brainwagon

Comment from Frank
Time 1/4/2006 at 6:24 pm

Bit of a pity to see Dave lose it like that. So typical of many though to criticize something based on third hand whispers. As a liberal I guess you are just supposed to hate O’Reilly no matter what.

Editor’s note: I wonder how you came to the conclusion that I’m a liberal.  I am, but given the relatively modest amount of political stuff I put on this blog, I’m wondering if you just leaped to a conclusion based upon my rather mild reaction to this story.  Just to be clear, I don’t hate O’Reilly. I do think he’s an ass. I do think he’s a hypocrite. I do think Letterman may have been off in his estimate by 40%. I don’t think that because of third hand whispers: I’ve watched his show, and listened to what he had to say.

David Letterman was upset that O’Reilly chose to berate a woman who lost her son in what she views as a pointless, needless conflict instigated by the government as the result of what the administration now admits was poor intelligence. She’s an American citizen, exercising her rights to freedom of speech, engaging in public demonstrations against a government that she disagrees with. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with her, her rights are guaranteed under the Constitution. It’s hard to accept the fact that liberals understand and admire these Constitutional guarantees more than so-called “conservatives”.

Note: I haven’t said that Bill O’Reilly shouldn’t be heard, that he shouldn’t be able to say what he wants to say, or that what he says should be considered treason.  He’s got First Amendment rights just like everyone else, and while I may strongly disagree with what he has to say and the direction that attitudes like his are taking te United States, he does have the right to say them. 
I’ll leave you with a quotation:

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

Theodore Roosevelt
May 7, 1918

Comment from Frank
Time 1/5/2006 at 5:04 am

Huh?

Wow, I don’t know what prompted that, I was simply talking about DAVE. So much for leaping to conclusions, eh?

I would agree that I have never heard (or read) you being particularly political one way or another and you should be congratulated to a certain degree since it is hard not to use this forum, or a podcast, to express those views.

I don’t think I need a quotation. The reaction makes the point. This is no way to engage in political discourse.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Editor’s note: In my experience, when someone tosses out a generalization tagged with the term “liberal”, they are beyond any desire for political discourse.  That’s rather the point: O’Reilly isn’t interested in political discourse.  He is not willing to accept the fact that another portion of the citizenry may have an opinion which differs, and that our country as a whole might be better if people expressed those opinions as the subject of political debate.   Such actions aren’t treason, and they aren’t the result of political puppet-mastery.  They are the normal process of democratic government.
I’m curious though, the comment which I (apparently) reacted too branding me a liberal: I suspect that the logic applies to David Letterman as well.  How did you know that he was a “liberal”?   I can’t recall him making any political statements on his show ever.   Did you conclude that anyone who disagrees with O’Reilly must be liberal?   I think your own reactions are still more questionable than my own.
I’d also note that in your comment you didn’t bother to address the comments made by either party, as I did.  I said rather clearly what I thought of O’Reilly, and why I thought that Letterman’s criticism of him was on target.  You had an opportunity to directly address these comments, where you might have thought I was unfair, but chose not to.   I wonder why?  It’s really easy to toss out the “liberal” epithet: it’s a much more difficult thing to clearly express one’s political views that doesn’t reveal one to be a hypocrite.

Comment from Carm
Time 1/5/2006 at 10:14 am

I disagree with your comment “O’Reilly isn’t interested in political discourse.” O’Reilly is in the business of entertainment; If there wasn’t anything to argue about, he wouldn’t have a job, obviously. That being said, he’s still full of shit.

And what is so wrong with being a liberal?

Editor’s note:  Well, we liberals are trying to kill Christmas, which is bad for business!

When I say that O’Reilly isn’t interested in political discourse, I mean that he isn’t interested in swaying the minds of his opponents and reaching acceptable compromises, which is, after all, the principle reason we engage in political discourse.  He’s like the people who can’t sing who try out for American Idol, willing to do anything to keep his face on TV for just fifteen more minutes, even if what he has to do is crappy.  

Comment from Frank
Time 1/5/2006 at 11:51 am

Fair enough Mark. Your arguments and positions are well stated. It was not the purpose of my original comment to address the specific statements made by O’Reilly or to any great degree those by Dave. What struck me is that Dave is an entertainer, and a damn good one, yet chose to toss this aside with O’Reilly and turn into a hard interviewer. He starts off questioning specific statements, which is absolutely fair, but then begins to make generalizations about the accuracy or veracity of the show (and Bill himself) while admitting that he doesn’t actually listen to what Bill says. I simply was observing that this was an unfortunate behavior and use of his forum. For the many years I watched Dave I cannot recall seeing him go “off format” very often. He knows why people watch.

Regarding the specific statements or positions expressed by O’Reilly, Dave and Cindy Sheehan? A bit heavy for a forum comment, but I view O’Reilly as what he is. He is a “news-entertainer” with a clear conservative leaning, who uses his forum to make conservative views look better than liberal ones. I see nothing inherently wrong with that since it is “up front”. O’Reilly claims to hold views that are widely supported by the general population, not views that are equally balanced between conservative and liberal. There is a big difference. Almost everyone who is passionate believes that the majority of people support their views.

In his statements regarding Sheehan he is certainly on the fringe, but his point is not without merit. She cannot claim to represent the views of all parents who have lost children and SHOULD EXPECT that her statements will be challenged by those who may have suffered similar loss yet feel completely differently. Why isn’t it fair to challenge her motivation? Why isn’t it fair for her to be shouted down if there are more voices in opposition?

Letterman is an entertainer, and I hold him in high regard for his craft. Outside of that, I am not aware of any background or special circumstance which would make me care what his political positions or opinions are. I have honestly never understood why any “star’s” political opinions are considered deserving of special merit. Oh, I’m sure there are exceptions where brilliant minds in political science and foreign relations just happen to be working on sitcoms, but most are smart enough to recognize that using their forum to express divisive views is not the best career move. I believe many people somehow need to feel validated by hearing someone famous express a viewpoint they share.

Finally, I once again apologize for any action leading to turning your blog into a political tennis match. I’ve always considered you an “interesting geek” whose views and opinions regarding gadgets and related goodness are worth listening to. I CERTAINLY would not change that opinion on the basis of political views (not relevant) and therefore would never have commented in any way I thought would offend you personally. I guess I’m not sure why you put the story up. If you had really wanted to discuss the merits of O’Reilly and Cindy Sheehan it was a rather indirect route and I got lost. Had I seen the map I would have steered clear of commenting at all since it is a tired debate.

Editor’s note: As far as I know, Sheehan has not claimed to represent the views of all parent who have lost children, nor do I recall her saying that her comments should not be challenged.  It is certainly fair to challenge her motivation, but (and I think this was Letterman’s point) one doesn’t have to go much deeper than trying to understand the pain of a mother who lost her son in what she views as an unnecessary conflict and her desire to spare the mothers of other soldiers similar pain.  You can argue that her view is naive, or misguided, but I think it’s not fair to imply that it is treasonous, or lends comfort to terrorists, both of which are claims that O’Reilly has made.   

I’m also curious why you mentioned the fact that people might “feel validated by hearing someone famous express a viewpoint they share”.   Certainly that applies to O’Reilly as much as Letterman, no?    Such feelings are, unfortunately, rather disconnected from the actual merits of the viewpoint, and that is the tragedy. 

I’m unapologetically liberal.  Tragically, this means I support things like the Constitution.  Separation of powers.   The Bill of Rights.  Rights to privacy.   Limits on governmental power.   Limits on police power.   Accountability of the government for its actions.  These used to be conservative ideals, but somehow they have been lost from the Republican agenda.   To be fair, they aren’t part of the Democratic agenda either.   I’m basically unrepresented by the political establishment.    I can live with that, but I don’t have to be quiet about it.  At least not yet.