Only 60% is crap???

[BlackShanglan]

So, you're saying that the IRA killed men, women and children in Northern Ireland in the 1990s, because the British Army was still oppressing the populace who had exercised their democratic choice to keep them there?

(See "democratic choice" above.)

Let's also not forget the RUC. While no doubt to some they are "the official protectors of the peace," to others their position is not so clear nor so unbiased. I believe it was in 1994 that I watched a BBC television report on a training exercise the RUC ran in order to attempt to work on ideas of diversity and tolerance. The results when they knew they were being observed were so shocking that many of the actors involved had to be sent for psychological counselling - and the BBC report specifically noted that it included taunts referencing Catholicism and Gaelic identity. That this sort of behavior was not a problem for the majority of Northern Ireland I would argue was, again, due to how they became the majority.

Shanglan

 

[TheEarl]

We're back to "democratic will" again. And, again, I think it fair to point out that killing, disenfranchising, and driving out most of the previous inhabitants and then slapping the name "democracy" on the tyranny of the majority that is left doesn't do much for those who were so deliberately and painstakingly forced into the position of "minority" in what had been their own country.

To attempt to "subvert democracy," one has to accept that it was there in the first place. Getting rid of everyone who doesn't agree with you and then holding elections with what is left is only a "democracy" in the most cynical of all possible definitions. It's all very well to say "it's a democracy now!" - when those currently in the majority have done exercising their desire to violently conquer the region and destroy its culture and inhabitants. This sort of "I've got mine; now let's have stability and peace!" approach is generally only attractive to those who have, indeed, got theirs.

Shanglan

Very true, but you've got to work with what you've got in current times. Where do you draw the line on old wrongs? I cannot excuse the actions of the English in attempting to annex Ireland, but you've also got to look at the current situation, rather than what it was many many years ago, back when morals were different. You cannot say to Israel, "Hey you! Get off that land! That's Palestinian land that you just claimed for your own by fiat!" because there are innocent people who now call that land home. The historical fault lies with the Great Powers who screwed over the Palestinians to create Israel, but after a time, things cannot be undone.

Yes, the historical fault lies with the English and historically, the provinces are a part of greater Ireland. However, it cannot be reversed. Innocents are settled in this place, through no fault of their own. You have to work with what you have and apply today's morals to it. It's not perfect, but there's nothing that can be done.

Re: The RUC - Cannot condone, but those kind of attitudes are bound to arise in that kind of warzone.

The Earl

 

[BlackShanglan]

Very true, but you've got to work with what you've got in current times. Where do you draw the line on old wrongs? I cannot excuse the actions of the English in attempting to annex Ireland, but you've also got to look at the current situation, rather than what it was many many years ago, back when morals were different. You cannot say to Israel, "Hey you! Get off that land! That's Palestinian land that you just claimed for your own by fiat!" because there are innocent people who now call that land home. The historical fault lies with the Great Powers who screwed over the Palestinians to create Israel, but after a time, things cannot be undone.

This is always an attractive argument to those holding power and resources when the music stops. Actually, things certainly can be undone. If structures of power and stability couldn't be undone, the earlier inhabitants of those territories would still be there. It would be more accurate to say "undoing those problems would be costly and difficult and would involve sacrifices that those currently in power are not willing to make." I think Israel an excellent example here. That argument works very well if one happens to be Israeli, and not well at all if one isn't. That's hardly surrpising considering who gained and who lost in the first place.

In the context of Northern Ireland, one can hardly argue that either England or the Unionists have done all that they can do in order to redress the grievances that they have created; in fact, one might go so far as point out that it is the IRA who have now disarmed entirely, and - to no one's great surprise - the loyalist paramilitaries who refuse even to discuss the notion. Or one might query whether one "can't" put an end to the practice of parading through the streets of those who have suffered four hundred years of ill treatment at one's hands, banging drums as one goes to make sure that they're not given a moment in which they might try to forget old wounds and move ahead. That's impossible?

Yes, the historical fault lies with the English and historically, the provinces are a part of greater Ireland. However, it cannot be reversed. Innocents are settled in this place, through no fault of their own. You have to work with what you have and apply today's morals to it. It's not perfect, but there's nothing that can be done.

I disagree. There is a great deal that can be done. There is simply very little that those already in control of the bulk of the power and resources *wish* to do. What incentive have they got? They've got everything they set out to grab, and now they've managed to make the results the status quo. That doesn't change what they can do - humans are resourceful creatures, and it's really remarkable what they can do when they want to. However, they don't want to. Their desire not to change is not based on noble ideals or even on pragmatic circumstances, but on their perception of the situation as one in which they have what they want, and they're comfortable.

Re: The RUC - Cannot condone, but those kind of attitudes are bound to arise in that kind of warzone.

I shall confine myself to pointing out that once one concedes that "those kinds of attitudes are bound to arise in that situation," one is offering precisely the excuse that the IRA has clung to for years. What sort of attitudes might be expected of those whose land and culture have been forcibly and deliberately taken from them, and whose "modern" experience - which I would have to argue is rather more than the last twenty years - is that of continued oppression, violence, and second-class status?

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Bill O'Reilly appeared on the Letterman show last evening. Here's a transcript.



Letterman: I'm not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling, I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap.


Paul Shafer: Sixty percent.

Letterman: Sixty percent. I'm just spit-balling here.
Here's the link to another discussion - [/B]

When exactly did a comedian and his sidekick become qualified to make this judgment?

I'm not defending O'Reilly, because I don't watch his show or know his statements, but how is it that it matters what Letterman thinks of him? I'm having George Carlin flashbacks here. Why is it that every comedian in the US today thinks they know politics? Why is it that being famous makes people think they can tell us what our opinions should be? richard Gere has no idea what i care about, or who I should vote for. Make "Dr. T and the Women 2" and shut the fuck up.

Q_C

 

[Guest]

When exactly did a comedian and his sidekick become qualified to make this judgment?

I'm not defending O'Reilly, because I don't watch his show or know his statements, but how is it that it matters what Letterman thinks of him? I'm having George Carlin flashbacks here. Why is it that every comedian in the US today thinks they know politics? Why is it that being famous makes people think they can tell us what our opinions should be? richard Gere has no idea what i care about, or who I should vote for. Make "Dr. T and the Women 2" and shut the fuck up.

Q_C

Actually, this thread has wandered quite far from what I expected.

I started it because O'Reilly is a pompous, arrogant, biased bag of wind and it was funny to watch a mere comedian publicly object to some of his more skewed statements.

 

[imalickin]

Actually, this thread has wandered quite far from what I expected.

I started it because O'Reilly is a pompous, arrogant, biased bag of wind and it was funny to watch a mere comedian publicly object to some of his more skewed statements.

'mere comedian' that's his job, his only job and is paid very, very well to do it. not only to o'reilly but to most people who appear on his show along with the misguided audiance whom he makes more fun of than they comprehend.

 

[TheEarl]

This is always an attractive argument to those holding power and resources when the music stops. Actually, things certainly can be undone. If structures of power and stability couldn't be undone, the earlier inhabitants of those territories would still be there. It would be more accurate to say "undoing those problems would be costly and difficult and would involve sacrifices that those currently in power are not willing to make." I think Israel an excellent example here. That argument works very well if one happens to be Israeli, and not well at all if one isn't. That's hardly surrpising considering who gained and who lost in the first place.

Okay, I'll grant you that the situation can be totally reversed. But not without resorting to the same injustices that caused the problem in the first place. Under today's morals and today's ethics, we cannot force an entire group of people out of their home which they have grown up in, because of their ethnicity. It's possible, but not right. That behaviour was what the whole complaint is about!

In the context of Northern Ireland, one can hardly argue that either England or the Unionists have done all that they can do in order to redress the grievances that they have created; in fact, one might go so far as point out that it is the IRA who have now disarmed entirely, and - to no one's great surprise - the loyalist paramilitaries who refuse even to discuss the notion. Or one might query whether one "can't" put an end to the practice of parading through the streets of those who have suffered four hundred years of ill treatment at one's hands, banging drums as one goes to make sure that they're not given a moment in which they might try to forget old wounds and move ahead. That's impossible?

If I'm not mistaken, the Unionists parade as well, banging their drums and singing songs through area which they deliberately chose as being inflammatory. Admittedly, it is a far smaller proportion of the parades that go on every summer, but the point still stands.

As to redressing the grievances - this is what participating in the political process is for. Although Catholics are a minority in Northern Ireland, they still represent a large enough interest group to be able to make change through political protest and through Sinn Fein.

I shall confine myself to pointing out that once one concedes that "those kinds of attitudes are bound to arise in that situation," one is offering precisely the excuse that the IRA has clung to for years. What sort of attitudes might be expected of those whose land and culture have been forcibly and deliberately taken from them, and whose "modern" experience - which I would have to argue is rather more than the last twenty years - is that of continued oppression, violence, and second-class status?

I will apologise for offering that as an excuse, as it is rather limp wristed, but I'm still coming down on the side of the RUC rather than the IRA. Not because they're pure as the driven snow, but because they at least had vague intent to keep the peace. They may have been racist and caused intense grief to many Catholic families, but they didn't plant nail bombs in the middle of shopping centres. That, to borrow another's phrase, makes them the lesser monsters and believe me when I say that I do believe the distinction to be slender.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I think it best to say only that I wholly and completely disagree, and leave it at that.

 

[TheEarl]

I think it best to say only that I wholly and completely disagree, and leave it at that.

The mark of a classy horse.

The Earl

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Actually, this thread has wandered quite far from what I expected.

I started it because O'Reilly is a pompous, arrogant, biased bag of wind and it was funny to watch a mere comedian publicly object to some of his more skewed statements.

I understood your point, but again, why is O'Reilly on his show then? If not to have this discussion? What exactly makes Letterman more qualified than you or I to say these things? And honestly, reading the transcript, he mostly just agreed with you; he presented no more evidence of anything that O'Reilly himself did. I could tell the Pope he's full of crap, and get the same reaction from people with strong convictions against the Catholic Church. It doesn't mean I've said much of anything, just made them feel more public esteem for their viewpoints.

What I used to love about Politically Incorrect was that we had people like Letterman and regualr actors, and rappers and comic strip cartoonists, discusing politics. It reminded us that people unrelated to politics were intelligent enough to have their own opinions, something that politicians tend to forget. What Letterman basically did was the opposite of that.

Q_C

 

[Guest]

I understood your point, but again, why is O'Reilly on his show then? If not to have this discussion? What exactly makes Letterman more qualified than you or I to say these things? And honestly, reading the transcript, he mostly just agreed with you; he presented no more evidence of anything that O'Reilly himself did. I could tell the Pope he's full of crap, and get the same reaction from people with strong convictions against the Catholic Church. It doesn't mean I've said much of anything, just made them feel more public esteem for their viewpoints.

What I used to love about Politically Incorrect was that we had people like Letterman and regualr actors, and rappers and comic strip cartoonists, discusing politics. It reminded us that people unrelated to politics were intelligent enough to have their own opinions, something that politicians tend to forget. What Letterman basically did was the opposite of that.

Q_C

I was aware of the facts behind what was presented in the "interview."

For instance, O'Reilly was presenting information about the elementary school changing the lyrics of Silent Night. He said it was due to pressure from the community; that's why the school removed the original lyrics of the song.

But that's an outright lie. The composer of the musical used the tune in order to make it easier for elementary school kids to learn. That musical has been performed around the country in other churches. But due to pressure from conservative Christian groups, they had to ADD the original words to Silent Night.

O'Reilly is continuing to offer that misinformation in order to promote his own agenda.

Personally, I do not care if Letterman got it, or his sidekick got it, or his audience understood it.

I've read enough about O'Reilly, even watched the show a few times - it pays to know your enemy.

I got it.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

I was aware of the facts behind what was presented in the "interview."

For instance, O'Reilly was presenting information about the elementary school changing the lyrics of Silent Night. He said it was due to pressure from the community; that's why the school removed the original lyrics of the song.

But that's an outright lie. The composer of the musical used the tune in order to make it easier for elementary school kids to learn. That musical has been performed around the country in other churches. But due to pressure from conservative Christian groups, they had to ADD the original words to Silent Night.

O'Reilly is continuing to offer that misinformation in order to promote his own agenda.

Personally, I do not care if Letterman got it, or his sidekick got it, or his audience understood it.

I've read enough about O'Reilly, even watched the show a few times - it pays to know your enemy.

I got it.

*shrug*

Whatever.

We're on two different points.

Q_C

 

[Guest]

*shrug*

Whatever.

We're on two different points.

Q_C

That wasn't my intent.

Whatever indeed, then.

 

[TheEarl]

I'm just amazed that we managed to have a thread hijack and then brought back onto the original argument within the space of two Lit pages.

The Earl

 

[Guest]

I'm just amazed that we managed to have a thread hijack and then brought back onto the original argument within the space of two Lit pages.

The Earl

The hijack may have been the better argument.

 

[TheEarl]

The hijack may have been the better argument.

I wouldn't be sure about better. More firey, yes.

The Earl

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I'm just amazed that we managed to have a thread hijack and then brought back onto the original argument within the space of two Lit pages.

The Earl

We're getting good at this.

 

[MichelleLovesTo]

When exactly did a comedian and his sidekick become qualified to make this judgment?

I'm not defending O'Reilly, because I don't watch his show or know his statements, but how is it that it matters what Letterman thinks of him? I'm having George Carlin flashbacks here. Why is it that every comedian in the US today thinks they know politics? Why is it that being famous makes people think they can tell us what our opinions should be? richard Gere has no idea what i care about, or who I should vote for. Make "Dr. T and the Women 2" and shut the fuck up.

Q_C

Why aren't they qualified? What makes O'Reilly qualified? Why is that that celebs are vilified for having opinions? Since when did they give up their rights because they chose a career where they reach a larger audience? You can debate if their opinions or wrong or right, you can certainly find the fact that they have a bigger bullhorn annoying, but there is nothing to say that acting or telling jokes makes you less qualified to form an opinion than someone in another career.

Letterman is not exactly one of those people who I consider very outspoken politically. Like anyone else, he has chemistry with some people, and doesn't care for other people. Maybe O'Reilly just really pisses him off. And it's his show.

I don't think there's exactly a trend of this type of exchange on Letterman. He just thought this particular guest was a wienie, and could not hold back from debating him.

 

[Miyana Books]

Here's a video clip

Obviously this little appearance created quite a bit of buzz, I guess


Letterman Owns Orielly