Maggie's Farm

Limbaugh's is self-selecting, as well, though of a different quality (I am not a fan, my father is).

I used to like Bill Maher very much when he had Politically Incorrect, and saw it in studio several times. It was terrific, and he was very fair and just, back then. Since 9/11, Maher has entered a downward spiral of vitriol and madness which astounds me. He was, long ago, a good Libertarian. Now he is a bitter statist.

I believe it stems from his hatred of religion, which he never exhibited back in the 90's. In fact, he was relatively fair and even-handed toward the religious believers back then. Not sure when he went completely off the rails, but it definitely started sometime around 9/11.

Many women utilize their looks. Palin is more than just looks. I am no longer a fan of hers, but that's because she allowed the media to define who she is and what she represents, then took it to the extreme. She's a victim, as far as I'm concerned.

If the media had portrayed Hillary Clinton as a shrill beast who was so vain she manipulated every aspect of how she entered a room and demanded to be treated like royalty (which is exactly what she is - I have firsthand knowledge of this), people on the Left would go berzerk. They'd demand retractions, play up her 'domestic' side....oh, wait - that's what they did! The Left refuses to let the media define their women...but is more than happy to let the media define women of the Right.

Bella Abzug. I wasn't a fan - but man there is no way she could look for a pass based on looks. She went for the hats!

When Pelosi was named Speaker of the House, I'll never forget what I heard one commentator say off screen - "those huge cans will take a woman far."

Naturally, I had to go take a look and see if he was right. She wears suits that accentuate her assets.

But, of course, I shouldn't talk about this because she's qualified, right? So that other stuff is meaningless and therefore not worth discussing.

It's not an issue of telling them to stop. She should stop behaving in a manner that only gives them fodder.

I don't agree that she's "done well" at all. For herself, sure. But any fool can make money, if you don't mind being defined as foolish.

I had a very high level of respect for her early on, which I've lost over time. I still think she was the right, and best, choice. I don't regret voting for McCain. But I don't view her as a leader anymore.

She's not, and that is good.

I think the fact that her first post-election move was into reality TV speaks volumes. Scary stuff, shows that she was more into cultivating an image than developing a voice a wider variety of people can relate to.

She utilizes language which I find difficult to relate to, its full of absolutes and characterizations that are extreme. While I can understand the need and ability to hit the Left with the same ammunition they use, you have to do it in a fashion that breaks them down rather than allowing them to hit back with even more damaging imagery.

With regard to her policy positions, I am in agreement with many of her statements. I am afraid there are some areas that we don't agree, particularly with regard to her views on broader economic policy (she would still spend, but in a way that she feels is correct - which is just as bad as the Left). But it's social policy where I have never agreed with her, and where I've had my biggest problems with the Republican Party in general.

I don't the pro-choice movement, but I am most assuredly not pro-life to the degree she is. I think I probably agree with her about the role of evolution (she apparently acknowledges it, though she's never pushed back when the media painted her as a creationist, something I've never heard her say she is), though we have very different views on the role of God and how that should be portrayed or taught (if at all) in public schools. From my point of view, creationism or intelligent design are worth mentioning as alternatives to evolution, but I doubt they can be taught without substantial bias toward particular religious views.

In the end, her failure isn't one of policy, though. It's an inability to understand why people oppose her and how to deal with them effectively. Obama has the same problem, but he has a significant advantage - the press supports him and he can screw up royally and they will find some way to clean him up. As a result, Palin is forced to play the old game that women used to have to play - be tougher than a man, and play it twice as hard. But she doesn't fill that role well. Some people, primarily those who love her and forgive all her faults, think she does it well. I don't. I think it makes her look like a spiteful and angry woman.

This is why I consider her a victim. She has become what they said she was. She didn't fight back effectively, allowed them to set the rules, and didn't know how the game was played.
Not entirely her fault. She wasn't expecting this, and wasn't prepared, so she did it all on her own.

I can respect that. Just like I respect anyone who has gotten wealthy doing what they do - even if I don't like it.

I'm Catholic. I agree he's anti-Catholic. He's really anti-religion, however. Which I have a level of respect for (at least he isn't supporting one over another, he treats them all equally poorly), although I don't agree with his view.

I disagree that he is misogynist. He definitely uses colorful language. Perhaps too colorful for his own good.

But I do not believe in censorship, or purging airwaves. I have a channel tuner which I use, a volume control which I use, and an on/off button which I use. I am also able to listen to opposing viewpoints, provide them the platform they require, but then oppose or rebut them as needed. This is the nature of a free market and democracy, and it must be respected.

A free market of ideas means there's an awful lot out there I cannot stand, but I don't have to accept it, and I always have the choice to not listen.


In the case of Maher rationalizing his situation, however, I believe he takes his point to illogical conclusions. He sets himself up as something he isn't - purely and simply a comedian. He is a manipulator of opinion, using comedy as his toolkit, much as Jon Stewart does. The problem with comedians like these men is they defend their positions by saying "it's just comedy", but then use it as a sledgehammer to drive opinion. So, yes, it is comedy - but please remind your audiences that the opinions are not meant to inform, and then belittle your own positions. Because the mark of GOOD comedy is the ability to laugh at oneself.