I just realized that I have never actually posted about Jon Stewart and the Daily Show. I just want to go on the record with what I think his value is.
First, and probably most importantly, Jon Stewart's satire against the media is amazing. While a lot of his ire is directed at Fox News, a lot is also directed at CNN and related cable news. He is great at bashing fluffy, unreasonable, or contradictory stories. And his take-down of CNBC was great.
Second, Stewart is great at showing the hypocrisy of politicians on both sides. It seems that at least once a week Stewart is able to show politicians railing against political ploys, legislative methods, or public statements that they themselves employed or supported at a different time. Congressman Anthony Weiner (former Stewart roommate) thinks this creates negative impressions of legislators. I strongly disagree. Being hypocritical makes politicians look bad. Showing it just makes sure people are aware of it so they cannot get away with it.
Third, Stewart conducts great interviews - especially with conservatives daring enough to come on his show. Like the John Yoo debates, they are often respectful and honest.
Finally, I like Stewart just for the humor. Politics can so easily cause frustration and burnout. Jon Stewart helps us laugh at it so we can bear it another day.
Showing posts with label Jon Stewart. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jon Stewart. Show all posts
Saturday, March 05, 2011
Saturday, September 25, 2010
The John Yoo Interview
I know I am late to the party on this one, but I finally got around to watching Jon Stewart's interview (January 11, 2010 - in three parts) of John Yoo - infamous author of the "torture memo". I remember hearing that Stewart apparently blew the interview, and he apologized afterwards.
After watching it, I think it was a great and thoughtful interview. Granted, I am sure Stewart and many of his liberal viewers were hoping for John Yoo to get skewered and end up as contrite and apologetic as Jim Cramer. But that is an unrealistic expectation. Instead, what you had was a great debate (although it might have been better with someone with more expertise than Stewart to battle Yoo) on executive power. And it seems to me that the type of debate they had is rare on TV - it was considered, pretty long, and most of all, respectful.
I appreciated hearing John Yoo's point of view that a strong executive is necessary to have a government capable of responding to developing situations. And he conceded that it is necessary even when president's are likely to make mistakes sometimes. Juxtaposing Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation with Bush's GWOT is instructive (actually Yoo compared it to Nixon and Watergate, which was a bad comparison since Nixon's actions were clearly illegal).
Not only did Stewart conduct a good interview, but I think the point he was trying to make was a good one. He was trying to say that these circumstances are no different than other wars and that the president's powers shouldn't change and neither should our values. Torturing criminals might save lives in certain circumstances (at least if you think torture gives you good information), but we do not condone that. So Yoo's logic about this being an unprecedented situation is false.
Although the interview was good, Jon Stewart did miss a few key points.
First, Stewart should have disagreed with Yoo in how much power an executive does and should have. Yoo thinks a president at war is only restrained from doing things that are not necessary for winning the war. Instead, I think it is our laws and our principles that are checks on presidential power.
In support of this point, Stewart could have pointed to history to show why this should b the case. Some president's have violated our basic principles in the name of war to enact policies that violated our laws and principles and were clearly mistakes. Internment of Americans of Japanese dissent is one such mistake. A government where the president's power is checked by our principles - as enacted in our laws - is necessary to prevent these types of overreaches. And I would argue that the Geneva Convention was just such a law that should have checked against Bush's overreach.
Second, we might understand a need to have policies that set different levels of interrogation than we have for American criminal suspects. However, to the extent that these are new situations and new powers. they should be created through law. Instead, John Yoo thought they could be determined by drafting a legal memo. Others, like Jack Goldsmith, rightly thought this needed to be done through Congressional legislation. Stewart should have pressed this point.
Finally, and maybe most importantly, Jon Stewart did not go after Yoo for the policies that were condoned and considered to be short of torture. Again, we can understand different rules and processes for terrorists, but to claim that what the Bush administration did (forced standing for days, extended sleep deprivation, food deprivation, physical violence, and water boarding) was short of torture is absurd. Yoo should have had to justify why water boarding is okay, but dunking someone's head in a bucket of water, submerging them in a pool, or holding a gun to their head is not torture.
After watching it, I think it was a great and thoughtful interview. Granted, I am sure Stewart and many of his liberal viewers were hoping for John Yoo to get skewered and end up as contrite and apologetic as Jim Cramer. But that is an unrealistic expectation. Instead, what you had was a great debate (although it might have been better with someone with more expertise than Stewart to battle Yoo) on executive power. And it seems to me that the type of debate they had is rare on TV - it was considered, pretty long, and most of all, respectful.
I appreciated hearing John Yoo's point of view that a strong executive is necessary to have a government capable of responding to developing situations. And he conceded that it is necessary even when president's are likely to make mistakes sometimes. Juxtaposing Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation with Bush's GWOT is instructive (actually Yoo compared it to Nixon and Watergate, which was a bad comparison since Nixon's actions were clearly illegal).
Not only did Stewart conduct a good interview, but I think the point he was trying to make was a good one. He was trying to say that these circumstances are no different than other wars and that the president's powers shouldn't change and neither should our values. Torturing criminals might save lives in certain circumstances (at least if you think torture gives you good information), but we do not condone that. So Yoo's logic about this being an unprecedented situation is false.
Although the interview was good, Jon Stewart did miss a few key points.
First, Stewart should have disagreed with Yoo in how much power an executive does and should have. Yoo thinks a president at war is only restrained from doing things that are not necessary for winning the war. Instead, I think it is our laws and our principles that are checks on presidential power.
In support of this point, Stewart could have pointed to history to show why this should b the case. Some president's have violated our basic principles in the name of war to enact policies that violated our laws and principles and were clearly mistakes. Internment of Americans of Japanese dissent is one such mistake. A government where the president's power is checked by our principles - as enacted in our laws - is necessary to prevent these types of overreaches. And I would argue that the Geneva Convention was just such a law that should have checked against Bush's overreach.
Second, we might understand a need to have policies that set different levels of interrogation than we have for American criminal suspects. However, to the extent that these are new situations and new powers. they should be created through law. Instead, John Yoo thought they could be determined by drafting a legal memo. Others, like Jack Goldsmith, rightly thought this needed to be done through Congressional legislation. Stewart should have pressed this point.
Finally, and maybe most importantly, Jon Stewart did not go after Yoo for the policies that were condoned and considered to be short of torture. Again, we can understand different rules and processes for terrorists, but to claim that what the Bush administration did (forced standing for days, extended sleep deprivation, food deprivation, physical violence, and water boarding) was short of torture is absurd. Yoo should have had to justify why water boarding is okay, but dunking someone's head in a bucket of water, submerging them in a pool, or holding a gun to their head is not torture.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Islamic Center Update
The debate over the Islamic Center in downtown Manhattan has gotten out of hand and almost nobody looks good. President Obama's support was weak (supports their right but won't speak about the wisdom of building there). This Wall Street Journal Op-Ed says all the right things but has a conclusion that doesn't fit with the rest of the piece - calling for it to move somewhere else. In fact, the only bright spot has been John Stewart and the Daily Show for mocking all those opposed.
So many people are tired of this debate and might accept if the Islamic Center moved. However, if the center acquiesced and moved, it would empower the groups that are opposing new mosques in places across the country. After all, if Islam equals terrorism, who would want a mosque in their neighborhood.
There have been a lot of comparisons between 9/11 and the community center to Nazis and the Holocaust and Japan and Pearl Harbor. Although maybe it shouldn't need to be said, I'll say it anyway. The main difference between those examples is that the Nazi party was without a doubt responsible for the Holocaust and the Japanese government at the time did call for the attack on Pearl Harbor. So not wanting a Japanese flag at Pearl Harbor might makes sense.
However, the religion of Islam was not responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The people who carried out the attacks were acting in the name of Islam - but most agree they were acting under a corrupt interpretation of Islam.
Of all the articles and opinions, this op-ed in the WSJ by Ayaan Hirsi Ali is probably the most destructive to the debate. Now, I don't know a whole lot about Hirsi Ali. I have read some reviews of her books, but never read the books themselves. I know people who have read the books and been inspired, but from the little I know, I have been concerned about her anti-Islam message. So the Op-Ed doesn't surprise me.
What is most regrettable about her op-ed is that it talks about a clash of civilizations, but is vague on exactly what she means. A column like this should be very explicit, lest it mislead people and come off more extreme and violent than it means to be (or maybe it means to be). I understand the column to say that we cannot hope to mix and live in tolerance with Islam. Instead, there are always clashes of civilizations, this is one, and we need to win. I think the only way we win is not by changing hearts and minds, but by destroying or eradicating Islam.
Again, her column is hopelessly vague, so maybe it is not as extreme as I think. But if so, she needs to be way more specific. (I have been noticing a lot of articles lately, on a variety of issues, that have a lot of words but make vague points and no recommendations.)
If her column is saying that, then I would very strongly disagree. So many seemingly intractable clashes have been worked through in time. Catholics and Protestants live in peace even in Northern Ireland and Europe moved passed its anti-semitism. You might argue that the last example is a bad one. I would disagree. There were those saying a conflict was brewing between Jews and non-Jews. While the Nazi party tried to eliminate the Jews, they were unsuccessful and now that clash is a thing of the past. It is an important lesson in history, but not now a clash of civilizations.
Where I might agree with Hirsi Ali, if this were what she were saying, is that there will always be clashes of some kind because there are always people that seek violence and destruction for one reason or another. What we must realize, is that we are opposing those people and those means, but not the ideologies they pervert and use to justify their means.
So many people are tired of this debate and might accept if the Islamic Center moved. However, if the center acquiesced and moved, it would empower the groups that are opposing new mosques in places across the country. After all, if Islam equals terrorism, who would want a mosque in their neighborhood.
There have been a lot of comparisons between 9/11 and the community center to Nazis and the Holocaust and Japan and Pearl Harbor. Although maybe it shouldn't need to be said, I'll say it anyway. The main difference between those examples is that the Nazi party was without a doubt responsible for the Holocaust and the Japanese government at the time did call for the attack on Pearl Harbor. So not wanting a Japanese flag at Pearl Harbor might makes sense.
However, the religion of Islam was not responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The people who carried out the attacks were acting in the name of Islam - but most agree they were acting under a corrupt interpretation of Islam.
Of all the articles and opinions, this op-ed in the WSJ by Ayaan Hirsi Ali is probably the most destructive to the debate. Now, I don't know a whole lot about Hirsi Ali. I have read some reviews of her books, but never read the books themselves. I know people who have read the books and been inspired, but from the little I know, I have been concerned about her anti-Islam message. So the Op-Ed doesn't surprise me.
What is most regrettable about her op-ed is that it talks about a clash of civilizations, but is vague on exactly what she means. A column like this should be very explicit, lest it mislead people and come off more extreme and violent than it means to be (or maybe it means to be). I understand the column to say that we cannot hope to mix and live in tolerance with Islam. Instead, there are always clashes of civilizations, this is one, and we need to win. I think the only way we win is not by changing hearts and minds, but by destroying or eradicating Islam.
Again, her column is hopelessly vague, so maybe it is not as extreme as I think. But if so, she needs to be way more specific. (I have been noticing a lot of articles lately, on a variety of issues, that have a lot of words but make vague points and no recommendations.)
If her column is saying that, then I would very strongly disagree. So many seemingly intractable clashes have been worked through in time. Catholics and Protestants live in peace even in Northern Ireland and Europe moved passed its anti-semitism. You might argue that the last example is a bad one. I would disagree. There were those saying a conflict was brewing between Jews and non-Jews. While the Nazi party tried to eliminate the Jews, they were unsuccessful and now that clash is a thing of the past. It is an important lesson in history, but not now a clash of civilizations.
Where I might agree with Hirsi Ali, if this were what she were saying, is that there will always be clashes of some kind because there are always people that seek violence and destruction for one reason or another. What we must realize, is that we are opposing those people and those means, but not the ideologies they pervert and use to justify their means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)