To Put Things In Perspective

I really like Jon Stewart’s compilations off right-wing hypocrisy (you know, like when Bill O’Reilly says that it was the Nazis that went in and disrupted meetings…when, at the time, he was talking about Democrats… I doubt he still agrees…), which is why I post this. It’s a few minutes into the video, but the rest of it is very much worth the watch, anyway.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Healther Skelter
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

It just puts things in perspective, better than I’d heard elsewhere thus far.

On a side-note, had a blurb up about how Jon Stewart is actually loved (well, “respected,” at least…) by many Neoconservatives, including Bill Kristol.

From the article:

“‘There is genuine intellectual curiosity,’ [Cliff] May told New York [Magazine]. ‘He’s [Jon Stewart] a staunch liberal, but he’s a thoughtful liberal, and I respect that.’ May isn’t the only conservative gushing about Stewart. While the movement professes a disdain for the ‘liberal media elite,’ it has made an exception for the true-blue 46-year-old comedian. ‘He always gives you a chance to answer, which some people don’t do,’ says John Bolton, President Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations and a Fox News contributor, who went on the show last month. ‘He’s got his perspective, but he’s been fair.’ Says Bolton: ‘In general, a lot of the media, especially on the left, has lost interest in debate and analysis. It has been much more ad hominem. Stewart fundamentally wants to talk about the issues. That’s what I want to do.'”

The author of the Rawstory article calls Jon Stewart “this generation’s Mark Twain,” and I think I’d have to agree.

4 Replies to “To Put Things In Perspective”

  1. First off, loved the segment. Jon Stewart is a cut above any other journalist out there. But this is all getting out of control. The far right have convinced the ignorant conservative elderly that Obama is setting up, essentially, death squads. My political position is in the center, so you can imagine how amusing this whole thing is watching the far left and right spar. The left is attempting to make changes that could possibly infringe on our constitutional rights as well as plunge our country further into debt. You can’t go bailing out everyone in your first few months in office. How many industries now have government control above and beyond the “regulation” of old? How are we going to pay for all this? The right shouldn’t go about inciting fear in the elderly thinking their plugs are going to be pulled and death squads are going to get the rest. Instead, focus on the bill’s Medicare/Medicaid cuts and how that will impact folks who rely on that income to live. But, I can empathize with their fears because of the onslaught of “socialistic” changes attempting to be made by Obama’s plans which are freaking out the conservatives. The nature of the beast really. How many liberals were living in fear during Bush’s Administration? I sit in a tricky spot because I don’t want to have government controlling the banks, car industry, healthcare and everything else, but I don’t want greedy capitalistic Corporations running it. That’s why the essence of th Constitution should dictate all this proposed reform. Allow the free market to do it’s thing, but implement Constitutionally sound regulations. It’s difficult being in the middle because I want the best of both worlds, but that will really never happen because it’s the “extremists” that inhibits true growth. Both sides need to come closer the middle and work this shit out. Tired of hearing about liberals being communists and nazis and republicans instilling fear in the elderly. Is this really what our government has become; a bunch of squabbling amateurs?? I say busch league. I vote for Jon Stewart in 2012 (if the world still exists)…

  2. “But, I can empathize with their fears because of the onslaught of ‘socialistic’ changes attempting to be made by Obama’s plans which are freaking out the conservatives. The nature of the beast really.”

    See, here’s where Mike would be useful… What is being proposed in the details that have leaked out of the various bills doesn’t sound like “socialism” to me, which simply highlights how ill-informed the Right is. They believe that having anything government-run is “socialism.” That would mean that the military is socialism. Or that the U.S. National Parks are “socialist.” (right, Mike?). Then again, maybe those things are, as technically you are employed by the Federal Government.

    My understanding of all of this is that the so-called Public Option would NOT employ doctors in the way that the National Health System of the U.K. does. So, doctors will remain private. If doctors were employed by the Federal government, then yes, it would be “socialized medicine,” but otherwise, I don’t think it is.

    That said, I agree with your centrist view, for the most part. It is tricky, as you say! Just keep in mind that these plans, so far as I understand, don’t really involve “government control of health care,” at least not in the Parks system or military sense. It provides regulations on the Private industry and allows Medicare to pay for things it hasn’t before. While that is greater “control,” it is far from a full-on government-run system.

  3. Socialism is fundamentally a pretty complex economic position involving public control of economic activity, an egalitarian distribution of wealth, things of that sort. So yeah, Andy’s right in characterizing the Republican party as either being woefully misinformed or engaging in deceptive labeling (which I am inclined to believe) as a propaganda tool – it’s certainly in line with a lot of their other PR decisions.

    Truly socialized medicine would involve public control of the entire industry, likely in the form of nationalization, which is not even remotely what is being proposed here. I’m not convinced a truly socialized system isn’t the best solution, but as I put on here a while back, you have to go with what you can get done, and America is just simply still too close to the Cold War to sign off on anything that leftist.

    I am in no way a centrist. According to a political quiz I took once for a class, I fall somewhere to the left of Gandhi. My position is essentially this: that public goods should be subject to public accountability. Market systems work well for some goods, but a purely market-based system will inevitably ignore something like the health care of impoverished people, simply because there is no profit to be made in it. Similarly, a market system would never build roads or utilities in rural areas, because it’s much more cost effective to build them in areas with concentrated populations. There are serious repercussions to either of those situations that I think it is at best unkind and at worst immoral to ignore – how many impoverished children die from pneumonia when they could have been treated for the flu? On that kind of thing, don’t talk to me about the cost. Make it happen.

    Are there problems with a public system? Undoubtedly. I took my grandfather to the VA hospital in Kansas City enough times to know that. But at least when something goes terribly wrong in a public system, we can vote in a guy who claims to want to fix it. In the public sector, all we get is taking our business somewhere else, and what do you do when all the alternatives are equally shoddy (see cable companies)?

    I think what’s being proposed now is a reasonable compromise. It forces private entities to compete with a public entity in both price and service, which (at least in theory) will require them to provide better services and lower premiums. Will it cut into their profits? I’m sure. But when your profit margin is 400%, I think you can afford the hit.

Comments are closed.