You know, for a comedy show, some people are taking this thing awfully seriously, particularly as it is no...
You know, for a comedy show, some people are taking this thing awfully seriously, particularly as it is no longer. But since they are, a couple opinions on the commentary in this opinion piece.
1) I was never under the impression that Stewart made any pretense about his personal beliefs. Why should he? He was a satirist, it's a comedy show.
2) As far as the whole torture thing, Stewart knew the semantic game that was being played about (my phrasing, here) how much torture can we get away with and call it legally not torture. And yes it is, still, a valid and important ethical question whether or not legal not-torture is something we really want to engage in as a government and a society. All this tells me is that John Yoo is a damn good lawyer, which might explain why the then Administration hired him.
P.S. It saddens me that we are so lost for any shades of meaning anymore that you are either liberal or conservative, if not even further off the the ends of the descriptors of political opinion. And that terms that should not have any weird baggage, are epithets with a whole bunch of implications that are not part of the definition of the words themselves. Oh, well. I'll just go eat a baby to soothe my satired soul.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/opinion/sunday/jon-stewart-patron-saint-of-liberal-smugness.html?referrer&_r=0
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/opinion/sunday/jon-stewart-patron-saint-of-liberal-smugness.html?referrer&_r=0
1) I was never under the impression that Stewart made any pretense about his personal beliefs. Why should he? He was a satirist, it's a comedy show.
2) As far as the whole torture thing, Stewart knew the semantic game that was being played about (my phrasing, here) how much torture can we get away with and call it legally not torture. And yes it is, still, a valid and important ethical question whether or not legal not-torture is something we really want to engage in as a government and a society. All this tells me is that John Yoo is a damn good lawyer, which might explain why the then Administration hired him.
P.S. It saddens me that we are so lost for any shades of meaning anymore that you are either liberal or conservative, if not even further off the the ends of the descriptors of political opinion. And that terms that should not have any weird baggage, are epithets with a whole bunch of implications that are not part of the definition of the words themselves. Oh, well. I'll just go eat a baby to soothe my satired soul.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/opinion/sunday/jon-stewart-patron-saint-of-liberal-smugness.html?referrer&_r=0
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/opinion/sunday/jon-stewart-patron-saint-of-liberal-smugness.html?referrer&_r=0
Otherwise there'd be yodeling and exploding heads everywhere.
ReplyDeleteOk, so lye, and yodeling. The list proceeds apace.
ReplyDeleteBlame Duverger's Law for how our discourse has degraded to binary poles. When mathematically, every life-and-death political struggle is essentially lost by whichever side is split by a third party, your political discourse inevitably becomes binary.
ReplyDeleteNot much room for subtlety in a political system where the cost of losing is Citizens United, the war in Iraq, or the 2008 economic meltdown. Or on the flip side, the alternative world where McCain/Palin tried Brownback-style economic solutions to rescue America in '08, or McCain/Palin filled the seats held by Sotomayor and Kagan and that alternative Supreme Court decided US vs Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges.
There can only be two sides in a Duverger's Law driven electoral system. The side that wants to do to America what the powerful forces behind Sam Brownback did to Kansas; and the rest of us who would rather not have our states follow their fate. Not much room for subtlety left in a struggle like that.
Those are awesome with ghirardelli chocolate squares.
ReplyDelete