Blog Archives
Real Racism with Bill Maher
It’s dusk in the city as two men pass on the street. Warily, they look at one other, for neither trusts the other’s intentions. Their inner defenses are raised. This is how they’re conditioned to react. As the distance between them increases, a secret, silent sense of relief enters their minds. One man is Black, the other, White.
…And across America, those who profit from racial tension know they’ve done their job.
A booming industry with a powerful lobby, and significant political influence. An economic juggernaut which manipulates fiscal policy on both a state, and national level and sanctions leaders. They have an invisible commodity that is as real as a virus, yet warrants much more trepidation. The strip mining machinery of the racism business is carving a chasm through the American socio/political landscape.
As I spend a lot of time and effort denouncing the far right when I believe their motives to be less than honorable, I feel compelled to react in kind when I see the same fecklessness exhibited by the left. Liberals market themselves as “minority friendly” because it is within those polling number that they garner political leverage. It is simply part of the liberal platform to fan the flames of racism, for much of their voting base will react passionately whenever they are made to feel victimized. In order to create such fervor, liberals who allege special mind reading abilities will look into people’s souls, interpret their dialogue, and level accusations of racism whenever it accords political advantage. So liberals remain vigilant to the task… even when they have to manufacture the racism themselves… and even when it’s not true.
Enter Bill Maher, who is taking ethnic profiteering to irresponsible new lows. Combining trite banalities with capricious racial quips, Maher uses his HBO venue to profit from a racial divide that he significantly contributes to. Oscillating between pompous indignation, and a cavalier disregard for facts, Maher will affirm any social stance which will support his racially motivated suppositions. The “Real Time with Bill Maher” marketing formula is simple… Republicans are the party of racist old white folks, and progressive liberals are hip, cool intellectuals. His brand is reliant on race-baiting.
While taking the GOP to task for their verbal and legislative inconsistencies is admirable to those who are pre-disposed to accept leftist propaganda; it is Maher’s lack of integrity where it concerns applying similar scrutiny to “people of color” that defines his true nature. Never one to miss an opportunity to verbally thrash a conservative when they exhibit an irrational perspective, Maher manages to excuse whatever inane drivel pours from the biased pie-holes of liberals, especially when they are black.
As was the case this past week when “Real Time” guest Rep. Jack Kingston declared that he was (among other things) an evolution denier. While lambasting Kingston over his refusal to accept volumes of factual scientific evidence in favor of a biblical, creationist perspective; the tone of the conversation changed dramatically (and then abruptly ended) when Maher compatriot D.L. Hughley admitted that he, too, did not believe the validity evolutionary fossil and DNA evidence. Suddenly, it was time for a subject change, for Maher won’t argue with a black guy, unless he’s a traitor… er… Republican.
Even Maher’s stance on gun control is ignominiously framed with racial overtones. In the weeks after the Tucson shootings, Maher has taken the position of blaming gun violence across America on the Republican Party, and their relationship with the NRA. However the prior week on Real Time –during one of his rants unilaterally equating gun owners with ignorant bible thumpers — Maher had the audacity to do so with his good friend and founder of Def Jam records, Russell Simmons sitting next to him. Although Maher did sheepishly mention that everyone Simmons made money from owns a gun, he failed to hold Simmons accountable for founding a “Hip-Hop” culture predicated on gun violence, and then ruthlessly profiting from it. Still both Simmons and Maher attributed urban gun violence to wealthy, white republicans, and the gun lobby.
When Simmons — who now feigns respectability by donning sweater vests –condescendingly denounced the 2nd amendment by claiming “We should amend it” and that “There’s no reason for anyone to have a gun”… He was met with another panelists astute observation that the strictest gun laws occur in the very inner cities where young black people are routinely getting killed… and that the weapons in question are in fact, illegal… and as a result that no amount of legislation would have affected any of these urban shootings. Still, both Maher and Simmons refused to acknowledge the ” Hip-Hop” culture as having any negative impact on the black community at all. Apparently, the Biggie and Tupac murders were merely a result of Republican influence, and not the culture they embraced.
What makes this hypocrisy offensive to anyone with the slightest sensibility, is that to Bill Maher’s left sat a man who has presided over an industry which romanticizes gun violence and rationalizes — if not excuses — murder to obtain wealth… and Maher still managed to ignore the painfully obvious truth in order to maintain the racial divide he profits from. But Maher is an expert on tapping into the inherent dishonesty of self-loathing, guilt ridden Caucasians that feeds the racism beast in the first place. Bigotry is burgeoned by the anxiety that occurs when the rational are forbidden to proclaim that the King has no clothes. Playing the race card only works because — within the contemporary climate of political correctness — social and political leverage are acquired despite the truth, not because of it.
Recently, Bill Maher insightfully said something to the effect of “You can’t speak the truth these days without someone trying to Kill you…or threatening to kill you”. Well, the truth is, the most pronounced example of contemporary racism exists between liberals, and the minorities they claim to represent. When the left feels that they “own” their constituents sensibilities, liberals make the determination over how black people should think or feel …all the while profiting from the heightened emotions they encourage. That relationship is in itself, condescending… and implies an intellectual disparity. That relationship is in itself, racist.
Despite what one might think by reading this, I happen to like Bill Maher, and his TV show. I think he’s funny and smart, and as only the invisible man in the sky knows, he and I agree on religion. But where it concerns the issue of race, Maher abandons actuality. There is a distinctive pattern of him capitulating to our lowest social denominator so as to placate community on which he financially relies. Whether it be pacifying Mos Def’s uninformed, pedestrian understanding of Middle Eastern Totalitarianism, or sucking up to Al Sharpton by referring to himself as “One of the good ones”… ugh… or even indulging Russell Simmons vapid, egocentric self-help book when he normally (and justifiably) trashes such predatory garbage… Maher’s idealistic inconsistency is clearly defined as black and white… literally. It has, to the detriment of his credibility degenerated to the point where concerns craving the attention of black phallus, Lisa Lampinelli will have to get in line behind Bill Maher.
The Public Discourse… A case against censorship, and a call for integrity.
It is human nature to gravitate towards venues which advocate our predispositions.
As Americans cultivate their views about morality, religion, politics and the social sciences, it becomes incumbent on the intellectually ill-equipped to seek out media that will support their uninformed suppositions. All but few Americans have relegated themselves to reciting inane platitudes, and regurgitating other people’s insipid blather so as to affirm an intellect they do not possess. As the sensibly susceptible align themselves with one political party or the other — not to mention the accompanying cable news networks — they’ll eventually learn “a few things about a few things”. And in their severely limited scopes they’ll feel as if they now have the solutions to the Nation’s problems locked away in their tragically under-developed frontal lobes. The payoff for this, is a simple rationalization that their collective bias’ is actually socially discerning politics, and feigned relevancy.
So we Americans venture forth into the intellectual abyss, clinging to misrepresentations which comfort us. We’ll adhere to the social dogma that our political affiliations mandate, while disregarding other — sometimes valid — interpretations which might refute their affirmations. We’ll wrap ourselves in the security blanket of denial… insulating ourselves from the cold, hard truth that most of us are simply too emotionally immature to be candidly introspective, let alone honest with ourselves. All too often, we’ll pick and choose our “truths” based –not on facts — but on what we *want* to be true.
The real truth is that we believe the lies we want to hear.
However, selective fact gathering can neither provide truth, nor wisdom. As John Adams so astutely affirmed, “Facts are stubborn things”… When seeking truth one cannot begin with a conclusion, and gather facts to support it. That is not how valid resolutions are made. We must go where facts lead us, and make our determinations thusly. Even if they are uncomfortable, or contradictory to what we’ve always been led to believe. We simply cannot choose what is true, and what is not. The only thing we can choose, is which side of the political aisle we want to affiliate ourselves with based on whether the Left, or the Right’s version of the truth best suits our own astigmatic — if not bigoted– presumptions.
Which brings us to the recent shootings in Tucson, and how they have sparked passionate dialogue, and finger pointing around the country. It seems that anyone with a platform, and an opinion about any socio/political issues peripheral to these shootings has taken this opportunity to prattle on about “who” they believe is responsible for “what”. The vitriol between the Liberal Left, and the Conservative Right has been brought into the spotlight and portrayed as particularly villainous, even if not specifically about this particular set of circumstances. Still, the brainwashed constituents of both parties continue to laughably place blame on one another as being the source of this toxicity, and the reason that the political landscape now resembles “reality” television rather than the beacon of democracy that we’ve always been able to boast… The practice of the irresponsible, self serving leveling of accusations has become an American political institution, as has an utter lack of accountability… or tether to reason.
Similar to how America handles every other crisis, where is concerns the Tucson shootings, we are reactionary. As we did with the “underwear bomber”, we wait for something to happen, and then respond irrationally. In this instance, rather than fondling citizen’s genitals to ensure their safety, there are those both in politics and in the media who have capitalized on the National heartbreak over these senseless shootings… and who are actually suggesting that we legislate censoring symbols, metaphors, and the way we talk about one another.
They are responding to the problem of acerbic rhetoric, with politically correct rhetoric. While it might seem admirable to ask those in the national spotlight to choose their words more carefully, “dial back” the acrimony, or to avoid needlessly antagonistic contention, that is something that must occur organically if it ever hopes to last into the next news cycle. Even if they were to ban certain words from the National dialogue, that won’t change anyone’s true feelings, or the intent behind the words they *are* permitted to use. If history teaches us anything, it’s that it is impossible –not to mention prolifically stupid– to even try to legislate how people feel.
It would be like putting a coat of paint on a rusty car.
When we seek politically correct solutions — especially when it comes to language — it inherently motivated by political grandstanding, and it always comes at the expense of the truth. If there is legitimate animus between political rivals it needs to be expressed, and in their own chosen verbiage. If an emotional response is honest, and one feels it, they should be able to say it. That is how we can determine who we vote for, or even watch on television. But the operatives here are “legitimate, and “honest”… not “animus”.
Whenever I see high profile Liberals and Conservatives debate one another, it has always been my contention that as long as they critique the other, their arguments will remain substantially convincing. Indeed, there is so much perfidy within both Left and Right politics that there is a virtual bottomless pit of ideological assault points. But it is when the political apologists try to defend their own parties abhorrent disregard for both civility, and reason that the perfidiousness of their agendas become clear.
So the problem has become, “How do we manage ideological differences of opinion which will contribute to the Democratic process rather than hinder it, while not infringing on anyone’s First Amendment rights, let alone their honest expression?”
It is not altering language or symbols that we need… nor do we need to re-examine the First Amendment. It is not censorship we require, but rather journalistic, and political INTEGRITY. When the Founders wrote the First Amendment, they did so with an understanding of the necessity of having independent press in a free society. They recognized that even setting up three branches of government wasn’t enough to ensure that corruption wouldn’t find a way to creep back into men’s souls, and that we required a system whereby the citizenry would have credible advocates working on their behalf, and reporting on the activities of the politicians whom we elect.
That sacred trust has since been betrayed. Journalism is all but vanished from the American landscape, and what we have left are editorialists shilling for politicians, and their respective lobbies. This is what now passes for news… and the cerebrally bankrupt — albeit frightened — proletariat rush to choose sides, ignorant of the fact that the people they have put their trust in have no credibility.
The malicious bombast which has grinded our legislative process to a virtual halt exists because Left and the Right continue to police one another’s language, and speculate on how they perceive each other’s intentions. That can’t work, because of the source of the criticism. All that will accomplish is to further the divide between otherwise (potentially) conciliatory differences of opinion. In order to create a more civil public discourse, we need to require more from those who steer public opinion.
We must require that both Democrats and Republicans demonstrate integrity, and chastise the fringe elements of their own respective parties, not the others. Rather than placating incendiary, irrational, and purposely deceptive hyperbole when it comes from someone with whom they allegedly align, both pundits and politicians need to behave like the adults in the room, and not excuse the failings of *anyone’s* illogical ravings, regardless of party affiliation. This problem is much less about what we say of one another, but what we fail to admit about ourselves. The lunatic fringe would be far less powerful if their own parties called them out when they are behaving irrationally.
The more reasonable method of addressing the toxic political environment is not to seek censorship over what we say about one another, but rather to cease censoring ourselves when it comes to what we say about the extremists within our own respective parties. Perhaps then, we can go back to being Democrats and Republicans — and moreover, Americans — instead nation of the bitter, warring Liberals and Conservatives that we have become.
This article is dedicated to those who have the capacity to think critically… especially congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Please get better soon, Ms. Giffords.
The Internet Civil War
As both a satirist and social commentator, one of the things I love about internet social networking is that it allows me to gain insight as to what people are thinking and feeling. Having “Friends” on Facebook with varying political leanings grants me the opportunity to see what both the Liberal left, and Conservative right have on their astigmatic, undiscerning minds. If it weren’t so pathetic, it would be downright hilarious to see how many fledgling Wingnuts* have diluted themselves into believing that they have chosen the side of socio/political righteousness, and how blindly they’ll adhere to their rigid ideologies.
Indignantly, those aspiring to cerebral mediocrity will post links to video snippets or an article originating from their favorite biased, sensibly questionable website as if to impart wisdom to the unaware. My best guess as to why anyone would consistently do this with such little payoff is because Americans are feeling increasingly helpless, and many are compensating by trying to control their little section of the ‘net… And of course capitalizing on this dynamic are MSNBC and FOX news who respond to our collective angst by offering their versions of good and evil to naive anxiety addled truth seekers .
The (de) evolution of the Cable “News” industry has steered it towards the commercially successful business model of prejudicial editorializing. Depending on whether one’s politics lean towards the left or right, MSNBS and FOX (respectively) offer the preferred flavor Kool-Aid so as to affirm one‘s preexisting socio/political inclinations. Presently, the battle for the hearts and minds of the ostensibly susceptible is being fought by the “prides” of each network, Keith Olberman and Glenn Beck, whose egomaniacal need for adoration comes at the expense of those who could benefit from an occasional dose of actual journalism .
As loved by their viewers are they are despised by the other’s, MSNBC’s Olberman and FOX’s Beck host the flagship shows in their respective networks fleet of Wingnut* programming. Like sirens on the open sea, they are both lyrical in their intonation, and beguiling to those predisposed to their message. With evangelical articulation they not only mesmerize audiences, but they create irrational devotion as to their network’s ideologies . As entertainers, they are brilliant. But as “news people” they range from occasionally astute, to irresponsible, factually ambiguous, ignorance encouraging, defamatory, and as some might even argue …inciting to cause violent outbursts among their faithful.
Of course, as any of their fanatical following will tell you, they can recognize all of these qualities in the editorialists on the network they don’t watch, but none in those who are brainwashing *them*. The devotees of Olberman and Beck have become gullible to the point that it’s almost as if they are losing to themselves in their own shell game.
It is difficult to recognize one’s own bias as to why we choose such slanted, philosophical programming … especially when circumstances inspire passion. In fact, in order to help viewers rationalize their own intolerance, both networks go so far as to claim to be “Fair and Balanced”, which anyone with the slightest bit of objectivity can identify as laughable. The reality is that both Olberman and Beck, along with the rest of the supporting pontiffs on cable news rarely even make the attempt at propriety. They have discovered that the path to economic success is to cater to an America that watches reality TV, and who responds to dogmatic, maniacal, race baiting, fear mongering ravings in lieu of news.
While objectivity is consistent with reason, usually it is the acumen of our life’s experience coupled with our own socio/political predilections that tends to shape our world view. To that extent, we are all vulnerable to charismatic speakers (up to a point) because humans are all flawed with subjectivity. But to make matters of social negotiation more difficult, we live in an age where we have so much access to information (and misinformation) … the prevailing trend is to seek out media that will affirm our own predispositions, rather than explore alternative viewpoints to help provide balance. Which is to say, that we often form our convictions before we allow for another perspective… which also makes us easy targets for seduction from the likes of Olberman and Beck.
If we allow ourselves to draw conclusions prior to properly gathering information, the bias of our predispositions will often determine the validity of whatever evidence is presented to us, not the credibility of the source. In keeping with the profitable trend of journalistic injudiciousness, many in the media will actually ignore information does not favor their affirmations…and people blindly jump on either band wagon totally unaware that they are being taken for a ride.
For reasonable, free thinking people, conclusions are drawn only after enough facts are gathered to make a rational determination. Even then, ideas must remain open to discussion, interpretation, and further disclosure of information. There has to be a willingness to change one’s assertion in the light of new evidence. Authenticity is a requirement when seeking social equity, even when the facts bear out uncomfortable truths. It is when myopic aspiration trumps a palpable state of being that ignorance is allowed to flourish…
What many are forgetting, is that the internet civil war in which they presently engaged is against other Americans. Both our sensibilities and suspicions are being taken advantage of by predatory Wingnuts*. The ideological polarization between Liberals and Conservatives is continuing to widen, and MSNBC and FOX wouldn’t have it any other way.
* Thanks to John Avlon of www.theDailyBeast.com for inventing the term “Wingnuts”
