Program Note: Bernard Goldberg on Tim Russert (watch April 22 1am ET/midnight CT CNBC and POSSIBLY 6pm ET/5pm CT on CNBC though not airing at that time on my listings)
04/21/2007 11:16 pm
I don't know if I've ever actually stated this fact on here, but politics is one of my least favorite subjects to talk about on this site.
The reasons are many. I won't go into exactly why.
As for politics in general, I'm at the same time quite interested and readily apathetic. I care a great deal about issues and society and yet fight off the urge almost daily to just wash my hands of the entire political process because of how much I dislike associating myself with any of it, and how "off-the-mark"I feel both of the major sides are operating. And I find myself hating that stance as well. For one, because it's so cliched and two, because I feel like it's a copout, and I could go on with more reasons, but those will have to suffice.
All that said, I found an hour of refreshment tonight. While wasting time on the computer this evening, I was pulled in by the television that was left on in the background. On CNBC, Tim Russert was interviewing a guy named Bernard Goldberg.
Now, I knew nothing of this guy before the show. And still probably know relatively little about him. And I don't want to oversell this, but, to me, it was one of the best discussions on politics I have heard on tv in quite some time. I didn't stay on the computer very long and decided I needed to sit and watch and listen. He was on the show promoting his book, "Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right." What gripped me early on was the way he described how he had been a liberal, or a democrat, for many years of his life, but felt the issues he backed then (and still believes in now I presume) such as civil rights, women's rights, etc. had become warped by that group he once felt a part of. He can't group himself in with the women's rights people today, even though he believes in their equality, because they have taken the issue to such a place where it's no longer rational or realistic. I paraphrased what he said, but I think my description is accurate of what he said.
He and Russert spoke on a number of different topics. To me, he seemed to provide real, honest views on politics. Not just the issues themselves, but the way the people on both sides view the issues and each other and the shortcomings of both and all sorts of other stuff.
Anyway, rather than comment on all the stuff he said, I want to encourage everyone to watch the replay of this show. It airs on CNBC Sunday April 22, 1am Eastern/Midnight Central time or POSSIBLY 6pm Eastern/5pm Central (though not where I live apparently).
For the record, I agreed, in general at least, with a lot of what he said. Which I think is a fairly tough thing for one person to do, but maybe I'm wrong. But even if you Disagree with everything he says, I think it's worth a watch.
Also, I know probably no one will read this in time, or have the right channels or whatever but if you are in the position to watch, I would recommend it.
|Jeremy - 8953 Posts|
|The problem with the political climate is that 98% of the population resides somewhere in the middle, but you get no play unless your a complete whack job from one side or the other.|
|Jon - 2847 Posts|
I feel like this is necessary to say.
As I said in the original post, I didn't know who this guy was when I watched the show and I still don't know much about who he is. I liked the interview. I liked a lot of the ideas he put forth there. Beyond that, don't come after me with anything about whatever this guy has done or will do or what he says on some issue somewhere else or anything like that.
I liked the interview and I'll defend that stance of mine. Any stance taken by Goldberg or anyone else can be defended by that person.
|Jon messed with this at 04/21/2007 11:39:48 pm|
|Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?|
Also I don't know a whole lot about Goldberg, but I did hit up his website. I'm pretty sure I'm with him on the airports thing.
I mean I don't think we need to shake down every Arab and assume they are a terrorist, but we need to stop the PC BS that there's an equally likely chance that the 80 year old lady flying from Florida to Vegas is a bomber.
We need to get rid of the minimum wage security staff and replace them with legitimate detectives who know a suspicious warning sign when they see one.
|Jon - infinity + 1 posts|
It's funny you bring that up because that's the site I perused as well and that entry was one of the factors that led me to say I'm not going to defend everything he's ever said or done.
Anyway, he discussed some of those other issues from that section of his website. Some of which I think he makes a good point or two on. I particularly liked some of his thoughts on the race/Imus/Barkley issue. He gives even better detail about it in the tv interview I think.
|Jeremy - 8953 Posts|
You don't agree on the airport thing? You can call it profiling if you want I guess, but at some point it's just good detective work.
If some serial killer is criss crossing the county killing women and taking their ring fingers as souvenirs, the police don't start by canvasing the 75 year old Asian Women population. They assume it's a white guy in his mid 40's that's never been married. They can't ask everyone, so you start with a profile of who is most likely to be the culprit. Is the profile ALWAYS right? No. That doesn't make it a completely baseless practice.
|Scott - 6225 Posts|
I don't have cable, maybe it'll show up on youtube.
What if...the terrorists figure out that we are no longer searching old ladies, so they decide to strap bombs to little old ladies. We don't search them, they go unnoticed. Ever think of that? Unlikely I guess.
|Alex - 3618 Posts|
I don't fly often (meaning once, and non-commericially at that) but from what I hear and read I think the security checks put in place are/were totally knee-jerk overreaction to 9/11. I bet if a terrorist put a bomb in a garbage truck and drove it into the middle of some rush-hour traffic jam, they could take out just as many people as with an airplane. Plus way more people get stuck in traffic jams daily than fly, so it stands to reason that would strike even more fear into your ordinary citizen. So we should we have security roadblocks on every interstate? Not likely.
I'm not even sure that has anything to do with anything, but too bad.
|Jeremy - 8953 Posts|
|The odds that they use old ladies are slim to none. You can't check everyone and need to play the odds. If you see a suspicious old lady then so be it. The odds you catch that old lady with "random checks" are still pretty low.|