Oh, C'mon Bill Maher and Howard Dean

[question everything]

Just watched the Bill Maher program - aired on Friday.

I cannot believe they let Bret Stephens command the debate.

Here are two issues that they should have rebut:

Stephens said that we had a recession in the early 90s and in 2000 and both recoveries brought more jobs and increase in income. But not the current one.

Well, this is why it is called "The Great Recession." You cannot compare this one to any other downturn except, of course, the Great Depression and the mini ones from the early 20s and the 30s. In January 2009, on Obama's first month in office, we lost 700,000 jobs in that month alone. Further, the shifting from manufacturing to service economy that started in the 70s finally hit reality. Manufacturing jobs were solid, with decent income and benefits, are gone. Forever. Will never come back. Service jobs pay less, are not stable, no benefits, and depend on our discretionary spending. And after all that job losing and the value of our investment - well, we are more careful with our discretionary spending.

This is why Obama got the stimulus package. To have real jobs that cannot ship to other countries.

Plus, of course, we, the older baby boomers, are now heading to retirement with a lot less discretionary spending capabilities.

One of them, including Nia Malika Henderson, whom I really admire - should have called Stephens on this.

The next issue was a poll that Stephens quoted, that when people asked (don't remember the details of the poll) about priority spending with limited resources, they chose Malaria, HIV and poverty over climate change.

Yes, well. of course. Climate change is more theoretic. We are told that the ocean water will rise. We are told that the arctic caps are melting, we are even shown photos of polar bears looking for place to sit and move. But malaria and HIV and poverty are real and immediate and we see them now.

Stephens had the floor and the rest just mumbled.

Sad.

[truebluegreen]

1. I watched the show too

and was pretty ticked about it. I really like Howard Dean, but if he's going to be on these shows he could at least keep himself informed. Stephens was claiming that wage stagnation started (of course) under Obama, Dean claimed that it had been going on for twenty years and Maher had to point out that it goes back to Reagan at least. Nobody explicitly linked it to trickle-down economics, probably in part because Clinton bought into them--why can't anyone (besides Elizabeth Warren) just say how idiotic it is to think that giving all the money to rich people will make poor people better off? Seriously.

[applegrove]

2. Bret Stephens was such a creep. You could

tell he was lying his *** off. If I ever see him again I'm turning the tv off. It is hard to punch through to the truth with such an accomplished and dogged liar. Maher did well to call bull**** on him when they were talking about scientists. Nothing to do but avoid the likes of Stephens. Shame on the Wall Street Journal for employing him.

[kwolf68]

3. A terrible show

Dean was poor, muttering nothing but cliches'. The women wasn't bad, but she wasn't ready to fight. Stephens dominated the show and some very simple, yet compelling arguments could have been used to diffuse his claptrap.

I did love the interview Maher had before the show. Forget who that was, but good stuff.

[JonLP24]

4. He was 110% right on the Islamic distinction

These Wahabbi cults preach about the Wests war against Islam. The more people make it more about Islam the more it confirms what these Wahabbi cults preach, creating this self-perpetuating, never-ending cycle.

That was the best point made in the entire episode IMO and it came from Howard Dean.

[question everything]

11. I could see where he was coming from

but it is really difficult to explain the nuances.

They are greedy terrorists who use the dream of Islam circa 700 to reach many and to be taken seriously.

I was thinking something similar recently about the Boko Haram in Nigeria. I think that for many of these so-called Islamist and jihadist groups, the main point is to gain control over women.

One of the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was in New York in the 50s and was angry by the way women walked the streets. And some Pakistani in London, too, were angry about how women behaved. So retreating to Islam that does oppress women, that does tell women how to dress and behave and to stone them for "infidelity" meets their problems perfectly.

[JonLP24]

12. A lot of it comes from 18th century Najd

An interpretation & belief system developed from a population that was mostly illiterate. Wahabbis eventually took over Saudi Araba & the rest his history.

Certainly a lot of it is about how women should act or behave & face many restrictions such as Kuwait where you're prohibited to look at a woman that isn't related to you. Don't get me wrong on that point. The also prohibit a lot of other things too. Alcohol is usually enforced with a public whipping, drug possession -- people are executed. Criticize the Wahabbis in charge, executed. Saudi Araba has upscale malls -- 5th Saks Avenue though this is mostly for Westerners there on business. A single Saudi National male caught in one of these places is punished. It goes further than that when the Quran mentions idolatry, they take it so far in they think the book means prevent idolatry so when they first took over Saudi Arabia they desecrated the graves of Muhammed's immediate family, put the breaks on that but got back to that & other things within the last 10 years. -- http://time.com/3584585/saudi-arabia-bulldozes-over-its-heritage/

I'm unfamiliar with the Muslim Brotherhood so it wouldn't surprise me if they are Wahabbi though Islam itself features restrictions that apply to both men & woman though some take it way too far though not an indictment on the religion itself, Muslim majority countries have had several female Heads of State.

I don't deny the aspect of what you say. ISIS & Boko Haram are Salafi-Wahabbis as well as Al-Qaeda, Taliban, House of Saud, governments of Kuwait & Qatar.

[question everything]

19. Thank you. What an asset you are on these pages with your deep knowlege

of customs and the sects in the Middle East.

About the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood, there was a review of a book: Profiles in Terror, that I posted here in 2006. I did not read the book, and cannot attest to the facts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x228602

One of those individuals was Sayyid Qutb, a nebbishy Egyptian writer who arrived in Greeley, Colo., in 1946 to attend college. A priggish intellectual, Qutb found the U.S. to be racist and sexually promiscuous, an experience that left him with a lifelong contempt for the West. "Instead of becoming liberalized by his experience in America, he returned even more radicalized," Mr. Wright says. Once in Egypt again, Qutb joined the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood and was later jailed and tortured. In jail Qutb wrote his manifesto, "Milestones," which would become the primer for jihadist movements around the Muslim world. He insisted there that jihad be conducted offensively against the enemies of Islam. What was revolutionary was his insistence that Islam's enemies included Muslim governments that did not implement true sharia law. As Mr. Wright explains, Qutb wanted secular Middle Eastern governments excommunicated from the Muslim community. That process of declaring other Muslims to be apostates is known as takfir. It would become a key al Qaeda doctrine.

[JonLP24]

21. Sounds like Wahabbism

House of Saud descends from local leader Muhammad Bin Saud who made the pact with Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab "You are the settlement's chief and wise man. I want you to grant me an oath that you will perform jihad (Struggle to spread Islam) against the unbelievers. In return you will be imam, leader of the Muslim community and I will be leader in religious matters."

Here is another article I highly recommend "Women’s Rights in Saudi Arabia: Wahhabism vs. Islam" http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2013/04/87234/womens-rights-in-saudi-arabia-wahhabism-vs-islam/

<snip>
In order to fully understand how Wahhabism has survived the test of time, a brief history of this movement is necessary. Wahhabism is a term commonly given to a strict Sunni sect of Islam. The movement emerged approximately 250 years ago under the guidance of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, the first modern Islamic fundamentalist. Muhammad bin Saud, the founder of the modern-day Al Saud dynasty, aligned with Abd al Wahhab to begin the process of bringing together different tribes in the Arabian Peninsula.

The theological and political partnership resulted in the fall of Mecca for the second and final time in 1924, cementing their governance in the region (Delong-Bas 14). Following the conquest of the holy city, the tremendous oil wealth of the kingdom was exploited to export the radical Wahhabist ideology across the globe. To this day, these families share control over the kingdom, with the descendants of Wahhab, known as ahl al-Shaykh, in charge of religious life, and the Saudi royal family, or ahl al-Saud, operating the state. The two families also continue to marry their descendants to one another (Altorki 67).

It is the rigidity that defines this extremist movement that has separated its precepts from traditional Islam. Adherents of Wahhabism do not refer to their religion as “Wahhabi”. Many prefer to call themselves “Muslim,” for according to their beliefs, they are the only true Muslims. Some Wahhabists refer to themselves and their religion as “al-Muwahhidun,” or “Unitarians.”’ Following the legal school of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Wahhabi ulama allegedly only accept the authority of the Quran and the Hadith, and accordingly, reject reinterpretation of these divine sources with regards to issues settled by the early jurists.

By rebuffing the validity of reinterpretation, Wahhabi doctrine adamantly disagrees with Muslim reformation movement of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The latter movement sought to reinterpret parts of the Quran and sunna to conform with standards set by the West, most notably standards relating to gender relations, family law, and participatory democracy (Delong-Bas 27).

[question everything]

5. Nia Malike Henderson is a Washington Post journalist so she has to be neutral

I suppose. And I've often seen women on the show being shut down by the men. The only one recently who managed to stay her round was Carly Fiorina. I also think that Maher is trying to accommodate the conservatives so that he will have at least one of them present.

Yes, his first guest was interesting, James Fallows on his Atlantic story: The Tragedy of the American Military

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/

he American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can’t win.

[AngryOldDem]

7. The interview was about the only good part of that show.

Not one of Maher's finer hours.

Jeeze... if I want some right-wing hack dominating a discussion, I'll take Salaan (the guy who speed-talks and never, ever shuts up) any day over Brett Stephens. That guy made no sense, looked pissed off (exactly WHAT did he think he was getting into when he agreed to be on???), and Bill somehow managed to let him have the whole hour. I got the impression that Bill himself really didn't want to be there. Dean, surprisingly, was a nonfactor. I thought he'd be all over Stephens on a lot of points.

And the Washington Post reporter -- she said, what? About two and a half sentences?

[Bigredhunk]

6. It blows when Maher has conservatives on

It's usually only 1 conservative and either, A) two liberals -or- B) a liberal and a moderate. Every once and a while all 3 panel guests are liberals. Those are the best shows. I don't have a disdain for debate. I have a disdain for the 1 conservative dominating the show with their bullshit talking points. Their points are almost always ridiculous ("we don't know what's causing climate change," citing a study by Bjorn Lumborg - who's been debunked, "We care about the poor and incoming inequality and our policies will fix those problems" yadda yadda yadda). It makes the entire show a boring, grinding slog. Every once and a while the conservative will be meek and not talk a lot. That's very fucking rare though. It's usually assholes like:

Bret Stephens
David Frum (loves to hear himself talk, thinks he's the smartest guy on the planet)
SE Cupp
William Kristol
Ann Coulter
Darrell Issa (talks like he's Mr Moderate, Mr Sensible...then goes batshit crazy in congress 3 days later)
Dinesh D'Souza
Reihan Salam (supremely annoying, never shuts up, talks a million miles a minute)
Jack Kingston
Amy Holmes

It's pretty sad when you long for Margaret Hoover, Steve Schmidt, or Michael Steele to be on the show.

The cons always stick to their orders. They have their bullshit talking points and they never stop talking. I'm about ready to stop watching the episodes that feature any conservatives (and, of course, most of them do).

[AngryOldDem]

8. I don't mind the conservatives, usually.

And thanks for mentioning Reihan Salam -- upthread I was trying to remember his name and couldn't.

Maher and his other panelists usually do a good job of shutting down most of these people and showing that most are just plain bat-shit crazy. When you compare their arguments with the facts that everyone else puts out there, I think it's pretty eye-opening just how insulated and myopic most on the Right are.

I don't know what happened with Brett Stephens. He took over, and the show was basically done from about the 10 minute mark to the end.

I think it's instructive to see how the other side thinks. But this last Real Time was a real waste.

[GummyBearz]

10. I agree with you

I like the 1 democrat, 1 moderate, 1 republican (and Bill Maher who typically will side with liberals).

The problem with last weeks show was that the republican came ready for a boxing match and everyone else came ready for a tea party (no pun intended). Bill Maher called BS on him a couple times, the lady I don't even know if she said anything, and Howard Dean made very feeble attempts here and there. So it turned into a 95% republican hour... which wasn't very fun to sit through.

Hopefully it serves as a lesson though... study up and do your homework before the test (which I'm very very surprised Dean apparently didn't do), or you might fail

[AngryOldDem]

17. And I agree with you.

It's been a long time since Maher has allowed one guest to pretty much dominate the discussion. And Stephens' arguments were so lame, trite, and canned that I would have thought that both Maher and Dean would have had no problem at all putting him in his place. Maybe they were just letting him hoist himself on his own petard, but it sure didn't come across that way. Stephens was very confrontational and overall off-putting...in short, an ass.

As for the WaPo reporter...Maher should have brought her into the discussion more by specifically asking her some questions.

Just not a good show.

[bigdarryl]

9. That fucking show is starting to be a disappointment Maher is

More concerned on getting right wing idiots on his show.

[bigwillq]

13. I never watch Maher.

I can't stand him.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Dean on TV often fucks up. I was sort of a Dean fan until I saw a TV interview when he was Chairman

in which he insisted the Democratic Platform had a plank opposing marriage equality, which it did not have. The interviewer tried to correct him, Howard insisted and persisted in his misinformation. He either did not know the platform of the Party of which he was Chair or he did not give shit about it because he did not agree with. Whatever his reasons, it was utterly unacceptable and I told him so. He feigned an apology but never made a correction.
Don't really expect much from Howard after that.

[Paladin]

15. I don't know why I watch Maher, anymore.

This latest season has been one disappointment after another, with last week's Bret-orama amounting to a new series low point, as far as I'm concerned. Maher's idiotic anti-vaccination stance ought to be reason enough to find something else to watch on Friday nights. Hell, the prison shows on MSNBC at the same time offer more entertainment than Maher, at this point.

[ProfessorGAC]

16. I See Where You're Going

But Maher, at least three times, basically gave him a "WTF?" and then just dimissively said, "OK" and moved to another topic.

I completely agree that Bill let that tool dominate the discussion, though. We had WAY too much drivel from that subsimian.

[appalachiablue]

18. Dean acted like he should have been in the audience, not on the panel. I could hear him

laughing a lot, a viewer not a participant. Strange. He was not prepared, not involved and a disappointment. Nia Malika Henderson was also not engaged. Why did they think they were invited? The RW rehearsed guest was overconfident, but Maher combatted his points successfully. The country music album jokes about Joni Earnst were the funniest part.

[Johonny]

20. isn't Climate Change linked to Malaria and poverty and will make both problems worse

but in fantasy land those four issues are not linked at all and can be solved separately as if the other has no bearing. It's how stupid people pretend to govern while doing nothing.