds are heavily obscured by their over-zealous attachment to their narrow ideology.

Indeed, Brad. Look at how many Christian denominations there are. I can't begin to count. Libs must think these churches are all on the verge of burning each other at the stake if it weren't for the motorcycle cops watching the school zones if front of their buildings. Little do they know that most of these police officers attend those countless churches. What a conspiracy that is!

Well, it appears only Al Jazzera can compete with the British media for the award on bias serving terrorism, this one supporting Hezbollah:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Ar...Article.asp?ID=15935

Here's more on post-election meltdowns.

I've always thought there was a fine line between satire and ridicule; seems quite a few are crossing it these days.

What comes through again and again is the disdain some of these people have for Bush-supporters. I wonder if they even know that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and the millions who share their conservative/traditional views are not all right-wing evangelical/fundamentalistic types?

quote:

But this year there was a new late-night comic star rising. His name was Jon Stewart, the talented anchor of The Daily Show, and his caustic, sarcasm-crusted humor was edgy, fresh, and bipartisan. His nightly send-up of news journalism was dubbed by Dennis Miller as "state of the art" comedy.

Until The Daily Show became The Daily Shill.

That's interesting. I never found Stewart to be talented in the least. He's cheeky, that's for sure, but that and 5 cents will only buy you a cup of coffee.

Pat Oliphant, Bostom Globe:




- - -

Doonesbury




- - -

Danziger




--------

Can you imagine if Fox showed Jesses Jackson in such stereotypical mockery.

The big question is: why are newspapers running such rot?

Can you imagine if Fox showed Jesses Jackson in such stereotypical mockery.


YOU'VE been listening to Rush Limbaugh, young man.

Actually, the cartoons weren't as racially offensive as I had expected, but you are, of course, right on about the Fox analogy.

Bush is viewed as a bigot by the left, so hoisting Condee as his southern wipping girl fits the image for them, and the rest of us are expected to acknowledge their entitlement, since the assumption is that the irreverance is to characterize evil.

Rush? No, I came across an article about these on the net, then figured Rush had been onto them as well. Links to the cartoons were on his web site.

. . . the assumption is that the irreverance is to characterize evil.

Right. But what comes across more is their bigotry and abject detestation of Bush -- factors that the "Red Staters" rebelled against. I mean, when I see cartoons like that, it makes me want to vote FOR the candidate being ridiculed.

I know there are columnists and cartoonists on the Right who spew hatred, but they don't seem to get the widespread circulation that these guys do.

Rush? No, I came across an article about these on the net�

Phil, it's okay to admit that you listen to Rush Limbaugh. You're among friends here.

I know there are columnists and cartoonists on the Right who spew hatred, but they don't seem to get the widespread circulation that these guys do.

Once in a while I see a cartoonist take a shot at the left, but overwhelmingly, particularly for the past year leading up to the election, the shots have gone mainly to Bush and the Republicans; and when the shots have gone to, say, Kerry, they have been rather mild ones.

But I wouldn't want anyone to settle this problem in the typical liberal fashion: quotas. Let's let the market decide (as it is now doing). It is no secret that newspapers have been declining for decades now. This started long before the internet came along as competition and even before cable. As Rush (yes, I listen to him) has said, and as the numerous red counties and states confirm, there is a market our there for news that is most decidedly NOT artificially slanted to the left. But these big-city newspaper bosses would seemingly rather slowly go out of business than to change their practices. Fine. I find myself getting more and more news off the internet anyway and less and less from newspapers. I'm sure I'm not alone although I don't have exact industry numbers for this exodus. This parallels the decline of the three major TV networks. The market is rushing in to fill a void that they refuse to fill.

Certainly distasteful cartoons such as these point out the hypocrisy of the left. The underlying princple here is that these liberal critiques (crude and hateful as they are) can't be racist -- just as there's this notion that blacks can't be prejudice (they can only be victims -- any "prejudice" is simply a reaction to the oppressors). Me, I prefer that no one jumps too fast to cry "racism". I, for one, think there are REAL racial and cultural differences between people (and particularly cultural differences that adhere to certain majorities of a race). I think they are fair game to talk about if only in jest. But we've come to a ridiculous point where to actually state known facts is to be racist. That's just ridiculous and belittles the whole idea of racism. Besides, how can we "celebrate the differences" and love diversity if we can't even talk about it? Saying that blacks like fried chicken (and they do) is no more racist then saying Seattlites love coffee and clam chowder (and they do). But I dare not say the former. (But I have and I will and I just did!) Sensitivities have been intentionally ratcheted up the last few decades in order to be able to play the race card. It's become one of the scariest things in society...to be called a racist. As more and more people blanch at any mention of something being racist, no matter how weak the argument, they cede more and more ground to those who use this race baiting for their political advantage. I guess it's just rather na�ve of me to suppose that crying wolf is harmful to flushing out real acts of racism.

We shall see whether or Condi Rice makes a good Secretary of State, but I could really care less her gender or her skin color. I'm not rooting for her because she is black (which I think is an inherently condescending and depersonalizing thing to do). I am not rooting for her because she is a woman (same reasons). I'm rooting for her because I think she's got a good head on her shoulders and I think she's a very good conservative. I sincerely submit that these sentiments are not the usual cultural relativistic feel-good pap that you usually hear. Yeah, I suppose in the back of my mind I don't mind seeing a black woman do well, particularly given some of the early difficulties that Condi had in particular. But the thing that matters most (and this is very American) is her ideas. Although Colin Powell was a tremendous organizer and leader, I get the impression he wasn't all that great of a conservative, although he served Bush skillfully and loyally. That was no small task in the face of the treacherous United Nations and the treacherous French. But I think Condi has stronger convictions. I think, particularly with the players in today's world, that the truth needs to be told more than the usual convenient and familiar diplomatic untruths.

But I have to admit, it *does* do my heart some good that a black women will be the United States head diplomat when it comes to dealing with the various misogynist Muslim states.

http://www.drudgereport.com/snl.htm

No, they wouldn't have ridiculed Belushi or others.

No, they wouldn't have ridiculed Belushi or others.

Hmmm...when a certain class of people is considered lower than others, and thus it becomes not only allowable to slander and ridicule them but noble to do so as well, by what name is this known?

Let me make a rather arduous point, but I assure you the point is there if you stick with it. Re: mid-seventeenth century England which was wracked by civil war, in which a series of Protestant religious sects sought to overturn the political order and the established Church of England, Jerry Muller in his book, Conservatism, comments:

quote:

In response to the challenge of what they called "enthusiasm," Anglican theorists such as Richard Hooker developed a principled defense of historical institutions which was to influence the later conservatism of Hume as well as of Burke. For Hooker, the claim of the Puritans to derive prescriptions for political action directly from the Bible made them guilty of the sin of intellectual pride. In his History of England, Hume portrayed the Puritan revolt against the royal, Anglican regime of Charles I as an example of enthusiasm of politics. The danger of the intrusion of "enthusiasm" into politics was a frequent theme of Humes' thought, by which he meant the threat posed by religious movements which take their bearings from divine revelation rather than from experience, and which seek to reorder society based upon claims of divine inspiration.

Okay, I believe we're all in accord that we don't want a theocracy in America. We don't want to cut and paste stuff out of the Bible and put it into law. But we do, of course, agree that our moral beliefs, as formed by religion, can and should speak second-hand, if you will, to our laws and inform them. At the same time, we might take something from the quote above and expand our view a little and look for others who might be using "divine revelation" of another type and whose gods may be Sagan, Chomsky, Michael Moore or some other and who are engaging in "enthusiasm" as energetically and dangerously as any Puritan. Now let me connect this point. Muller goes on to observe [italic emphasis is mine]:

quote:

For Hume, then, social contract theory was an example of the sort of politics he abhorred, one based upon abstract, speculative principles, which could be used to undermine a political order but were incapable of providing a regime which could command allegiance. [I guess he had a jump on postmodernism and the Marxist "Critical Theory".] Late in his life, Hume applied these criteria to the "Wilkes and Liberty" riots of 1768-71, which he saw as a radical and democratic challenge to the existing political order. For Hume, this was an example of a new variety of enthusiasm or metaphysical politics, motivated less by real grievances than by the attempt to remake politics according to some abstract worldview. Hume thus began to transfer his critique of the politics of enthusiasm from religious movements to movements animated by secular, abstract ideologies, a process which Burke was to continue.

Does not that just describe what we're facing from liberals and the left to a tee? And they accuse Christians of being the "enthusiasts." Brother. Anybody who knows me knows I've been struggling to articulate just such a thought as the above for quite some time now. It is similar to what I've mentioned before about liberals taking their politics to the point of religion, but I think Muller and Hume nuance this idea much better than merely calling someone's radical politics a faith, as true as that might be in many cases. I have certainly commented repeatedly that, for the most part, the religious people of today are rather moderate in their views, mindful of separations issues, respectfully of diversity (they almost have to be with all the various denominations and such) and are mature in their ideology having peacefully coexisted with civil government in the U.S. for over 200 years with nary a danger of this country becoming a theocracy. That's not to say that thoughtful people of faith shouldn't be vigilant so that religion doesn't overstep its bounds. But clearly the idea that religion (in particular, Christianity) is a threat in either the U.S. or Europe is only true (as is the case with every other existing institution) if one views them as an obstruction to this new quasi-religious movement centered on a worldview of too much utopia, not enough common sense, and a whole lot of hypocrisy and angry, self-righteous people. It's almost makes you long for the relatively mild days when Puritans were on the march, for there is very little pure about these new Puritans.

Mind you, I don't have a problem with comedians poking fun at a public figure such as Rush. I don't want that banned and I don't want NBC to pay a fine. In fact, let these leftists and liberals keep burying themselves as every flakey word out of their mouths shows America just how angry, hypocritical, and out-of-touch they are. But we should be sure to call attention to such occurrences and use them as a teaching tool to show exactly who these people are, what they believe, what they intend, how their hypocrisy is oriented and arranged, and just how potentially dangerous to free expression and liberty their attitudes and policies would be if taken to their natural conclusion (as we see in the mainstream media and on college campuses where diversity is totally absent and group-think perdures).

Spot on, Brad, and I think you have indeed found a relevant historical parallel. I'm not a great fan of Hume's philosophy as it tends toward reductionism and materialism, but apparently his thinking on politics was much better nuanced.

- - -

What I wonder about from that SNL parody of Rush Limbaugh is who they think would laugh at that sort of thing? What does this say about their audience? I've never been a great fan of SNL as their satire tends more toward ridicule than humor, imo, being mean-spirited than the kind of good-natured ribbing that Leno and Donahue pull off most of the time. So I don't watch it (and am usually sleeping by then anyway).

But can you imagine them or anyone else poking fun at a lame person -- say FDR, showing him falling out of his wheelchair and crying out for someone to help him back on (and no TV cameras, please)? Or Helen Keller -- showing her walking into a wall?

Also, these are supposed to be "enlightened times," where we understand chemical addictions to be a "disease" and not simply a flaw in one's moral character. Hence, the sympathy for Belushi and others of questionable lifestyle.

But note, here, that the real point of the "parody" is that Limbaugh is a hypocrite wallowing in his own vomit, not a chemically dependent person reduced to embarassing levels of unmanageability by his addiction. Apparently, SNL considers addiction among conservatives to be a moral flaw, while for liberals it's an unavoidable development owing to genetic predispositions, poor family upbringing, etc.

SNL needs to hear from a few people about this.

Spot on, Brad, and I think you have indeed found a relevant historical parallel. I'm not a great fan of Hume's philosophy as it tends toward reductionism and materialism, but apparently his thinking on politics was much better nuanced.

Thanks, Phil. I�m just learning about Hume (as well as Burke) so I�m by no means yet a new disciple of his. I suppose his atheism and extreme skepticism follows in the trail of his beliefs, or perhaps it�s the other way around. But I do think he offers a valuable grounding in tradition as he shows how tradition itself is grounded in practical benefit and habit and not exclusively (or even at all) in empirical demonstration. This, I think, is a healthy and necessary buffer to those who think that by shear reason alone we can do a "makeover" of an entire society. Conservatism (especially Burke, I think) shows that there are many complications and unseen influences at work in our institutions and they should not be discarded haphazardly or carelessly. I�m still catching up on my reading and have yet to complete my own course on Rationalism in politics, but this idea of Rationalism I think will give a good taste of the mischief that is possible if one thinks they can disregard actual experience and plan everything according to the witty thoughts in their head.

What does this say about their audience?

I think the tide is turning and they know it. Do consider the possibility of passive-aggressiveness as the motive, a sort of in-your-face expression of pique to a wavering audience. Sure, an overwhelmingly young audience might find the SNL sketch to their liking, but remember the various instances throughout the long presidential campaign when the comments by the Hollywood crowd on, for instance, Letterman were not always met with approving titters but with boos and catcalls.

I've never been a great fan of SNL as their satire tends more toward ridicule than humor, imo, being mean-spirited than the kind of good-natured ribbing that Leno and Donahue pull off most of the time.

Or Dave Barry. There used to be a polite form of political humor where a deep point (and a big laugh) could be garnered but without drawing bitter blood. Nowadays people have made getting a laugh secondary to the drawing of blood. I think they see themselves as holy warriors on the front lines of a great crusade. They sure act like it anyway.

Here�s a link directly to that SNL animation. To the credit of the author, there is one funny moment and it�s when the Red States are referred to on a map as �Dumbf***istan�. Other than that (and I�ll admit it�s a crude joke, but at least it�s funny) this is probably why, like so many others, I haven�t watched SNL in years. I don�t mind them or anyone else tweaking a politician or two, although I expect them to be equal opportunity tweakers. But I do expect them to be funny. Or as another blogger put it:

quote:

You know what? It's not funny. I think the premise had merit � Santa decides to skip the "red states" and learns a lesson about bigotry from a teary-eyed little girl � but the execution was just all wrong. It was mean. It was ugly and mean-spirited. I'm sure the people who wrote it didn't intend for it to be mean, but it sure ended up that way.

Compare and contrast SNL's approach to the now-famous "This Land" cartoon from earlier this year. That cartoon was relentless in its parody of both Bush and Kerry, but the underlying message was that we're all in this together. It was � if you'll pardon the touchy-feely expression � inclusive.

SNL's message? That the red states are filled with bigots, that Moby is gay (?) and that values � like pluralism and love for one's neighbor � are corny.