Raising Schadenfreude to a High Art:
Jonah Goldberg on the Blagojevich scandal. Very funny; read it all the way through. Thanks to InstaPundit for the pointer.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
In Search of Jefferson's Moose
Sources on the Second Amendment
My name is not "Goldberg", but I'm "douching" my "nozzle" with a snout full of...
SHADENFREUDE
At least we know that Goldberg believes corruption in politics is endemic. Wish he were so vocal during the past eight years, but you know, when the Republicans are in power, it's not such an issue.
Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Goldberg wrote a really funny article on the corruption of Ted Stevens, a Republican Senator.
Tu Quoque
But come on. After Pelosi's promises, how could anyone pass this up?
recall that dennis miller, for example, got mass props from the left when he was a leftie, but was instantly "unfunny" the second he turned.
people above failed not to dissapoint. was just waitin' for the "this is funny" type posts, and especially pleased the first post referred to him as a "douchenozzle". nothing like an hominem to drive the point home.
if you can completely disagree with somebody's political viewpoint, but still find the humor (i think michael moore can be hilarious. ditto any # of lefties), you can be reasonably confident you are not a close minded, boring ideologue...
otoh...
My opinion of EV, I'm sorry to say, has dropped because of this link.
Nonsense on fucking sky-high stilts. The guy isn't a comedian. He's a commentator. A particularly poor one at that; every time I read Orwell's line about insincerity being the enemy of plain language I think, inter alia, of Jonah. I don't have to acknowledge that he is funny any more than I have to enjoy Tina Fey (who I find tendentious and preachy).
As a more general matter, if someone can't find the humor in hilarious situations affecting or afflicting persons or organizations of your philosophical stripe, then your assessment of their zeal is likely spot-on. Folks that couldn't see the humor in Client #9, the Planned Parenthood gift certificates, Rush Limbaugh's perc-popping, or Dick Cheney's duck hunt, (or Jim Lindgren's slow descent into complete and utter old-man-at-a-bus-stop lunacy) then you're taking yourself too seriously. But the test is finding humor in situations, not in ideologues themselves. No one should be obligated to like someone that they find distasteful or (in my view of Jonah) untalented. After all, comedy is in the delivery.
I'm not sure about that. Sometimes it's a question of style. I think Jonah is, was, and always will be a douchenozzle at a minimum. I remember reading him on op-eds in the Boston Globe many, many years ago and thinking to myself, "My, what a douchenozzle!" Then that exericise in douchenozzlery, Liberal Fascism, came out and I thought to myself, "Jiminy cricket, that young whippersnapper Jonah has really made it- he's upgraded himself to doucheswaggery!"
This posting continues his overbearingly highhanded style, far from the swaggish heights that be attained in Liberal Fascism and bringing him down back to the pedestrian liberal-baiting of his old columns- mere nozzling. While some turns of phrase manage to obfuscate in a familiar Dr. Seuss-like manner that will be comforting to his real American readers, he never attains the height of the completely incomprehsibly humorous word salad that makrs his greatest works.
A nozzle before, a nozzle today. Hopefully not a bag tomorrow.
Perhaps you did not notice that the Barney Cam was itself a spoof. The URL on the video gives the game away. The OFFICIAL White House website is www.whitehouse.gov
"My opinion of EV, I'm sorry to say, has dropped because of this link."
Tragically, EV is likely untroubled by this revelation. But thanks for sharing.
I was also wondering if Einverfr could let us know which member of the Norse Pantheon is the God of Conventional Wisdom, so we can rename Loki. I nominate Sarcastro for the new Loki.
Wonder if the MSM will ever come to realize that when they pick sides and fail to do their job, it is not only bad for the country (about which I doubt they care) but bad for the One they pick. They should have been all over Chicago and Illinois, but they preferred Alaska and Arizona. Unfortunately, Obama is going to be the one who suffers from not having all this out long before the election. The last thing he or the country needs is for him to go into the White House with a scandal hanging over his head.
He promised transparency. He has not proved himself very transparent thus far in this scandal nor decisive. What does it take for politicians to learn that it is rarely the deed that skewers them, but the cover up? Let us hope there is not much to cover up, but Obama's behavior thus far makes one wonder.
I was skeptical about his Chicago/Illinois picks for the White House. Chicago politics is just too dirty for that many people to come out clean. I hope Obama is one of them who is clean. Then, there are his ties to Resko.
Well, maybe our children need to learn that idols are human and have clay feet. They may get their first lesson soon.
I hope he is innocent and I really hope his handling of this crisis isn't representative of how he is going to deal with everything that is tough that comes his way in the days to come. Time will tell.
Nothing tragic about it. I didn't expect him to be concerned. But you're quite welcome regardless.
Goldberg wrote a serious historical book
Oh right. You mean the one where he claims Mussolini wasn't a fascist?
http://www.dadinchief.com/
I thought that sh*t with the dog was hilarious! Goldberg, not so much. I mean, Blago's plight itself is pretty damn funny. The guy was already feeling heat for corruption, and instead of laying low and hoping for it to blow over, he instead tried to milk his financial opportunity for all it was worth. And Jackson, Jr. looks like a chump.
But I didn't think Goldberg really pulled the humor out of the situation. I mean, there's even one part of the transcript where Blago tells someone he's trying to do some dirty deed with not to talk about the stuff on the phone. Hello! No mention of this by Goldberg. Instead of trying to be funny, he should have just reported the facts. The comedy speaks for itself.
In fact, I found myself wishing Goldberg could give my local paper's regular conservative columnist lessons on humor. (Said columnist, Mr. Kevin Ferris, is sadly ignorant of the basic principle of parody - take something that is *actually true* of your opponent, and exaggerate it. Having a parody Obama-supporter encourage everybody to refer to Obama as "The One" on the grounds that it's more respectful fails for reasons that should be obvious.)
Setting the record straight: for anyone interested, do not be led astray by byomtov. The very first chapter of Jonah's book is entitled... "Mussolini: The Father of Fascism."
Why byomtov has to lie about Jonah's book, I will leave to your imaginations.
Reminds me of the time I had to explain to my 5 year old niece that just because something is on television doesn't mean it's true.
see: schadenfreude! :p
Anyway, I must admit that Goldberg can be a funny guy. Not half as funny as P. J. O'Rourke, but that's a high bar. (Part of that, but only part, is that P. J. knows not to take himself seriously. Goldberg seems to think he's a thinker. Now *that's* funny.) Dennis Miller was never funny. He looks and sounds like he should be funny, so if you don't listen to the words coming out of his mouth, you might be fooled. (I presume that no one who reads TVC is impressed by his Freshman Survey of World Civ references.) Bob Dole is funny. McCain is hilarious; if you didn't know that, find him at the Al Smith dinner on U-Tube. Limbaugh is too much of a blowhard to be funny. Coulter's shtick is to say outrageous things to show off how outrageous she can be; this isn't that different from Sarah Silverman's act, expect that Coulter confuses outrageous with psychotic. (Coulter also thinks she's a thinker. If her persona weren't so rancid, that might be funny too.) William F. Buckley could be funny, in a dry sort of way. I suspect that Palin has a nice touch with a dirty joke, but we'll never see that in public.
Now, that's comedy gold.
I think there's just more of tendency among ideologues to take themselves too seriously, whether or not the humor they don't likes comes from an opponent.
I've long thought, and your post is an example, that one test of someone trying to score a partisan point is that he defines the "other side" by reference to its most objectionable fringe. "Mass props from the left?" "Instantly unfunny [to the left]"? Nothing broad about that brush.
As long as we're taking straw polls, here are my votes:
Goldberg - unfunny douchenozzle.
Coulter - very funny but reprehensible.
P.J. O'Rourke - so funny, insightful and not full of himself that he often persuades me. (I doubt the other two persuade anyone outside the choir. But I also doubt they care.)
the miller analysis is spot on. i spend time on liberal blogs (far left, like democraticunderground) and he is a great example.
and of course, i am referring to the most objectionable fringe. that's who the worst ideologues ARE.
Did Jonah Goldberg know that?
And Dennis Miller was never, ever funny, not even for second. He is anti-funny. I will defend this point to the death.
I take your word for it. I'll just point out then that "from the left" implies something much broader.
I'm convinced.
Your take on Steyn? Carlin?
Goldberg's best, I'd say, is his deconstruction of the political movement to protect ANWR.
that made the article for me
Well, I'm a fan of self-effacing, so I liked this (though he lost the chance to win me over big time by omitting a permutation in that first paragraph that ended "... hates Levin"). His usual polemics, not so much.
As NRO goes generally, I'm in the Frum camp, which means most of the rest is a little noisy for me. I disagree with just about everything he says yet like Ramesh Ponnuru.
Carlin... George?
"Carlin... George?"
Yeah, I was trying to think of leftish equivalents to O'Rourke and his progeny. I'm a Stewart fan from all the way back when he used to make fun of himself for a living (and MTV was watchable*), but I don't think of him as being in the same category. Franken is just an all-around sad joke of a man.
So suggestions there would be welcome. Maybe Silverman fits and the format difference throws me. Perhaps powerlessness begets comic genius, and culturally Goldberg and his ilk have been powerless for a long time.
* - not that it should be for 39-year-olds, just that back in the day they had goals beyond unwatchability.
"Perhaps Jonah can apply as a writer for the Daily Show? With knee-slapping humor like that, I'm sure the young'uns will lap it up."
Good point. Jonah would do well to study this excruciating culture clash and ask himself what went wrong.
"Part of that, but only part, is that P. J. knows not to take himself seriously. Goldberg seems to think he's a thinker. Now *that's* funny."
The best thinkers don't take themselves, or anything for that matter, too seriously. I'd contend that Mencken was one of the top thinkers of the 20th Century, and Einstein's humor was famous.
Goldberg is a thinker, and a good one. He could use some work on the social skills, book titling, and enemy picking, but nobody's perfect.
what went wrong was very disingenuous editing by the daily show, which he has addressed both @ NRO and elsewhere.
George Carlin started feeling dated to me before the ink was dry on Nixon's resignation.
Sadly, I don't think there's a left equivalent to P.J. I love reading Chris Kelly, but it's a guilty pleasure since he's of the Ann Coulter-Michael Moore slash and burn school (though Kelly's funnier than both).
I object to the Michael Moore/Sasha Baron Cohen fool-people-into-making-themselves-look-like-idiots genre, and I've boycotted everything Moore did after Roger and Me. That said, I loved Borat despite my objections, and I'm somewhat less offended when Cohen entraps politicians as Ali G. Some of it's pretty funny, though not really all that political. I think it also shows, further to whit's point, which victims have a sense of humor about themselves. Pat Buchanan, for example, came off very well on Ali G.
There's an obscure voice artist, Jim Ward, who's on Stephanie Miller's liberal talk radio show (she's the daughter of Barry Goldwater's '64 running mate). He's a very funny mad-genius type, and a full-fledged Truther. I've never heard the show live, but his segments are all free podcasts at I-Tunes (the Stephanie Miller Show "Right Wing News," "Standup News" and "Tinsel Town" segments are pretty much all Jim Ward).
And speaking of voice artists, Harry Shearer's Le Show
has had a lot of great, funny political satire and commentary over the years, and occasionally still does. But it's more political than humor, and at an hour a show it's like shopping at a flea market -- major investment of time for uncertain rewards, though occasionally some treasures.
For some reason, my brother, who's slightly to the right of DangerMouse, likes left-wing comic Lewis Black, who I find about as appealing as the notion of plunging knitting needles into my ears.
There are plenty of comedians (stand up, radio, tv, movies) I like who happen to be left, but I don't think of as political comics. I love Tina Fey, who Sarah Palin notwithstanding, is essentially non-political. I like Stephen Colbert, but his political stuff least. (Strangers With Candy was one my favorite TV shows of all time.) Sarah Silverman, same. Ricky Gervais is a genius, and his stand up includes political (he's solidly in the Euro-secular-left axis you'd expect). But again, for the most part, not really political.
Ken Levine is reliably funny, even though the TV shows he wrote, Mash, Cheers, Frazier... are all stale. Having been a big-time TV writer and a medium-time play-by-play radio announcer (Rangers, Mariners, Orioles(?)) he has a wealth of anecdotes. The last post I read (which I'd only give a maybe a 3 (out of 10) for Ken) responding to Plaxico Burris' pursuit of a Darwin Award, was on other stupid sports injuries. It's not really funny enough to link to, but I guess the sports angle makes it worthwhile.
But Ken's not political either, though he's obviously left (it just leaks out sometimes).
(Actually, the politician who I think had the best sense of humor, for which he got way too little credit, was Bob Dole. And just to avoid any confusion, the humor I have in mind from Biden is inadvertent.)
It's a shame he's never published any of that stuff. Maybe it doesn't sell as well as name-calling and making stupid debating points.
Thanks for the list. Maybe they all are political, but its just that they won (and I don't mean just Obama), and so they don't feel compelled to talk about it as much, or when they do, its like the old-time southern racist who was oblivious to how much his culture was utterly dominant as he played the victim: unfunny and a little grating.
"what went wrong was very disingenuous editing by the daily show, which he has addressed both @ NRO and elsewhere."
That he was unaware that this would happen despite titling his book in a way that was a direct insult to the host is not the Daily Show's fault. Maybe Stewart's Assholishness would have been less offensive.
Similar situation to the Palin interviews. Embarrassing obliviousness.
LM,
"though Kelly's funnier than both"
This is the guy I really miss.
So David, what's your opinion on rape victims who wear short skirts? Obviously asking for it?
Has it ever occurred to you that if the result was as predictable as you claim it was, that Goldberg was hoping for some massive asshattery on Stewart's part that could be publicized? After all, blatant manipulation like that tends to turn off everyone except those whose opinions might as well be frozen in carbonite.
spare me. so what you are saying is that he should have expected to be treated unfairly and his discussion edited disingenuously. that's absurd.
plenty of lefties appear on rightwing shows and expect to be treated fairly. and they are. i recall the AMAZEMENT at democraticunderground when barack obama was treated fairly by oreilly, for instance.
i watch the daily show on occasion. stewart is very funny. he gained a LOT of cred with me long ago when he appeared on crossfire, and tore them a new one. he lost most of it due to the way he treated goldberg. i have no problem with him criticizing goldberg and making light of him. that's stewart's schtick. but editing out goldberg's best responses and editing so as to create a false impression of what goldberg said is blatantly dishonest.
"liberal fascism" really is a litmus test. it is amazing how many liberals/lefties simply cannot discuss it without instantly devolving into attacks on the author and general ad hominem crap. it turns off the logic button and engages the emotion button. that, suggests to me, that it hits a little too close to home for those on the left. it IS threatening, and there is some truth to it. that's what makes it threatening.
it was also clear from stewart's interview that he hadn't read it, or probably even hadn't skimmed it before the interview which (imo) is simply inexcusable. stewart's dishonesty aside, liberal fascism has sold like gangbusters and whatever you say about its thesis - it MATTERs. ideologues continue to dismiss it WITHOUT reading it, at their peril.
also, his book was not a "direct insult" to the host.
titling a book "rush limbaugh is a big fat idiot" is a direct insult.
goldberg's title SHOULDN'T be any more offensive to liberals than moore's "stupid white men" or any # of other leftist screeds. some people can dish it out, but they can't take it.
Are you saying "stupid white men" isn't an offensive title?
"Has it ever occurred to you that if the result was as predictable as you claim it was, that Goldberg was hoping for some massive asshattery on Stewart's part that could be publicized? After all, blatant manipulation like that tends to turn off everyone except those whose opinions might as well be frozen in carbonite."
If so, how'd that work out for Jonah? Stewart?
Stewart holds the cultural cards. You either recruit him to your own side (hint: don't call liberals fascist. hint #2: they're not real thrilled with their pushy Leftist buddies either - call them the fascists), or figure out a way to beat him at his own game. What you don't do is walk into a lion's den taunting the lion, expecting the lion to give you a big hug.
The pluralism and free-thinking that characterize the liberal tradition (of which Jonah himself is a part, and which goes back to Socrates) are the diametric opposite of monism, a philosophy ultimately and inevitably illiberal and regressive in practice, which is why ever-evolving nature abhors a monopoly nearly as much as she does a vacuum.
Where he goes off track is in underestimating the power of his own liberal tradition and overestimating the extent to which Wells and his fellow travelers succeeded in rebranding liberalism in the early 20th Century.
If the Reagan revolution did nothing else, it put the lie to that travesty, thanks to liberals like Goldberg's dad who sided with the "right", which is in reality little more than a collection of various anti-lefts. Any potential American right never got on the boat in the first place.
The liberals of the rising generation do so not out of any love for grand corporatist social engineering but out of a libertarian distaste for the pervasive lockdown/zero tolerance atmosphere in their often prison-like schools. Hence their anger at being labeled fascist when they consider themselves liberals exactly to combat perceived fascism in their everyday lives. I'm unconvinced that they are mistaken in doing so.
A suggested definition of fascism that I believe fits: military means toward non-military ends. See: War on Poverty, see also: War on Drugs.
i am saying it's no more rational to call it a "direct insult" to stewart (who is white), then to call "liberal fascism" a "direct insult" to stewart (assuming stewart is a liberal, which i believe was implied by the OP who claimed it was an insult to stewart, or else his claim would make no sense).
"liberal fascism" does not mean "all liberals are fascists" any more than "stupid white men" means "all white men are stupid".
contrast with, for example, "rush limbaugh is a big fat idiot" which clearly is a "direct insult".
do you now grok the distinction?
many on the left routinely refer to almost anything associated iwth the right as being fascist. as goldberg notes in his book, a character on the west wing refers to SCHOOL CHOICE as "fascist" which is a perfect example of the ridiculous extremes the left will go to redefine "fascist" as equated to "that which i disagree with politically". school choice is about as UNfascist as you could possibly get.
thus, when goldberg DARES to claim that fascism (real fascism, not fascism as defined by "that which i disagree with politically) has liberal (and especially... progressive) roots, the left gets apoplectic.
i could cut the irony with a ladle.
Tu quoque ain't gonna get 'er done.
Stewart took it as an insult. Stewart has more power than Jonah. Therefore it would behoove Jonah to play by his rules or deal with the consequences.
Left does not equal liberal. That is unless the anti-left keeps getting them confused, pissing off liberals and chasing them into the left's waiting embrace.
Fascism does indeed have liberal roots - the Roman Republic which used the fasces as its symbol. It ceased being liberal when that republic was betrayed by the cult of the Emperor, leading to the ensuing militarization and thus long stagnation and ultimate collapse of the Empire.
Given the relative popularity of our military vis-a-vis our elected representatives, where is a good liberal to imagine that the threat to our own liberty lies?
I should just shut up since DW already made a better point than the one I had in mind.
But I won't.
No, it's less rational. Not because either title is objectively offensive, but because each title is intended to provoke a particular group. Yes, Stewart's both white and liberal (like yours truly), but Goldberg's trying to offend him and Moore isn't. Stewart doesn't have to read past the blurb of either book to know that. In fact, just knowing the authors and the titles would probably do. Likewise, Moore's white and Larry Elder isn't, but Moore could reasonably expect a hostile reception to promoting "stupid white men" on Elder's show. (BTW, Larry's the only right-wing jock I enjoy other than for the Schadenfreude.)
As for "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot," do you think Rush is more bothered by what's objectively insulting about it or that it's an intentional public attack on him by someone he's not crazy about to begin with? I'd guess the latter.
Liberal White Man out.
not surprising.
the point is that regardless of who you are trying to provoke, it is stewart who lost the fight because he devolved to a level of dishonesty. it's kind of like when people say that the terrorists win if we let them change us so that we betray our values.
well stewart betrayed his values - honesty, etc. that were what caused me to respect him in the first place (his performance on crossfire, etc. )
stewart's pretty clearly biased on the left, but he's also pretty fair (those are not mutually exclusive) and skewers both sides.
stewart couldn't deal with the cognitive dissonance (liberals and fascism? in the same sentence? impossible) AND he clearly couldn't even get past the title to read the book, such that he had NO idea what he was talking about in regards to portraying what jonah wrote. it's very clear in the interview. this is in direct contrast to most of his other interviews, where he's actually relatively wonkish.
the fact that stewart got so EMOTIONALLY involved essentially proved jonah's point.
stewart had to disingenuously edit to TRY to make jonah look bad. thus, he lost.
the fact that stewart took it as an insult supports my point. stewart acted small and petty.
more importantly, in regards to stewart's "power".
sure, stewart has more power amongst his fellow travelers, and on TV
let's talk book sales. aren't books more "serious" and "important" (lol)?
mosey on over to amazon.com
goldberg's book is #377 out of all books on amazon.
stewarts? i'll give you a hint. it's MUCH Lower ! :)
stewart acted like the very stereotype he so likes to skewer - a no-nothing big on talking points, bluster, but devoid of facts. he's criticizing something he HASN'T EVEN READ. stewart sounded like a creationist arguing against evolutionary theories he doesn't even understand.
again, it's a perfect example.
If you believe Stewart "lost," then of course you'd be focused on where he went wrong, not where Goldberg did. You saw it as a contest that vindicated Goldberg's thesis at the expense of Stewart's credibility, and since you previously granted Stewart some credibility, this changed your assessment. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I doubt that the "whit demographic" described by those facts accounts for a huge share of Stewart's audience. So, not that your opinion means less than anyone else's, but the broader analysis is at least more complicated than merely who won the whit vote.
I assume Goldberg's main objective for going on Stewart's show was to sell books, and Stewart's to entertain his audience. By that measure they probably both did well. Whether either of them cares very much about convincing anyone outside his established constituency is, I'd guess, questionable. But of the two, partly for the reasons DW explained, I'd argue Goldberg should care more and be trying harder. (He does after all consider himself a player in the forum of ideas, while Stewart disclaims legitimacy beyond being entertaining.) Also for the reasons DW explained, and for those I explained too, in this instance Goldberg burned that bridge before he got to it.
No, I do it much too often to ever be surprised. But I'm not sure you know me well enough to draw that conclusion. Care to elaborate?
stewart's audience is primarily not libertarian-rightwingers, such as myself. with his fellow leftists, he can do no wrong as long as he is funny and skewers the right. with people like me, he loses us when he is blatantly dishonest, and just plain dumb, as he was with goldberg.
stewart lost by lowering himself to the level of an ignorant blowhard, which i had frankly NEVER seen him do in an interview before.
if that was truly the pas de deux they were aiming for, they succeeded. based on goldberg's subsequent posts at NRO etc. it was clearly not goldberg's intent. goldberg wanted a FAIR hearing, which stewart has given any # of other authors, even those he might not agree with politically.
i do not accept for a second this burn the bridge before he got to it stuff. if stewart is truly too immature to actually look at the content of a book called "liberal fascism" vs. dismissing it outright WITHOUT understanding, then that's stewart's fault NOT goldberg's.
there is this belief that because goldberg dared title his book thusly, that he shouldn't expect to be treated honestly by a liberal (presuming stewart is one).
I think that's absurd, and frankly paternalistic towards liberals.
a truly open minded liberal who is more concerned with truth than ego would address the book on its merits or lack thereof, not act as stewart did.
i think stewarts disclaim of legitimacy is similar to fox's claim of 'fair and balanced'. they say it to pique the other side, but fox knows they are biased to the right, just as stewart knows a fair %age of people use him as an important news source. there's been more than a share of commentary on that phenomenon.
stewart is very very funny. he is very good at his job. but political comedy is funny when there is a vein of truth to it, and stewart knows that, just as PJ does.
I, for one, can understand that a left-leaning American Jew might not want to give him a pass on that.
"Goldberg's trying to offend him"
I don't believe that to be true, but Stewart's (and by extension that of the great ranks of the unconverted he could have preached to) misreading should have been easily anticipated. That Jonah failed to do so I attribute to his naive idealization of the the liberal, and particularly the liberal academic, commitment to the free exchange of ideas and critical thinking.
Liberals are people too, and should be dealt with accordingly.
You make many good points, most of which I don't disagree with. I just think you may be missing the bigger picture.
"it is stewart who lost the fight"
I'd think any good Jew could tell you that the weak invariably lose when there is a fight at all. Jonah was the weak horse here.
"stewart's audience is primarily not libertarian-rightwingers, such as myself. with his fellow leftists, he can do no wrong as long as he is funny and skewers the right."
Stewart is more libertarian/skeptic than left. That's the opportunity you, and Jonah's title, miss.
lol. liberals who don't want to be known as liberals often CLAIM to be libertarian. bill maher does the same. (check his position out on gun control for a good laugh).
like i said, i'm not assuming ANY political bias to stewart himself. the op did that, when he said that "liberal fascism" was a direct attack ON stewart, that presupposes he is liberal. i was merely carrying that forward. for all i know he is a john bircher. who knows what his ACTUAL views are? it's clear his show has a left bias, but is pretty good at taking those on the left to task as well.
if somebody could show me where stewart has come out against gun control, for school vouchers, etc. etc. i might concede he's libertarian. again, since he (allegedly according to others here) took liberal fascism, as a personal insult, it stands to reason that he is a liberal.
the issue is not jonah... or stewart. it's the IDEAS in liberal fascism. since stewart failed to address them honestly, was clearly unfamiliar with the book, the book is a massive bestseller, and stewart resorted to dishonest editing to try to misrepresent jonah, i would say that stewart was the weak horse.
i say that as a 'good jew', since that apparently holds weight with you :)
"i say that as a 'good jew', since that apparently holds weight with you :)"
Indeed it does. We owe a great part of what we call progress to Jews, good and otherwise.
"the issue is not jonah... or stewart."
Check the subject of the thread. Also, learn the difference between liberal and left. Please. You're killing us.
Seems you don't really disagree with anything in my first paragraph.
Goldberg wanting, expecting and even counting on a fair hearing isn't inconsistent with his main purpose being to sell books. Maybe he'd have skipped the appearance entirely had he known what was in store, but that's separate from what he was principally there to accomplish. And the answer to that is, he was on a book tour.
Aren't you mixing descriptions with norms?
Ideally everyone would treat everyone honestly, but again you're substituting what should be for what's foreseeable. You're a cop. What would you say to someone who called the police station complaining that he left his wallet on a bus, and by the time the bus pulled into the depot the wallet was gone?
I wouldn't feel patronized if someone who's done something widely perceived as antagonistic toward me is concerned that I may respond in kind.
I hope you're not under the impression that I'm defending what Stewart did.
If people use Coke bottles to hammer nails, should Coca-Cola be responsible for the consequences? Even if they put a warning on the bottle, "This is not a hammer, you dummy"? Stewart's a comedian who's fallen into a great gig for which he's well suited. That gig consists of giving his usually common sense, usually liberal-independent, usually funny take on news events, which, by the way, is what a lot of comedians do. But that doesn't make him particularly deep, much less even minimally qualified to be a news analyst. That he's frank enough to acknowledge this, and to insist on it when some people try to hold him responsible for being what he's clearly not, is to his credit. As for the Fox News analogy, you've lost me. One is a news organization, the other a program on a comedy network.
News flash: Stewart has feet of clay. So do I. Who doesn't? He f'd up. There's nothing about it I would defend. Where you and I disagree is at your shock that it could happen, and especially that it did happen in this instance.
FWIW, I think PJ is smarter and funnier, yet more serious than Stewart in a way that, yes, I'd be shocked if he interviewed an author without reading the book. Would that conservatives had a younger PJ to compete with Stewart for the minds of kids. It might not be so great for my ideological agenda, but it would be a lot better for the country than most of what passes for public discourse on radio, TV and the intertubes.
Usually, he delivers.
Here's why I disagree. The title is about the least accidental part of a book. It's agonized and fought over by authors and editors and often the final word, marketing departments. It's supposed to be provocative, and to much of the targeted market for a book like Liberal Fascism, that means sharp and pointed right at the perceived enemy. Do you doubt this title probably sold lots of copies irrespective of what's inside?
That doesn't mean it was Goldberg's idea, or that he even liked it. I have no clue what part he played or how he feels about it. But he knew what it was meant to do, and he at least acquiesced in it. Which to me equals an intention to offend. I heard Jimmy Carter talking about Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, and though he never admitted it was supposed to offend anyone, he did say that, consistent with custom, it was designed to stir interest (and presumably sales) by being more provocative, and not entirely representative of the actual thrust of the book.
Goldberg's no naif, and it may be just business, but you sleep in the bed you make.
That said, in a certain respect I wouldn't be surprised if you're right. Having seen and heard him on TV and radio, like many controversial author/commentators he's a lot nicer in person than in print. The "douchenozzle" Goldberg is only the writer. The flesh and bones Goldberg is perfectly collegial. So I could see him expecting to be received as the courteous version of himself that he knew was going to show up. Unfortunately, the reputation that precedes him on the left is mostly formed by his NR and NRO work, which many would find of a piece with the book title.
... by which I assume you mean libertarians, and yeah, OK, I guess they should be treated like people too. At least until we've had time to nail down the Caliphate.
"Liberals are people too, and should be dealt with accordingly.
... by which I assume you mean libertarians, and yeah, OK, I guess they should be treated like people too. At least until we've had time to nail down the Caliphate."
No, in my twisted universe, libertarian is a subset of liberal. When I said that, I was referring to Stewart and other liberals Jonah naively assumed would engage his arguments on the up and up because that's what liberals do. Liberals are people. When they perceive themselves to have been insulted, they do not react with perfectly disinterested equanimity.
Goldberg was in love with the Wells quote - the title was very much his. He thought he could talk his way out of it, but evidently didn't foresee how many would refuse to listen. He could write a Coulter book in his sleep - he hoped, rightly, for something more, and, sans title, I think he made a helluva first stab. Hopefully he learns from his mistakes.
The only reason O'Rourke and Stewart aren't on the same side, to the extent that they're not, is that if all the liberals were on the same side, we've never survive losing an election. But usually there's a tacit understanding among those stuck on opposites sides of the fence. Jonah was perceived, not entirely innocently, to have abrogated it.
i find it silly that there is this assumption that stewart as a liberal (although some here think he is a libertarian. i have no idea either way) should naturally be offended by this title.
if a liberal had written a book called "conservative fascism" would a conservative host have a reason to feel equally offended? i would argue no.
the reason why it seems so obvious to you that a liberal should be offended is that it's been such a written in stone axiom amongst the left that fascism IS a conservative ideology and for so long, that "conservative fascism" would just seem redundant. but god forbid a book be titled "liberal fascism". that upsets the holy order. it triggers cognitive dissonance, defensiveness and complete asshattery on the part of (some) liberals who won't simply address the arguments.
of course i also don't see any douchenozzlery in goldberg's writings in general, which also seems to be an accepted principle amongst many here.
goldberg wrote a book that upset a sacred cow assumption of the left (and one they have been bashing the right with for decades) - fascism = anything we don't agree with, therefore ... conservative stuff.
"i find it silly that there is this assumption that stewart as a liberal (although some here think he is a libertarian. i have no idea either way) should naturally be offended by this title."
It's neither normative nor natural, just easily anticipated by those who know many liberals. Both liberals and the left in some sense define themselves in opposition to fascism, but in different ways. Liberals accurately; the Left, as Jonah displays, inaccurately.
Jonah missed a chance to accentuate that difference - a chance not missed by, for instance, Reagan, whose rhetoric time and again sounded liberal themes in excoriating the Left.
Obama shows a similar talent for sounding conservative themes, though his ends are as yet unapparent.
"if a liberal had written a book called "conservative fascism" would a conservative host have a reason to feel equally offended? i would argue no."
Please. It was Jonah's (justified) offense at this very thing that originally spurred the book. He then masterfully marshaled the evidence that fascism has more kinship with the Left than American-style conservatism, then blew the whole thing by throwing his book at liberals instead with the inane title.
Own goal.
his book is a huge success.
his book sales blew away numerous other political books, many written by people much more famous than him.
amazon has it ranked as the #1 history book of 2008 iirc.
the person who blew it was stewart
Depends on what the meaning of "it" is.
What I was referring to was inflammatory partisan rabble-rousing, of which he's done his share. That said, I agree "douchenozzlery" is not only inappropriate, but inaccurate. I regret using it.
"That said, I agree "douchenozzlery" is not only inappropriate, but inaccurate. I regret using it."
Whoa, we're allowed to be self-reflective on the interwebs? Who knew?
Like a certain poster here that I know all too well*, ahem, Jonah can be a bit too enamored with his own ability to turn a phrase. To some this counts as douchenozzlery. I can't fault them too harshly.
* - his name sounds uncomfortably similar to "David Welker", who really is a douchenozzle. Third person references to oneself are also annoying.
You're right that that was over the top. I still contend that he aspired to preach to more than the choir, and that the altar call was ultimately disappointing.
For some actual douchenozzelry, check the browbeating at the end of this clip.
yes. you can even admit you are wrong. i have done so TWICE this year. :)
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.