PDA

View Full Version : Painful to watch


JonIrenicus
03-28-2009, 07:29 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7SrUavQMGY&feature=channel_page

someone comes off looking pretty foolish.

bjkeefe
03-28-2009, 07:51 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7SrUavQMGY&feature=channel_page

someone comes off looking pretty foolish.

And who did you think it was?

Thanks for the link, btw. I saw YouTube had booted Tullycast and didn't think to look elsewhere for Real Time (now that you can get the audio for free through iTunes).

[Added] If you haven't already seen it, the next clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBw1ZeRTFkA) is well worth watching for the part where Mos Def mocks the wingnuts. Hilarious!

JonIrenicus
03-28-2009, 02:04 PM
And who did you think it was?

Thanks for the link, btw. I saw YouTube had booted Tullycast and didn't think to look elsewhere for Real Time (now that you can get the audio for free through iTunes).

[Added] If you haven't already seen it, the next clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBw1ZeRTFkA) is well worth watching for the part where Mos Def mocks the wingnuts. Hilarious!

saw the rest of them, he was foolish in spots throughout (mos def). Notice the unusual damped nature of the crowd in many places? Because they saw what I saw.

bjkeefe
03-28-2009, 02:20 PM
saw the rest of them, he was foolish in spots throughout (mos def). Notice the unusual damped nature of the crowd in many places? Because they saw what I saw.

I don't agree with your measurement of the crowd reaction as valid. No guest gets applause after every statement, and he did, in fact, get some roars at other points. Besides, one of the points he was making in the specific clip you linked to was not one that too many people are comfortable with -- that if the US is going to act the way it does regarding nuclear weapons, there is no moral ground for us to stand on when other countries want to acquire their own.

As to his overall performance -- eh. For an entertainer dabbling in debating politics, he rated at least as good as most of Maher's other Hollywood guests. And when you add to this that he was on the same stage as the beautifully spoken Rushdie and Hitchens, I'd say it'd be hard for anyone to measure up.

JonIrenicus
03-28-2009, 10:38 PM
I don't agree with your measurement of the crowd reaction as valid. No guest gets applause after every statement, and he did, in fact, get some roars at other points. Besides, one of the points he was making in the specific clip you linked to was not one that too many people are comfortable with -- that if the US is going to act the way it does regarding nuclear weapons, there is no moral ground for us to stand on when other countries want to acquire their own.

As to his overall performance -- eh. For an entertainer dabbling in debating politics, he rated at least as good as most of Maher's other Hollywood guests. And when you add to this that he was on the same stage as the beautifully spoken Rushdie and Hitchens, I'd say it'd be hard for anyone to measure up.

He did get support at times, but this is from a VERY liberal audience for Bill Maher by and large.

The point he may have had some sympathy with was the idea that we have no ground telling certain nations not to have nuclear weapons. Yes, there is sympathy for that. I think it's nonsense. I have no problem with india having nuclear weapons, or France, or Britain, or Israel, I do have an issue with say the Taliban having them.

Know why? because those different actors are not the same. The idea that all actors are the same, and deserve the same weight and consideration is beyond foolish to me. The twisted head of an egalitarian model.



Person A drives and has a clean record. Nothing more than a seatbelt ticket.

Person B drives and has been ticketed and convicted of a DUI. Has struck cars in the past, and has a higher likelihood to do it again.


Should we treat person A and person B with the same weight and standing in terms of driving licenses? In terms of road worthiness? Are they the same?

I would not be surprised if someone of the mindset of def came out and said, yes, who are we to make distinctions, judgments.

Please stop coddling the ideas of fools.

bjkeefe
03-29-2009, 07:43 AM
He did get support at times, but this is from a VERY liberal audience for Bill Maher by and large.

That's somewhat immaterial, isn't it? Unless you would also accept my completely dismissing, say, the applause given at CPAC for any yahoo behind the microphones there, because it was a VERY conservative audience.

The point he may have had some sympathy with was the idea that we have no ground telling certain nations not to have nuclear weapons. Yes, there is sympathy for that. I think it's nonsense. I have no problem with india having nuclear weapons, or France, or Britain, or Israel, I do have an issue with say the Taliban having them.

Okay, now you're misrepresenting what he said. He was talking about Iran. Let's stipulate that no one wants the Taliban to have nukes, and pretend you said "Iran." Here's a response, under that assumption. (Since I misread your comment at first, and only noticed "Taliban" instead of "Iran" upon rereading.)

Generally speaking, I agree with the rest of what you went on to say, but I don't think the notion Mos Def put forth is completely foolish. I do agree, completely, that there are distinctions among various actors. However, at the very least, considering the idea he stated helps one understand where Iran is coming from. This is always helpful when planning a negotiating strategy.

It's also the case that we don't know that the Iranians are hell-bent on launching nuclear weapons the instant they have them. We have to remember that our impressions of them are formed in large part by their enemy; i.e., our government, well-funded neocon and other hawkish think tanks, PR groups for the military-industrial complex (including not a few members of Congress), and the MSM stenographers. Yes, there is apocalyptic talk from their president and others in their country. On the other hand, we have no shortage of prominent people in our country calling for their destruction, too. And yes, they have a history of sponsoring terrorist activities, but on the other hand, so does the US. And further, one tends to engage in these tactics when one has few other options at hand. It could be the case that once they feel secure within their borders, and have the status of first among equals in their region, they'll change their habits.

I mean, think about it from their perspective. The US invaded and continues to occupy two counties that border them. The US also has troops stationed in several other countries nearby and/or provides military assistance to their governments. How secure would you feel if the US had no nukes and an unfriendly power invaded and occupied Mexico and Canada?

Finally, there is the reality that even if everything goes as smoothly as possible for Iran, at best they'll acquire a few nuclear weapons. If they used them, they'd be toast within half an hour. Yes, they could make a big mess, especially in Israel, say, but they would literally be signing their own death warrant and flipping the switch on their own electric chair. So, it really comes down to whether you think the Iranian leadership (and, NB, not Ahmadinejad) is truly suicidal. I grant this is a possibility that we shouldn't dismiss out of hand, but it is my view that people who spend their lives acquiring and holding political power are keenly focused on their own long term survival in this world, no matter how religious they may profess to be.

All that said, of course I would like Iran not to have nuclear weapons. But the same could be said about every other country on the planet, and I would also say that the US has done very little to encourage disarmament. I'd even say their actions over the past decade have, in fact, pushed the rest of the world in the opposite direction.

Starwatcher162536
03-29-2009, 01:19 PM
[...]

Finally, there is the reality that even if everything goes as smoothly as possible for Iran, at best they'll acquire a few nuclear weapons. If they used them, they'd be toast within half an hour. Yes, they could make a big mess, especially in Israel, say, but they would literally be signing their own death warrant and flipping the switch on their own electric chair. So, it really comes down to whether you think the Iranian leadership (and, NB, not Ahmadinejad) is truly suicidal. I grant this is a possibility that we shouldn't dismiss out of hand, but it is my view that people who spend their lives acquiring and holding political power are keenly focused on their own long term survival in this world, no matter how religious they may profess to be.


This is the main reason I am against The Missile Defense System (Star Wars). All countrys have the same policy when it comes to a conventional nuclear attack (ICBM's), which is MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).

I don't think people realize just how destabilizing a truly operation Star Wars system would be to the world.

Imagine if some semi-unfriendly country to the US was about to become invulnerable to the US's nuclear reprisal but the US had no defense against that countrys nuclear assault. I imagine the US would take actions to prevent that...

On another note, BJkeefe, your assuming there would be clear cut evidence of who is behind the attack. If America is attacked by a nuclear weapon, most likely it will be a low grade weapon in a suitcase...not on a ICBM where NORAD can easily track it...

P.S.
It drives me insane when politicians score cheap political points by framing someone's disapproval of Star Wars like that person "just doesn't want to protect America". This is not a fucking game people.

bjkeefe
03-29-2009, 02:26 PM
This is the main reason I am against The Missile Defense System (Star Wars). [...]

As long as you're against it. (I'm against it because I think it's a boondoggle that will never work in any significant way, and that we'd get (suppress) far more bang for the buck spending the money in other ways.)

On another note, BJkeefe, your assuming there would be clear cut evidence of who is behind the attack. If America is attacked by a nuclear weapon, most likely it will be a low grade weapon in a suitcase...not on a ICBM where NORAD can easily track it...

Seems to me that (1) Iran is clearly pursing missile development, (2) has interest in nuclear weapons from the strategic point of view, and not to hand them out to terrorists, (3) suitcase nukes are a fiction for anyone without a hugely sophisticated capability, so (4) if someone has a suitcase nuke, it'll be either very low yield or obvious where they got it or both, and (5) if such a device were used, the attacked country (especially if it were the US or Israel) would not wait around for proof. Ultimately, Iran has more to worry about from such a device than we do -- if one goes off anywhere outside their borders, they're probably doomed.

P.S.
It drives me insane when politicians score cheap political points by framing someone's disapproval of Star Wars like that person "just doesn't want to protect America". This is not a fucking game people.

Agreed.

uncle ebeneezer
04-10-2009, 03:26 PM
I thought TNC's post about this was pretty interesting:

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/04/hitchens_vs_mos_def.php

That said, even a non-rap fan like me has to appreciate Def's creativity. Two Words is pretty bumpin'!!

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/04/mos_def_in_even_better_context.php