S12.E23: Jane Harman, George Takei, Nate Silver, Jamie Weinstein, Rev. Dr. William Barber II

[maraleia]

 

Ex-Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), From "Star Trek" George Takei, ESPN's Five Thirty Eight Statistician Nate Silver, Dialy Caller Senior Editor Jamie Weinstein and Rev. Dr. William Barber II.

 

[StatMom]

Needed more George Takei. Or at least a little less of his portion devoted to Star Trek (of which I am a big fan, BTW, I just feel like he had other topics he could speak about).

[ruby24]

I loved the Reverend! Did anyone see him on Overtime? He should have been on the panel instead of Nate Silver, he was awesome.

[iMonrey]

God but Jamie Weinstein was a pill with his blame Obama agenda. He should increase defense spending? Really? Like we don't spend enough on defense? In what universe? Hilariously, the economy is bad because of Obama who's had six whole years to fix it, yet when they bring up the tax cuts in Kansas Weinstein says they've only had two years so it's too soon to tell. What's the sweet spot, four years?

 

The whole Hamas/Israel discussion drove me nuts, and Maher was really reaching trying to equate the Israeli's military success with their belief in science. Sure, it has nothing to do with the billions and billions of dollars we give them.

 

I don't get how this whole Flip a District thing is supposed to work. It's a huge bracket to narrow down and they've only got two weeks until their summer break. By the time they actually pick a candidate the November elections will be over and it will be too late to do anything about it. And what exactly do they plan to do anyway, funnel a bunch of money into the opposition candidate?

[ganesh]

The panel really should have been Jane, the Rev, and Takei. No offense to Silver, you know how to data mine, you made a thing out of it for yourself, great. You don't really offer anything else to be a panelist.

 

And that other guy? It's not 1989. Increasing the defense budget and pounding your shoe on the podium doesn't work anymore. It's an old, outdated methodology. Putin doesn't give a fuck what Obama says or does. Sanctions are effective if everyone does them, but they take a while, and they just don't have the BAM impact. But there's not much else to do. 

 

I'm not religious in the least, but I think Bill is off saying scientists are mostly atheists. I'm not so sure. Israel is good at kicking ass because *everyone* is required to serve in the military in part. 

 

I like how nothing is ever good enough with Obama. The economy is growing. But not fast enough. Stocks increased value by 25% in 2013. Not enough. Bailing out the car companies was a bad idea even though they've paid back all the money. 

 

I'm just not buying that states with no income taxes are doing better. 

 

Hilariously, the economy is bad because of Obama who's had six whole years to fix it, yet when they bring up the tax cuts in Kansas Weinstein says they've only had two years so it's too soon to tell.

 

I actually had to rewind because I couldn't believe the guy was being that obtuse. He had to have known what he was saying was bs and not actually believe something so paradoxical. I'm surprised Bill didn't call him on it, but then Jane jumped in and was like, "dude, even the republicans in Kansas are telling the governor to stop with it." 

 

Bill does have a point though. People who vote in midterms are the pissed off people mostly. 

[LADreamr]

 

The whole Hamas/Israel discussion drove me nuts, and Maher was really reaching trying to equate the Israeli's military success with their belief in science. Sure, it has nothing to do with the billions and billions of dollars we give them.

 

That was incredibly painful to listen to, and only sounded like they were listing off the talking points to keep their benefactors happy.  It didn't even sound like a discussion.  I've been an activist in and out of Gaza for nearly a decade, and after such a horrible week, what they were saying just felt like one hard punch after another.  Not because they were saying anything I haven't heard a million times, but because even with all the brutality, people can just talk so dismissively and abstractly about it, because it serves them to keep Israel happy.  I think Bill is a douche about a lot of things, and that doesn't surprise me at all.  But to not have one dissenting voice on the panel.  I think it was set up that way, so that their agenda would not get challenged by any actual facts.

[canaanite2]

 

I'm not religious in the least, but I think Bill is off saying scientists are mostly atheists.

 

There was a pew poll conducted in 2009 that shows that the majority (barely at 51%) of scientists actually do believe in God or a higher power while the minority, at 41%, don't.  Bill is the sort of atheist whose attitude isn't all that different from the judgmental religious extremists he loves to criticize. They both have the same argument, based on arrogance, that they are unequivocally right. Sorry Bill, being an atheist doesn't automatically make you an intellectual. 

 

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

[amsel]

One of the most forgettable shows this season.

 

I thought the discussion on Israel/Palestine offered no nuance and was done primarily to provide tired pro-Israeli talking points. None of them have the slightest idea how to solve that conflict and are more or less comfortable with the status quo. 

 

Takei was the best part of the show. 

[Hanahope]

I liked the One Percent Magazine bit.  Rarely do those bits worked, but that was pretty funny.

 

I would love to see George Takei on the panel.  I'm kind of surprised no one's made a movie about how Star Trek got made, with such a diverse racial cast, the social and political issues.  Seems like it would make a good story.

[ganesh]

 

There was a pew poll conducted in 2009 that shows that the majority (barely at 51%) of scientists actually do believe in God or a higher power while the minority, at 41%, don't.  Bill is the sort of atheist whose attitude isn't all that different from the judgmental religious extremists he loves to criticize.

Bill frames his arguments inappropriately and just ill timed. I agree with him that religion is the cause of this and in Iraq. He's actually correct about christians with the need for a jewish state for jesus to return. There's no doubt some politicians believe this too here. He was just clumsy. Which he wasn't in his Religulous movie and if anything Bill is very anti religious, so I think he would be able to form more coherent arguments.

[shok]

I agree with him that religion is the cause of this and in Iraq.

 

Almost inevitably, wars and conflicts are caused by social and income inequality - not religion. Most are cloaked in religion but invariably it is those in poverty trying to fight their way up and out and the more priviledged fighting to keep them down and 'in their places'.

 

I haven't looked into the root causes of the conflicts between Shiite and Sunni but an educated guess to me is that besides religion there is a social chasm between the two groups just like there is between the Israelis and the Palestinians and in the Irish uprisings between England and Northern Ireland. Jews and Arabs can live quite peaceably together in other parts of the world as of course can Protestants and Catholics but wars start when a whole host of other problems are factored in besides religion.

[BigDfromLA]

I certainly hope that the worthless piece of shit Rupert Murdoch fails to take over Time Warner, which owns HBO. I think he would dump Bill Maher's show soon after getting control of the network. He would probably reinstate that sellout hack Dennis Miller to the time slot.

[amsel]

Almost inevitably, wars and conflicts are caused by social and income inequality - not religion. Most are cloaked in religion but invariably it is those in poverty trying to fight their way up and out and the more priviledged fighting to keep them down and 'in their places'.

 

I haven't looked into the root causes of the conflicts between Shiite and Sunni but an educated guess to me is that besides religion there is a social chasm between the two groups just like there is between the Israelis and the Palestinians and in the Irish uprisings between England and Northern Ireland. Jews and Arabs can live quite peaceably together in other parts of the world as of course can Protestants and Catholics but wars start when a whole host of other problems are factored in besides religion.

I agree with that. Religion often provides legitimacy and value to conflicts with much deeper socioeconomic problems. Politics plays a similar role. As much as I like Bill, he rarely takes the next step toward understanding most issues. His comment regarding science and Jewish military victories is a great example. Even if we agree that Jews are more likely to value science, he disregards that Arab countries were never as united or as organized in their wars against Israel as most outsiders think, that Israel has become a highly militarized society, that the militarization is a consequence of hundreds of years of stateless existence in Europe and the Holocaust, that Israel received and continues to receive much help from outsiders, etc.... So even though Israel is indeed the only non-Arab country in the region and surrounded by former and current enemies, their military victories weren't some miracle (as many evangelicals like to believe) or their devotion to science (as Bill Maher seems to believe), but can be explained through a complicated set of factors. Of course, I don't expect Nate SIlver (data guy), Weinstein (Israel is always right whatever it does guy), and Harman (career politician turned plastic surgery enthusiast) to provide anything meaningful to that discussion.

Edited July 20, 2014 by amsel

[ganesh]

I'm not aware of social chasms between sunni and shias. I think the reason for their being one or the other is ridiculously stupid. And yeah, people are still going to fight for many reasons, but I really don't think religion helps at all. 

 

Hamas literally wants to eliminate jews because of religion. It's not that they might not be fighting if there wasn't religion, but there's no out currently because if they sue for peace it goes against their version of heaven or whatever.

[attica]

I didn't know that Takei and Shatner are on the outs. It pleased me that he said so out loud, instead of pussy-footing around the subject like people do. He wasn't unkind, just matter-of-fact.

[ZoqFotPik]

 

I didn't know that Takei and Shatner are on the outs.

My understanding is that they have never been particularly close.

[Hanahope]

My understanding is that not all that many really get along with Shatner.

[Maherjunkie]

It's hard to believe the Shat could be that clueless re homosexuality.

[iMonrey]

 

Hamas literally wants to eliminate jews because of religion. 

 

Hamas wants to eliminate Israel. There's a difference, and Hamas didn't even exist prior to the creation of Israel. I'm not saying they're justified in attacking Israel, I'm just saying let's look at the reason why Palestinians voted to empower Hamas in the first place and concede that they have a legitimate beef with Israel. I think John Oliver did a much better job summing up the situation last week on his show.

[ganesh]

He did. But I thought the charter said the Jews and Israel as well. nbd. 

 

Whether the state or the people, it's still religiously motivated. My point was that even without religion, sure, they'd probably be fighting, but because of religion, there's no out to it. 

[shok]

He did. But I thought the charter said the Jews and Israel as well. nbd. 

 

Whether the state or the people, it's still religiously motivated. My point was that even without religion, sure, they'd probably be fighting, but because of religion, there's no out to it. 

 

I disagree. The main cause is socio-economic disparity. It just so happens that one group happens to be muslim and the other jewish and religious labels are applied but if the Israelis would quit annexing Palestinian land and oppressing the Palestinian people so that they could live self productive lives, there would be a hell of a lot less fighting and Israel would then be a lot safer. Same as the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland. It had little to do with religion but everything to do with poverty and repression. The Irish (the Catholics) had had droughts and starvation and unemployment for years while the English (the Protestants) were the owners and rulers of Irish land. But as people have said in this thread, Bill loves to throw labels at people and situations and thus discussions about the root causes of most strife will never happen on his show.

[ganesh]

Well, the charter does say, 'destroy Israel' and that is religiously motivated. However, you're making the same point I am. It's got nothing to do fundamentally with religion at all. This type of fight would have happened anyway due to the social economic disparity. Because they're hiding behind religion, and certainly some people are fighting who are motivated by religion, *there's no out* like "usual wars". That's the key point. It's never going to end because religion gets thrown in there and breaks it all down. You can't just handwave and say "oh they happen to be different religions." 

 

You can break it down all you like. At the end of the day though, it's going to be a long time where it's "we fought, we lost. Let's talk terms." Or "We're not getting anywhere and people just keep dying. This is stupid." It's the religion that's preventing anything real to get done.

[Maherjunkie]

I thought it was Israel that was willing to share a long time ago, no?

[iMonrey]

Religion is certainly the reason why Israel exists, so on that score it's true to say this is about religion. But I don't think religion is really much of a factor in why Hamas is fighting against Israel - certainly not in the same sense that religion is at the root of the conflict between Sunnis and Shiites. The talking points that really drive me insane are saying the Hamas terrorists are hiding behind civilians. As John Oliver so obviously pointed out, there's really no place for those civilians to go. They're packed in like sardines there in Gaza and it's not as if they can cross the border into Egypt or Israel. Where are they supposed to go, swim out into the ocean? It's propaganda to paint Hamas and, indirectly, all Palestinians as soulless monsters who care nothing for humanity vs. the poor Israelis who are just minding their own business and defending their poor little old selves. It's important in this narrative to be constantly reminded that Israelis are victims which, therefore, paints Palestinians as the aggressors, terrorists, whatever, in the wrong. Many people just refuse to hear any suggestion that Palestinians are victims in any way.

[ganesh]

The problem is, if religion wasn't involved it's more like "we're fighting you because you're assholes." "Well, we have superior materiel and we can do this all day." And the rest of the world would be "ok, you need to stop now. You're being assholes for bullying them, and you people are all going to die out because they have a ton more bombs than you. You don't have to like each other but you can still coexist. We'll help you work something out." And maybe they'd fight again and maybe not. But the whole "my god v your god" element to it precludes any of this. 

 

Or maybe someone will come along and say, 'fuck both your religions. You need to stop this shit now.'

 

One could argue that because Israel has the superior force that it's on them to stop. For every civilian that dies, "well, that's because that's where the weapons are hidden" isn't really what people want to hear. They have a missile defense system that is working so they could only act defensively too, possibly. 

Edited July 22, 2014 by ganesh

[shok]

The reason for almost all wars is land and territory and control over it. The Palestinians are upset that the Israelis took their land and continue to take more and more of it every year. Russia is helping insurgent groups take land from the Ukraine and thus there are mini-wars going on there. ISIS fights in Syria and invades Iraq to get land to create their own country. Hitler invaded many countries. It's not about religion. It's much more complex than that and has been for many many centuries.

[ganesh]

Yes, that's completely correct. The problem is that they hide behind religion to justify it. Which means they (none of the parties) won't negotiate some end.

 

Though I don't think religion is an issue in Ukraine. Which means, they will be able to negotiate some end settlement. 

 

You can't just say, 'ok enough of this shit' when religion is involved even though it has nothing to do with religion because no one, third party or otherwise will call bullshit on it." 

 

All the USA has to do is say, enough already, fix it, and you're not getting any money this year.  Then it's fixed.

[The Mighty Peanut]

I didn't know that Takei and Shatner are on the outs. It pleased me that he said so out loud, instead of pussy-footing around the subject like people do. He wasn't unkind, just matter-of-fact.

 

Oh, yes -- they've been feuding for decades. I didn't know until  recently (ish) when Takei called Shat a douchebag on WWHL. 

 

From the article:

 

The actor, whose character went on to captain his own starship, said: 'Bill’s douchiness? Well, he’s very self-possessed, self-involved, everything revolves around The Captain.

'They may have been setting up a close-up on her, because she's got the line but then he would take the director off to a dark corner and have a whispered conversation.

'And then the director comes back and moves the camera that way.

'Off stage and he's reacting and that's the important thing. So she's lost her close up.'

'Sometimes that happens, but it happens regularly.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2264805/Star-Trek-legend-George-Takei-reopens-feud-douche-William-Shatner.html#ixzz38K0wMncx

 

Edited July 23, 2014 by The Mighty Peanut

[sistermagpie]

Yes, that's completely correct. The problem is that they hide behind religion to justify it. Which means they (none of the parties) won't negotiate some end.bu

 

 

But isn't religion something people--and the people involved--feel passionately about? I think I agree basically with all these other factors that get hidden by "it's about religion" but often it is things like religion that people care about and they'll even sacrifice the things it's supposed to "really" be about in favor of religion because a lot of people really do prefer the person who's "one of them" who's screwing them over to "one of them". It's seems like wouldn't be able to hide behind something in this way people don't actually care about the most. I feel like I can't explain well what I think the difference is, but it just seems to me that religion is often the more primal motivator--even if it's not the only one.

[ganesh]

No, I get it. What I'm speculating is that you take the religion out, and you realize that you're pretty much the same as those other people you're shooting at.