212 and Counting

Sorry, Nance, you're getting a lot of airtime here today.

In regard to my post "212 Degrees, I Believe?", Nancy said, "In general, I agree about offering solutions when criticizing or complaining...yet I see (rather frequently) that it is not always possible. We are ALL guilty of that. I don't think we shouldn't complain if we don't have a solution. Sometimes we just know that something is not working.

I don't want to ever give the impression that I don't complain or criticize. Believe me, those things make up way too much of my activity in life. I feel safe when I go off on one of my tangents about inept drivers, and criticizing lousy road-mates because I do believe I offer constructive criticism in that I say, "pay attention, know the rules of the road, obey them, hang up the cell phone and drive." I firmly believe that when I spout out against them, I'm offering a viable solution, so it's not a matter of not criticizing, it's a matter of offering what my opinion states to be constructive criticism. I see a problem, I offer my take on what to do to fix it.

Sometimes, when one doesn't know what to do...doing nothing is best. So true. I complain about the weather, especially when it rains on weekends. I think we're all better off with the fact that there is nothing I can do to control or change the weather, trust me, because Mother Nature knows best. Or at least better than me, so at times it is better to do nothing.

I'm often hesitant to comment in your blog because I know you are looking for people to back up what they say...and I can't always do that. But despite that, I do have opinions...and they're not always "wrong", any more than they are "right"

I just happen to like it better when someone offers an opinion that's followed with some reasoning. The beauty of opinions is that, by definition, there are no "right or wrong" opinions, but if I, as a Cleveland Indians fan, state my opinion that Red Sox fans are idiots simply because they don't root for the Indians, I'm trying to make my opinion your opinion,(after all, disagreeing would make you an idiot, right?) and without very much sound reasoning. No one who is a Sox fan is going to read my opinion and decide that I'm right, and discard their Sox loyalty. If, however, I state that my opinion is that the Indians are a better team because...and then fill in my interpretation of various statistics to back it up, at least my argument might have some credence.

Years ago, two boxers, Tommy Hearns and Marvelous Marvin Hagler, put on a show that boxing historians agree were three of the best rounds in boxing history. Hagler outlasted Hearns, fought off Hearns best attack, and won the fight. I happened to be a big fan of Tommy Hearns, but I had to concede that, at least on that night, anyone whose opinion was that Hagler was the better fighter, had some reasoning to back that opinion up, and while I didn't like it, I had to agree that their argument had a lot of merit.

My problem isn't with people's opinions. I'd never tell someone that she isn't entitled to have an opinion. I love to debate, and the root of debate is initially opinion, a personal opinion, one that a good debater goes about defending with solid argument.

My problem, in that article, is with Maher. He is a comedian who has moved from the comedic stage into the political arena. He has ordained himself a political expert, but one whose sole strategy is to condemn the current body politic. He doesn't offer any alternative ideas, he simply rips up the status quo. He has a nationally televised forum from which to spout his opinions, and he wants his opinion to be your opinion, but he doesn't offer any sound reasoning to back up his claims of superiority. He tells those who might not agree that they are stupid. He tells us that people who base any decision on religious beliefs are fools, but doesn't have anything solid to back that up. Maher stated that Faith is flawed because you can't prove what you believe. Now, my argument with him is that he obviously doesn't understand the concept of "faith", and that people who don't believe in the existence of a higher power can't prove that it doesn't exist either. He says, agree with me or you are an idiot.(And yes, he actually said that) In my opinion, that doesn't form the basis of any reasonable debate.

Suppose I said, "I'm a Catholic. Mary is a Mormon. Mary is an idiot because she is not a Catholic." Where is the room for debate there? It's a statement that is not backed with any sound reasoning, I'm simply passing judgment on someone, and I'm not offering any good ideas as to why my religion is superior. I'm simply stating that it is what it is. Would you buy that from me?

I believe that there is a major difference between me offering my opinion and solutions on what I believe is wrong with a lot of drivers out there, writing in a blog that's read by barely enough people to fill Maher's studio audience, and Bill Maher taking a national stage and offering his political criticism. I don't believe for a minute that Maher should be silenced. I believe he is extremely intelligent, and he has a gift of humor that I don't possess. I watch him every chance I get because I want to hear what he has to say. My frustration as expressed in that article is that, "Hey Bill, you've made it clear that Bush is bad, our foreign policy is bad, and that this country is currently in a hand-basket headed for destination unknown. You've ordained yourself an expert, and said that everything we do is wrong. So, then, what in your expert opinion should we do?" That wouldn't necessarily sway my opinion, but it would make for a much more intelligent debate.

Part of the reason I rarely take the Iraq War decisions to task in my writing here is that I really don't know what the hell we should have done, or should do going forward. My head tells me, "let's just bomb the bad guys into oblivion". My heart tells me that that is not a very rational position. For one thing, I don't know if we can even identify the bad guys at this point. I believe that any solution I would offer would be based on bigotry and prejudice, and violence. That's not going to help anything much.

Let me ask you a question, maybe to help clarify what I was saying. Suppose you're in the middle of doing a sculpture. You've never quite tried a sculpture of this type, and maybe it's not going so well. Two people come into the room. The first says, "Nancy, that sculpture sucks. It's ugly and doesn't look like anything," and then he leaves. The second says, "Hey Nancy, your sculpture sucks. But I see what you're trying to accomplish, I think. Maybe if you pick up this chisel and use it to form the outline a little better by doing this or that, you might be on your way to a better sculpture." Now both people said your sculpture sucks. But whose opinion are you at least going to feel somewhat more inclined to engage?

Just my humble two cents.

212 Degrees I Believe?

I have to admit, that I don't think anyone gets my blood boiling faster than Bill Maher. I caught him last night on Larry King Live.

I believe dissidence is good in government. I am completely aware that the best way to keep a governing body on its toes is to allow criticism and disagreement. But there are some people who've made careers out of offering criticism, without offering sound alternatives solutions.

In my experience (emphasis on my) the Left and other anti-Bush factions, are very crafty. They will say things that start like, "What this country needs", then they will tell you what they think we need, only they don't get you to the part where they tell you how they will actually give you that.

Maher is a classic practitioner. If you ask him what he would have done differently, maybe concerning Iraq, he will give you a litany of everything that was done wrong, and then that's it. He tells you how badly everyone does it, but never quite gets to the point where he lays out his own plan. He makes a whole bunch of intelligent-sounding assertions that he can't quite prove. And by "prove" I don't mean make you sound ridiculous or illogical for not believing him, or the old Rosie O'Donnell tactic ("USE GOOGLE"). No, you made the statement, you present the proof. Telling me to educate myself is another bullshit pseudo-intellectual tactic. Like I said, you're making the statement, you show me the proof of your conclusion.

Maher was put on that very spot. A caller challenged Maher, saying, "You've made a career of bashing everyone, and everything. What would you have done differently? SPECIFICS!" And Maher did the usual anti-Bush move. Went through the list of everything he wouldn't have done, and then, as usual, stopped just short of saying what he would have done. Missed it by that much!

And then he said, that Religion is stupid. That's when I decided to avoid the stroke. I changed the channel.

Small

I've stated before that I sit and watch "Real Time with Bill Maher" because I believe we should all take time to listen to the ideas of people we might not necessarily agree with, in order to fully understand those ideas before forming an opinion.

And I try to be open minded. I really do. But...

The most recent episode featured the panel of D.L. Hughley, Michael Smerconish, and Catherine Crier. While Smerconish was making a point, Maher interrupted him, asking him if he believed in the Ten Commandments. It became a sort of stand-off with Maher pressing the question, and Smerconish refusing to be dragged into a debate over the Commandments.

But I wanted it to continue so that it would better illustrate a point. According to Bill Maher, if you believe in the 10 commandments, then all you're concerned about is not swearing, not working on Sunday, and not making statues of false gods. He implies that by living that way, you are, in turn, not concerned with such things as child abuse and rape. He said that. If you believe in the Ten Commandments, according to Maher's reasoning, there simply isn't room for any other beliefs. He said that, too.

Now what kind of nonsense is that?

It's a crystal clear example of the minimalist,absolute, Left-wing thought process.

If I use that same methodology in assessing Maher's beliefs, I could easily state that because he doesn't believe in the Ten Commandments, then he believes that it's ok to kill, that adultery is perfectly fine, and that it's perfectly acceptable to steal.

Would that be logical? Would that be accurate?

Is it realistic to conclude that anyone who professes a belief in the Ten Commandments lives their lives based on only those exact ten rules? And conversely, does anyone who doesn't subscribe to such beliefs live a life of pure hatred with no rules to guide them?

Of course not. Being kind to others, caring for the poor, well they're not exactly outlined in the Ten Commandments, but it's part of the belief system of some of those who do hold true to the Ten Commandments. How would Maher explain that?

Maher stands up for Atheism, defends it. I just think it's funny that this man would condemn religious beliefs, but would fight to the death defending your right to believe in nothing.

I don't think that one set of beliefs is exclusive of any other set of guidelines.

So now, if you happen to be a Right-Winger, you might find yourself in agreement with me, particularly if you're religious in any way. And that's great. If you're a Left-Winger, you've seen how I've lumped all kinds of people together with Maher, made all kinds of statements about the "Libertarian thought process" based on a set of beliefs and statements expressed by Maher, and you've made it this far without hitting the comment button to lambaste me, you're probably pretty steamed that I could make such a generalized conclusion based on a few ideas. It's pretty unfair of me to draw these unfair conclusions about Libertarians, based solely on the fact that Maher happens to be a Libertarian.

All I can say to that then is, I've proven my point. Thanks for reading.

Left is Right

I often watch "Real Time With Bill Maher". I don't watch it because I'm a Libertarian, or a Liberal, but because I really like to look at both sides of any argument or issue to better make decisions.

This week's episode was more of the same. The show has a lot of interesting content and discussion, but it always gets back to politics, and decidedly Left-Wing politics at that.

Maher takes President Bush to task over the Patriot Act, and the overwhelming Big Brother approach to government these days. He said that Bush has asked us to sacrifice a lot, and Maher stated that those sacrifices included 6 of the 10 basic civil rights.

Granted. The government has gone over the line under Bush. There are a lot of things going on that most of us wish weren't happening. I wouldn't dispute that for a minute. Our government ideology these days seems to be "business as usual until someone catches on."

What irked me tonight wasn't so much those statements. What got under my skin was Maher's comparison of the sacrifices being asked of us during this Iraq War to those asked of the Nation under the Presidency of Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt.

He listed the sacrifices: rationing, War Bonds, even made mention of women being asked to turn in their silk undergarments for use in parachutes. He made it all sound so patriotic, so "high road", and how much more noble the government was back then. He railed against the Bush Administration's mistreatment of a segment of society today.

He forgot one thing.

The Internment of Japanese American CITIZENS during World War II. Thousands of people of Japanese descent were forced out of their homes, forced to live in deplorable conditions simply because they were Japanese in descent.

Racial profiling, anyone?

For the first time, Maher almost had me agreeing with him.

Almost.

Look! It's the Bottom of the Barrel!

I am never too surprised at what I see from celebrities who are desperate to draw attention to their failing careers.
Bill Maher hosts a lightweight political TV show on HBO, and I'm sure the good folks at HBO aren't exactly wowed by this guy, who's not exactly knocking the cover off the ball. His show is very one-sided drivel, and he's pretty good at ambushing guests who don't necessarily subscribe to his idealogies.
In my opinion, the show sucks. But it can sometimes be worthwhile to watch, because some of the guests occasionally have something intelligent to say.
Anyway, this idiot, who fancies himself a "comedian" thought it would be really funny for Halloween to parody the late Steve Irwin, aka "The Crocodile Hunter" who tragically died recently in a diving accident.

Takes a special comedic talent to put together an idea like that. Be proud, Bill!

So for that, we proudly present Maher with his own Award!