||[Nov. 15th, 2010|05:46 pm]
Jon Stewart does not give many interviews, but recently he sat down with Rachel Maddow for 49 minutes, and I disagree with almost everything he says. More later, but here's the link.|
There's a shorter one on the same site, the version that aired on television.
Bush isn't a war criminal the way Pol Pot is a war criminal, and if he is, then Obama is.
This is a paraphrasing of Stewart. He wants conversation starters, not enders.
I can't get it across strongly enough that you shouldn't talk to irrational people!
If someone tells me it's best for the country to murder all blue-eyed people, I'm not going to try and start a conversation with them!
Also, Bush started a war that has killed anywhere from 100,000 to 900,000 people in the last 8 years or so. "Over a million" is the number given to Pol Pot.
Bush is a war criminal.
Obama is trying to clean up his mess. Should we abandon the Iraqis in a country that we destroyed? I'm not saying that Obama is perfect...in fact I am incredibly disappointed with his center-right viewpoints. But...he didn't start a war for petty politics, money, whatever.
Stewart also talks about confirmation bias, not exactly a new thing. There's a point there, but it doesn't mean I need to give equal weight to all opinions, either! That's the absolute key thing, the thing that really really gets me in Stewart's rhetoric.
Then he goes on to another well known thing in professional thinking, that of charity in the analysis of others' arguments. So you learn about and think about other people's arguments, and you try and give them the benefit of the doubt. But Stewart wants to figure out ways that Bush & co. are not "evil."
They started this war, they approve of torture, and it's important to look at the reasons why. Did they think it would prevent American death. FDR interred Japanese-Americans, that's what Stewart has to keep in his head whenever he is blown away by what the Bush Administration was doing.
Except there is no justification for torture, especially in the fact of the fact that it just doesn't work as a tactic. But even if it does work, you come to the age old question. The question of whether it is okay to thoroughly shred your ideals in the name of their preservation. And it very simply is not.
There's no justification for starting wars for power, money, territory, influence, whatever! None. And caring why they thought it was okay to do so is no better than me asking why they think it's better for America if all blue-eyed people are dead.
Maybe FDR interring all of those Americans was an evil act, based in fear. I can freely admit that. Be suspicious of anyone who wants to tell you how you should live, who wants to make decisions on your behalf. So pretty much everyone who wants to be the President is suspect.
Critics are "part of the game," and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise. Ugh, sports metaphors. I can't see how any smart human being can honestly claim that they are so objective and in their own little bubble that information and influence only stream in one direction, toward them. When you explain, when you criticize, you are immediately part of the sphere of influence, and this drives me absolutely nuts when Stewart harps on it.