Bill Maher's "New Rules" - MrKen's Discussion with The Hapless Hermit

Also, a Hapless Hermit 'Scoop'--

Bill O'Reilly babbles to The Hapless Hermit-Read the exclusive interview on the Hermit's blog!

Photo and quote curtesy of "The Hapless Hermit".

Recently, my good friend, "The Hapless Hermit"-- his blog appears on my "blogroll of excellence"-- posted a Bill Maher video from a recent (7/24) "Real Time with Bill Maher" show (HBO), and noted that he "didn't hate Bill Maher so much." His complete comment was--

The Hermit Doesn't Hate Bill Maher So Much

I don't agree with everything Bill Maher says but his show is one of the few news/opinion programs that doesn't totally insult the viewer. Here is a clip where he hits the nail on the head about our healthcare system.

--Link to the video and post is contained in the title of this post.

MrKen's comment posted on the Hermit's blog was---

Hello again, Hermit!

This is where I have a slight disagreement with you, Hermit. I enthusiastically agree with virtually everything Bill Maher says on his terrific HBO show 'Real Time'. IMO, he is a sharp & well prepared interviewer. The guests are usually extraordinarily erudite and articulate (with a few exceptions e.g., John Bolton, our former U.N. Ambassador), while the debates are always lively and interesting. And Bill Maher is a great comedian! Thx for the You Tube clip; I always look forward to Bill's educational and scathing "editorial" at the end of the "New Rules" segment of the show. This past Friday-8/7, he gave numerous examples of the stupidity of this nation (18% of Americans still think the Sun revolves around the Earth!)

I had the privilege of observing him debate the rabid lunatic Ann Coulter at Radio City some months ago. You probably read the post already on my blog, but for other interested folks, here is the link--

http://mrken45sworld.blogspot.com/search?q=Bill+Maher

Another of my favorite political satirists is Jon Stewart. His 'Daily Show' http://www.thedailyshow.com/ is a 'fake news' production that contains more actual news and well researched opinion than most of the putative "real news" programs on both the networks and cable.

**********************************

Mr. Hermit later clarified that he actually agreed with 99% of what Bill Maher said and watched his show every week...so, our worldviews appear to be quite similar.

***Warning to the faint-hearted---The Hermit's blog contains some "adult" material. Those of you who have problems with the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States are forewarned.

PAUL KRUGMAN: Authentic? Never Mind

Conservatives like Bill O'Reilly are fond of claiming that certain Democrats & liberals, such as John Edwards, are "inauthentic" because they are 'well-heeled' and live in a big house. Economist Paul Krugman gives us his perspective on this idea--

Excerpts from Paul Krugman's excellent Op-Ed piece in the Monday, June 11th edition of the New York Times follow:

Rich liberals who claim they’ll help America’s less fortunate are phonies.

Let me give you one example — a Democrat who said he’d work on behalf of workers and the poor. He even said he’d take on Big Business. But the truth is that while he was saying those things, he was living in a big house and had a pretty lavish summer home too. His favorite recreation, sailing, was incredibly elitist. And he didn’t talk like a regular guy.

Clearly, this politician wasn’t authentic. His name? Franklin Delano Roosevelt...

What does authenticity mean? Supposedly it means not pretending to be who you aren’t. But that definition doesn’t seem to fit the way the term is actually used in political reporting.

For example, the case of F.D.R. shows that there’s nothing inauthentic, in the normal sense of the word, about calling for higher taxes on the rich while being rich yourself. If anything, it’s to your credit if you advocate policies that will hurt your own financial position. But the news media seem to find it deeply disturbing that John Edwards talks about fighting poverty while living in a big house.

On the other hand, consider the case of Fred Thompson. He spent 18 years working as a highly paid lobbyist, wore well-tailored suits and drove a black Lincoln Continental. When he ran for the Senate, however, his campaign reinvented him as a good old boy: it leased a used red pickup truck for him to drive, dressed up in jeans and a work shirt, with a can of Red Man chewing tobacco on the front seat.

But Mr. Thompson’s strength, says Lanny Davis in The Hill, is that he’s “authentic.”...

And where do you start with Rudy Giuliani? We keep being told that he has credibility on national security, because he seemed so reassuring on 9/11. (Some firefighters have condemned his actual performance that day, saying that rescue efforts were uncoordinated and that firemen died because he provided them with faulty radios. “All he did was give information on the TV,” said a deputy fire chief whose son died at the World Trade Center. “He did nothing.” And the nation’s largest firefighters’ union has condemned his handling of recovery efforts in the weeks following 9/11.)

But he’s spent the years since then cashing in on terrorism...

...The point is that questions about a candidate shouldn’t be whether he or she is “authentic.” They should be about motives: whose interests would the candidate serve if elected? And think how much better shape the nation would be in if enough people had asked that question seven years ago.

Here is the link to the full article: http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/06/paul-krugman-authentic-never-mind.html

Highest Ranking Atheist in American Politics Breaks Long Standing Taboo

From the New York Sun (3/13/07):

'Rep. Fortney 'Pete' Stark Jr. of California is breaking long-standing taboo by declaring himself a nonbeliever. The 18-term Democrat made the unusual declaration after being queried by secular groups running a contest to find the highest ranking atheist in American politics.'

' "...When the Secular Coalition asked me to complete a survey on my religious beliefs, I indicated I an a Unitarian who does not believe in a supreme being," Mr. Stark, 75, said in a statement mailed to The New York Sun.'

'Atheist groups hailed Mr. Stark...as the first member of Congress to declare that he does not believe in God...'

'...Mr. Stark's declaration notwithstanding, the contest sponsored by the Secular Coalition of America hardly had politicians clamoring to embrace nonbelief. A spokesman for thr group...said...the only other politicians willing to identify themselves as nonbelievers were two school board members and one town meeting member. Aside from Mr. Stark, no state or federal official at any level agreed to be named as an atheist.'

'...A recent USA Today/Gallup Poll...found that 53% of Americans would not consider voting for an atheist presidential candidate. Homosexuals, the repeatedly divorced, Jews, Mormons, Catholics, and women all fared better..."People who don't believe in God are the most distrusted minority in the United States," said a spokesperson for the secular group...'

Mr Ken points out how "conservative/religious zealots" or "CRZ'ys"- like the consistently misinformed 'spinmeister' Bill O'Reilly and t college-dropout Sean Hannity grossly misrepresent the true state of affairs in the U.S., when claiming "secular-progressives" or "S-Ps" have taken over American society. As a spokesman for the American Humanist Association indicated in the Sun article,

"The meager results of the contest undercut claims that secularists have taken over American society. When people say there's a war on Christianity or there's a war on Christmas, they're talking through their hats...He (Mr. Edwords) regularly sees claims that atheists are dominating Congress, the bureacracy, public schools, universities, and the courts. The few of us that exist would be spread pretty thin if we're supposed to be overrepresented in so many places."

Mr Ken observes that most of the world's ills can be placed squarely on the provincialism, fanaticism and prejudices that superstition and its most virulent offshoot, religion, nourish. Logical thought and problem solving do not flourish in such an environment. Faith is the enemy of logic and science.

"...It is thought virtuous to have faith--that is to say, to have a conviction that can not be shaken by contrary evidence. Or, if contrary evidence might induce doubt, it is held that contrary evidence must be suppressed...The consequence is that the minds of the young are stunted and are filled with fanatical hostility both to those who have other fanaticisms and, even more virulently, to those who object to all fanaticisms. A habit of basing conclusions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which the world is suffering. But at present, in most countries education aims at preventing the growth of such a habit, and men who refuse to profess belief in some system of unfounded dogmas are not considered suitable as teachers of the young..."

from 'Why I Am Not a Christian' (1957), Bertrand Russell (bolding/coloring for emphasis by MrKen)

...and are not considered suitable to be in positions of political power, either, MrKen would add...

for more on Mr. Stark, follow this link... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Stark

CNN on Atheism

MrKen notes that the quality of CNN's 'discussions' and 'reporting' has become almost indistinguishable from what passes for 'journalism' on Fox News. Only the PBS stations, with programs like Jim Lehrer's 'The News Hour', maintain any standards of journalistic excellence - and, not all the time, either.

But on CNN & Fox, we have dopey Paula Zahn, college dropout Sean Hannity, and the dumb bully Bill O'Reilly; Philistines all who repeat their ugly prejudices over and over again to their simpleton audiences. And let's not forget Larry King & Greta Van Susteren, who spend untold hours & multiple programs on matters of great portent, such as 'who is the father of Anna Nicole's infant child'...

Recently, Paula Zahn held a roundtable 'discussion' on Atheism--which, in the 'fair and balanced' tradition of the MSM (Mainstream Media) did not include one atheist.

On Paula Zahn's segment on atheism

Some opinion that MrKen agrees with:

I learned so much from this clip:

• "Freedom of religion" does not mean "freedom from religion". I always seem to forget that Christianity is our state mandated religion. We need to enforce that one a little more strictly so people like me don't keep losing sight of the fact that the United States is a Christian nation.

• The atheist minority are actually the people that are intolerant and discriminatory. I mean, it's certainly true that we find countless historical examples of atheists discriminating and killing in the name of their beliefs, right?

• Europeans are less religious now and this situation has become a scourge upon their society. I can't imagine what bloody event could have ever caused people to lose their trust in religion. I mean, it's not like Christians in Europe ever killed Jews and Atheists for having different beliefs, right? I mean, something like that would never happen because Christians are always tolerant.

Posted by: Mark | February 7, 2007 2:45 AM

It is frightening to think of the size of the audience over which this mental midget holds sway. It really saddens me when I think about the people we give a voice to in our culture: Paris Hilton, Britney, Angelina, moron athletes, reality TV retards, and Paula Zahn. If Jesus can turn that gay preacher straight then these people should pray to receive some rational thinking skills.

I don’t mean to suck up to all of you but great comments!

Posted by: leftbanker | February 8, 2007 6:46 AM

"Do Atheists Bring Intolerance On Themselves? Good question CNN, by insisting that others keep their sabbath day holy (blue laws) do Christians bring it on themselves? By claiming their definition of life is the only definition, do Christians bring it on themselves? Do Christians bring it on themselves when they attempt to have their theology taught in science class. When they work to prevent stem-cell research, to interfere with a women's right to choose, to forbid people to choose to die with dignity, do Christians bring it on themselves? And yes by insisting that we honor their gods on our money and pledge allegiance to our nation under the thumb of their god do the Christians bring it on themselves? In short don't Christians bring it on themselves when they subvert our Constitution? When they confuse a nation with a majority of Christians with a Christian nation, tell me CNN, tell me Christian apologists, do they bring it on themselves?"

Comment curtesy of Onegoodmove.org

Link to full story & discussion http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/02/atheism_1.html