Since the Obamacare ruling may be out by Monday morning this post might just get shoved aside rather quickly. But onward we go: Bill Maher has doubled down of late with the GOP name calling. Friday he said the GOP was “mental”. Recently he said they were a “party of apes.” This is Maher’s game and it’s not all that shocking. I’ve said worse about both parties. What interests me here is the frothing demonization that’s erupting in the Pro-Obama crowd.
Maher is not a serious person and should not be seen as one. That said, he’s an interesting launching pad. The attacks on the Tea Party of 2 years ago have morphed into attacks on the GOP as a whole. Again, this is normal and expected. The “teams” in our system fight ugly. Here’s the consistent anomaly since 2010: These Democratic attacks are not based in policy…or particulalry on point or helpful to their cause. Calling the entire Republican party insane is frantic and useless politically. Actually, it’s counter productive.
I remain surprised that so little effort on Left is expended on attacking conservative policy. Still. In 2010, Democrats seemed to think yelling “The Tea Party is a bunch of racists!” was a powerful counterpoint. Obviously, it wasn’t. It didn’t work because it largely wasn’t true. Meanwhile, the party big wigs insulted a vast swatch of voters. On the other hand, a straightforward argument against the Tea Party’s platform would have mitigated Democratic losses. For ten months they never bothered to make a legitimate argument. The GOP picked up 60 plus House seats. Interestingly, as soon as the TP took power its poll numbers declined. We came to know them after they won. If the Democrats were smart they would have made that happen before the election.
Democrats are again falling into the same trap. Does Maher believe telegraphing a meme to the Facebook masses that the GOP is mentally ill will work in 2012? Maher is a joker without a sense of humor. But where is the policy based Democratic counterpoint to the Tea Party’s ascendency? Other than one talk by Elizabeth Warren that went viral can anyone name one Democrat who has responded to the Tea Party cogently? Obama makes occasional half-baked appeals to class identity. Harry Truman he’s not. Everyone else from the CBC to Biden to Pelosi retreat to exhausted dog whistle phrases within a sentence or two. Racistwaronwomenunstablebigots. The result being that anyone disagrees in the slightest with Democrats or Obama is tagged as a racist, sexist, unstable, bigot.
So I ask, where is the economic argument against the GOP?
Do these people think name calling helps their cause? Or are they so mentally constricted they can’t conceive of another reality? To question them is to be a bigot. And a mentally ill one at that.
One of the tragedies of the Obama era in the Democratic Party is just how backward looking it has become. It’s a party trapped in 1984. Identity politics has killed off creative thought. I’d very much like to hear a thoughtful counterpoint to Paul Ryan from a leader on the Left. One that did not disintegrate into constipated, dated wailing. I fear that until Obama, Pelosi and company are expunged no forward movement is possible from the Democrats.
If any of these types ever read this post I’m sure they’d insist I’m a mentally ill Klansman before getting to this sentence.
Is there any policy difference between the parties?
Just in the spelling.
Your comment, “I fear that until Obama, Pelosi and company are expunged no forward movement is possible from the Democrats.”
That’s the plan, no forward movement as long as the democrat elite remain in charge. In part because they live large, lavish lifestyles, and that is all that matters to the democrat elite.
Exactly
Bingo. This is why the Purge of 2012 is ESSENTIAL.
Oh, forgot to click the notification box.
John, isn’t it also logical to assume that if they had an argument to make, they would make it? If you can beat someone with the facts, there is no way, and no reason why you will resort to smear. I think you are right about the Pelosi/Obama/Reid triumverate. The Clintons these people are not. As long as this is our leadership, some genuine forward thinking (and cogent way of explaining it) is not possible. We would have seen it by now. But there was another story just released on Congressional insider trading…so nice to see something actually came of that stink… /snark.
Maddow/Maher join the WWF, as a tag team. Gillespie pins them both, in epic smack down.
What you witnessed on Maher’s show was, the sound of a bubble, when it bursts. Both Maddow/Maher, got F&F completely wrong, claiming ignorance or racism, and tried to contain every syllable in to “the blame bush game.”
Gillespie was cool and non aggressive as he administered the epic beat downs. If you want to hear the sound of a defensive bully; listen to Maddow, as Maher tags himself in, to save off, the Gillespie pin. Maddow, inexplicably doubles down, with a fully extended swan dive into the empty pool on Romneycare. Maddow is an extreme partisan, Rhodes Scholar or not.
Maher, who is funny, yet dumb on politics. I like his humor, it is clever, yet misdirected. Where Maher, shows his bubble brained ignorance, with his claim of the devolving state of the Republicans. How perceptive the Maddow/Maher tag team are, both being, social theorists. They are true adventurers communicating back to us, as they morph, in real time, as the advance team, as the human species evolves. They are the enlightened bridge to the Ubermensch. Neitzsche is sobbing!
Maher needs the Republicans to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Comics need a foil, and if a comic can make the target of his ridicule devoid of morals or ethics, or mentally insane, it establishes a much larger field to mine for comic opportunities. He has not evolved, quite the opposite, his whole act is based on this, as is his career opportunities. The self serving over reach and social analysis, is what one usually hears when the liberals are taken out of their bubble.
Maher, at least had the cajones to criticize Obama, showing he is not a cultist, just a comic who keeps drilling down, regardless of the offensiveness or personal attacks, whether true or not. One can hear the sound of their brains popping. You have to just listen the their dialogue, the same verbal theme is played over and over, attack the character and ridicule > see Rachael Maddow, or segue into a different mode and ridicule > (comedy) see Maher.
Gillespie allowed the Lefts, two stellar residents of ridicule, Maddow/Maher to illustrate publicly what uninformed dunces they really are. It was great subtle theater. Gillespie took them down on each topic.
Maddow’s grand exit in slow motion, as she left the stage with cane and hat with the traditional liberal rain dance > attack and ridicule, whist repeating, her chorus, ”you don’t know who I am?” Celebrity elitism openly confessed. Are there certain prerequisites, before you can ask Maddow a question?
Gillespie surgically exposed the political theatrics used by Maddow/Mahler, which cemented them, as ignorant and partisan goofs. Maher can skate by the goof part because he is a comic. Maddow however, as she looked on, claiming she is entitled to her princess tiara, What me? A partisan, no no NOT me? I am Edward R. Murrow!
Exit question, how does Maddow square this in her soul? Maddow must believe, higher education degrees, are free passes to leave Ignoranceville, and she is sticking to it. What else does she got? Fair insight left her a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away.
We know tWhat you witnessed on Maher’s show was, the sound of a bubble, when it bursts. Both Maddow/Maher, got F&F completely wrong, claiming ignorance or racism, and tried to contain every syllable in to “the blame bush game.”
Gillespie was cool and non aggressive as he administered the epic beat downs. If you want to hear the sound of a defensive bully; listen to Maddow, as Maher tags himself in, to save off, the Gillespie pin. Maddow, inexplicably doubles down, with a fully extended swan dive into the empty pool on Romneycare. Maddow is an extreme partisan, Rhodes Scholar or not.
Maher, who is funny, yet dumb on politics. I like his humor, it is clever, yet misdirected. Where Maher, shows his bubble brained ignorance, with his claim of the devolving state of the Republicans. How perceptive the Maddow/Maher tag team are, both being, social theorists. They are true adventurers communicating back to us, as they morph, in real time, as the advance team, as the human species evolves. They are the enlightened bridge to the Übermensch. Nietzsche is sobbing!
Maher needs the Republicans to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Comics need a foil, and if a comic can make the target of his ridicule devoid of morals or ethics, or mentally insane, it establishes a much larger field to mine for comic opportunities. He has not evolved, quite the opposite, his whole act is based on this, as is his career opportunities. The self serving over reach and social analysis, is what one usually hears when the liberals are taken out of their bubble.
Maher, at least had the cajones to criticize Obama, showing he is not a cultist, just a comic who keeps drilling down, regardless of the offensiveness or personal attacks, whether true or not. One can hear the sound of their brains popping. You have to just listen the their dialogue, the same verbal theme is played over and over, attack the character and ridicule > see Rachael Maddow, or segue into a different mode and ridicule > (comedy) see Maher.
Gillespie allowed the Lefts, two stellar residents of ridicule, Maddow/Maher to illustrate publicly what uninformed dunces they really are. It was great subtle theater. Gillespie took them down on each topic.
Maddow’s grand exit in slow motion, as she left the stage with cane and hat with the traditional liberal rain dance > attack and ridicule, whist repeating, her chorus, ”you don’t know who I am?” Celebrity elitism openly confessed. Are there certain prerequisites, before you can ask Maddow a question?
Gillespie surgically exposed the political theatrics used by Maddow/Mahler, which cemented them, as ignorant and partisan goofs. Maher can skate by the goof part because he is a comic. Maddow however, as she looked on, claiming she is entitled to her princess tiara, What me? A partisan, no no NOT me? I am Edward R. Murrow!
Exit question, how does Maddow square this in her soul? Maddow must believe, higher education degrees, are free passes to leave Ignoranceville, and she is sticking to it. What else does she got? Fair insight left he,r a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away.
….the frothing demonization that’s erupting in the Pro-Obama crowd.
Seems to me that has always been part of the Obot make up ….it’s the other side of the worship coin. These folks know just two stances: at one’s feet,( Barry, and the mirror ) or at one’s throat ( the disbelievers ) . All the kumbaya goes out the window when questioned.
Hello Obots…. you God Obama picks targets for our killer drones no problem with that right? ( and if he displays the same skill there as he does when picking basketball teams…well it would explain alot )
The moment president romney starts picking targets they will suddenly find that they are APPALLED!
Indeed , suddenly all the war acts won’t be deemed “humanitarian” and holy anymore ….
Speaking of basketball, I’ve been meaning to mention that we’ve forgotten that Obama is a star-gazer. He and his followers interpreted the putting down of Eight Belles in the Ky Derby in 2008 as symbolic of his impending defeat of HRC. I’m sure their interpreting King James recent championship win (finally!) in the same light. But he’s about get smacked in the face with the folly of New Age interpretations. I can see it from a front porch in Alaska.
*they’re. Proofreading is my friend. Sue me. I’ve had a 14 hour work day.
This dyslexic relies on others to proof read my posts for themsleves … so thanks!
Maybe I should stand alongside the homeless on a freeway offramp with a sign that simply reads, “Will vote for principles.”
Hear hear!
Someone’ll eat your face off and blame it on bath salts.
My opinion only, but I think face eating works best with no explanation.
I told you all along, John, there isn’t going to be one. Neither will there be a serious economic argument against Democrats. This election is not about gas prices or the economy or any of the other serious problems we need to deal with because the people in control (big and small and in between) don’t care as much about that as they do about Victory. It’s the Hatfields and McCoys — eventually the fight is only about winning and losing, not what’s won or lost.
Good grief. The problem is so much bigger than that!
The Democratic Party is ruined, it was ruined by millions of Americans — not only Obama, Pelosi and company. It’s so easy to point a finger at Obama or Pelosi and blame them, and god knows the easy way is the American way today. But that’s only what’s bubbling on top of the poisoned stew. Obama and Pelosi et al are only the the individuals who gained the most power. The narcissism and entitlement and greed and slim to no empathy is an epidemic among Americans, millions and millions of rich and poor, white and black, male and female across the nation, and until that bullying crowd has burned itself out and left the wreckage for the rest of us to deal with, the only forward movement will be deeper into the perfect storm. The liars, the cheaters, the pretenders are not only in Washington, not only on Wall Street, not only in posh townhouses and penthouses and borrowed mansions, they’re right here posting on the Internet all around us. And they made and maintain this problem every bit as much as Obama and Pelosi and company.
Unfortunately, the militant feminists insisted on making Hillary Clinton a cause celeb for sexism when she was actually a victim of ageism. Ageism is now destroying the country.
One example of Ageism is the cancellation of Harry’s Law, NBC’s NUMBER ONE rated show, but a show watched by too many older people, so NBC canceled it.
The occupy movement could have won over 50 million people if they had chosen to help people over the age of 40 instead of simply using the movement for wall street prosecution, sex, drugs, and student debt forgiveness. So far they’ve gotten two of four, guess which two.
We couldn’t possibly have been witnessing both sexism and ageism, so let’s go hard with ageism and pretend the sexism didn’t exist except as a figment of the militant feminist’s imagination. Y’know, periodically, when I’m down, the claws come out…but otherwise, I’m likable enough, sweetie.
Sexism wins as the sin that took hammers to Hillary and her campaign — along with her supporters. The nation (and anyone who would have done something about it) was blindsided and did not react fast enough. Media played every sexist dog whistle in the book on a daily basis (along with the race card). The second prong of this was the media games in terms of favoritism that went beyond name calling — even when she won a primary by large margin, they would not check the winner box next to her name until late into the evening. The message from the beginning — he’s cruising, she’s clinging. The third prong was the DNC and party elder backstabbing. Ageism was also at play but nothing compared to the overt misogyny that she, and later Sarah Palin endured.
Sophie, yes, it was both ageism and sexism that did Hillary Clinton in. However, militant sexism turns most men off whereas ageism includes everybody and is much more inclusive of both sexes.
To borrow from James Carville….It was the sexism stupid. The attacks on Hillary were the same tired SEXIST memes the Republicans used on Hillary back in the early ’90s. And BTW we have no obligation to make you feel all warm and cozy and included. That’s not my job. Check the Yellow Pages, I’m sure you can find a good therapist to help you with that and your obvious distain for feminists as evidenced by your repeated, “militant feminist” comments.
Good lord. Everybody sees ‘their issue’ in every fucking thing.
So Jay…..sexism against women, used to attack Hillary Clinton and her supporters in particular is just “my issue”? You can’t be serious. But if you are….please…please mansplain to me why you don’t think sexism and misogyny were used during the ’07-’08 campaigns? Go ahead start your mansplaining……
Militant feminists are an entirely different brand than feminists. And yes, I also don’t care that much for militant feminists who don’t give a shit about men, good men, good men who are also screwed over by the system. The Militant feminists take on comedian Louis C.K. is so demonically dumb they lost 99% credibility with me.
However, unlike militant feminists who hate men, I love feminists, and I the love inclusion of people who have reason to be included, aka the ageism issue.
The issue of Ageism is an excellent gathering ground and one that is rapidly gaining sway as evidenced by Harry’s Law being canceled by NBC even though it was their number one rated show. But because too many older people watched Harry’s Law, NBC canceled it.
As shows for “older people” get canceled, especially number one rated network shows, the content of the newer shows skews younger, this in turn invites more and more discussion of younger issues and will result in an older presidential candidate having no chance in 2016.
I did not say that they weren’t used against her. Sexism clearly was — don’t remember the ageism that’s being talked about here.
I do not think it’s why she didn’t win. At all.
Jay, everytime a talk show host made fun of Hillary Clinton, it was primarily because their audiences skewed younger, and Obama was the younger candidate. Even Jon Stewart, who is revered by progressives, took the bait and went pro Obama, because his audience skews younger. Sure Sexism was involved as well, but ageism is a unifier of both men and women since it affects them equally.
Unfortunately sexism invites the militant, men hating women sexists into the fold and for every women they recruit to vote for Hillary Clinton, they lose two prospective male votes for Hillary Clinton, and as evidenced above, they don’t get that, and they don’t care.
Sorry Jay, I thought you were saying that sexism was just an “issue” I was seeing “everywhere” It was Daily Puma who brought up the ageism argument because he has an issue with feminists that he tries to explain away with the “I like feminists..I just don’t like militant feminists (meaning women who disagree with him)” argument.
By the way, Pie person, it just hit me that you’re here going on and on about misogyny and then use the impotent little slur ‘mansplain’?
See, I don’t hold a similar thought about you based on your gender. I do, however, now think of you as a passion blind idiot.
Dailypuma – I see what you’re talking about. I didn’t ‘notice it’ during the campaign and I’m not wholly sure that it had much to do with the outcome of the election, but you’re absolutely right that where marketing and commerce rule (even the marketing of a candidate), it’s much easier to go after the younger dollars.
Wow Jay, you cut me to the quick! “Pie Person”! Ouch! And I take back my apology to you. Apparently I hit a nerve with the mansplaining comment. Well, if the shoe fits Jay, by all means wear it. As for Daily Puma’s ageism vs sexism argument. That’s what I call IDIOTIC. The demographics did not mean that it was ageist, it just means that the younger generation is more openly sexist. They have wonderful role models with people like Bill Maher and rap stars like JayZ (I got ninety-nine problems fame)..
I was offended by the mansplain word as well. But it doesn’t matter, since we’re both male and all males are the same, I think that’s how the militant feminist credo goes, no?
I was also fooled into thinking it was more sexism than ageism in 2008. But Jon Stewart makes me think it was more ageism. The dude comes off like the hippest, tv news commentary geek out there, and he totally went for Obama in 2008 and won’t apologize for what he did, but he gets a pass anyways because everybody knows he’s not a sexist.
But what he did in 2008 to Hillary Clinton was not ok, but because he practiced ageism instead of sexism, he gets a pass? What kind of BS is that? It’s militant feminist BS.
I like feminists, militant feminists will ruin Hillary Clinton’s chances this year, and in 2016 as well by trying to steer the issue to sexism when it will be more about ageism.
sigh, mansplaining is a huge insult, and you just want to own all the hurt rather than spread it around. If you had the choice, go with fighting ageism and Hillary wins in 2012 or 2016, or sexism, and she loses, I think it’s evident which way you would go.
That makes you a MILITANT feminist, not to be confused with a feminist.
If you and Jay want a real life example of “mansplaining” …..you just did it! Thanks!
OUCH!!! Another dagger! You called me “militant” again! Oh is this the part where I’m suppose to screech….”OH no Daily Pumaman!” “I’m not one of THOSE feminists!” “I’m the kind YOU approve of…you big, strong man you!!!” [wink-wink]
Anytime a man stands up to a militant feminist, they of course then become an example of what poor oppressed women have to go through, right? And if the men say nothing, they are trampled on. Nice.
Both ageism and sexism played into it; as I think Ani explained best of all in this thread.
The sexism was obvious but ageism was clearly involved as well. Obama’s youth versus Hillary’s middle age was cleverly and subtly played upon. Not nearly as much as the more easily sold sexism, but it kept cropping up. It was implied in the Change mantra, it’s what was implied when Caroline Kennedy (who symbolizes youth because JFK will always symbolize youth) said her children had convinced her to back Obama. Ageism and racism were definitely among the manipulative tools Obama used, though sexism was primary and the most shockingly effective.
John, you are so right about the democrats abandoning serious policy discussion in favor of ridicule and name-calling.
I work at home and listen to a lot of talk radio in the background during the day. In ’08 I began to notice that conservative hosts and callers generally talk principles and policy while progressive hosts and callers rant about “rightwing nutjobs” and laugh at lesser beings who do not agree with them.
For that reason I have found myself much preferring the conservative shows even though I disagree with their fundamental beliefs and think they are wildly off the mark on many of their assumptions, like “Obama is a socialist” (PUH-LEEZE)…but at least they don’t act like snotty brats.
I’m sure this same dynamic is at work with the electorate in general. At some point, grown-ups get fed up with immature and arrogant asses.
Yeah, Kim, but the grown ups are not the ones in control of the island now. Many were lost and those who survive have largely retreated to the hills while Lord of the Flies plays itself out.
Agree Zal. Unfortunately.
Maher’s taunts of mental health show clearly what he thinks of his fans. He assumes they are childish and stupid. On the second, he may be correct, I mean who pays good money to watch a grown man find multiple ways to us the ‘f’ word ? Who knew it was that easy to become rich and famous?
Loved your comment re: ‘a comic without a sense of humor’. I always think of Whoopi that way too.
Condescension is cruel and fueled by hubris. There is going to be hell to pay when Maher’s and Maddow’s audiences catch on to them.
Muslim Brotherhood takes over power in Egypt. Exactly what I said would happen when that Facebook revolution thrilled bloggers last year. And ObamaCo “looks forward to working” with them. Natch.
The revolution was not led by the MB; they merely had the organization to step into a vacuum. The West did jack-shit to influence conditions post-Mubarek.
The MB govt in Cairo is no more scary than the Islamic Republic we eagerly set up in Kabul.
At some point, the US needs to remember the Tripoli Treaty, & re-affirm that we are a secular nation, and as a matter of policy, will not support theocracies.
I know it wasn’t. The “revolution” was led by a bunch of wannabes through Facebook who had no clue about real revolutions, a bunch of people who believe pretend is the same as real, who believe something is true because you feel in your gut it’s true. They created a vacuum into which the Muslim Brotherhood stepped. It was as stupid as OWS.
What they had that allowed them to step into a vacuum was a grasp on reality and the sense to create a plan beyond, “We deserve.”
Yeah. The People should just stay home and post blog comments because only one of two things can happen if they take action:
1.) They will be co-opted (tea party by Koch, Arab Spring by MB)
2.) They will be ridiculed and ignored (OWS)
What are disenfranchised people supposed to do? Both parties ignore their constituents and both are equally culpable in making this a less perfect union. 90% of Americans want GMO products labeled yet Monsanto threatens and the politicians get in line. Over 60% of Americans disagree with Citizens United, yet there it stays, stronger today than yesterday.
Obama wasn’t lying when he said the private sector is in great shape. Corporate profits are up and they’re doing better now than before the crash. Unfortunately, they’re hoarding the money and not engaging in that mystical practice of Job Creation.
However, if you don’t have it all figured out and you don’t have a coherent, charismatic leader with a well-funded political machine in place, you have no business protesting in the first place.
And ObamaCo “looks forward to working” with them. Natch.
Indeed, The whole point of the Arab spring was /is to take down the secular Arab governments and set up these rump, MB war lord states. We are arming them and sending them into Syria right now. They are the “Syrian rebels”… Imported Western/Saudi Arabian hired death squads, stationed in Turkey… and of course they have started going into Lebanon as well, that’s the next place …all to pave the way for our war with Iran. The West does not want peace in Syria .We want to take down its government solely to gain a convoy road from Turkey to Iran .
A rough breakdown to our ME policy is as follows : Places we are importing war are Shia dominated and our ” allies” in our war of terror are Sunni. If we are” looking forward to working with…” (fill in the blank), it’s because we installed them. That’s been the case in the ME for many years …regardless of who’s in the White House
SophieCT, Obama may not have been lying when he said the private sector is in great shape but if he was telling the truth he defines “private sector” as big corporations. Small businesses are struggling like mad. Why? Because Obama’s private sector is in such great shape. Yes. All prosperity is not the same. Big corporations, brick and mortar or online, like Home Depot and CostCo and Amazon can get you anything you want any time you want; small businesses cannot. And Americans, you know those great protesters who cheered OWS and the Facebook Arab Spring, want their mowers and books today, they deserve to have them right this minute, and cheap. It’s the big corporations –because they buy big and manufacturers cater to those who buy big– that can get you anything you want any time you want. Buy a mower -the one that’s hot that everybody wants this summer- from a small business and it can take a month or two. Walk into Home Depot or Tractor Supply, you can have it delivered later this week. Go in for a copy of Fifty Shades of Grey to an independent bookstore, they’re sold out and they say we’ll have it for you next Thursday, then next Thursday comes around, you go in, and oops the shipment didn’t arrive, it’ll be here by next Tuesday for sure. Why? Because all the copies went to Amazon and CostCo. Order on Amazon and even if it says backordered you’ll have it in your mailbox in three to six days. Americans don’t have the patience to patronize small businesses. The lost sales that small business loses to big business is crippling them more every day. They’re working longer hours, dealing with crankier customers, making smaller profits. And that’s the fault of every single consumer who makes the choice to buy at Home Depot and every other big business.
So, sure, in a sense Obama wasn’t lying, but the truth –for the middle class businessperson– of what he was saying is disastrous.
They’re supposed to stop being disenfranchised.
They have done it to themselves, don’t you see? They did it to themselves in Germany in the 1930s, too. And in Russia and Argentina and so many other places. This isn’t new, it’s how this story plays out. We get to see it from front row seats. By spending at big corporations, by cheering impotent nonsense like OWS and Arab Spring while at the same time taking on student debt for “education” that won’t pay off or dumping big cash into Wall Street for retirement investing, by charging Domino pizzas on Citibank Visa, and by failing to follow through after Anderson Cooper left Egypt sniveling about being bullied, the “disenfranchised” disenfranchise themselves and their voices. The big boys in those corporate towers are laughing at us, and I’m sorry if you don’t like it but the truth is we deserve to be laughed at. WE have the power –there are millions and millions of us and actually very few of them– and we hand over our power to them; nay, we bully each other into handing over our power to them.
I never said people shouldn’t protest, I said they shouldn’t be stupid about it. Maybe stupid isn’t a nice enough word and it shuts you down to hear it. So sorry. How about childish, does that get through to you? We have an adult population of people who behave like children and refuse to accept that we can’t have everything we want just because we want it. Mommy and Daddy aren’t going to pick up the pieces, clean up after us and buy us new toys when we break the ones we have. Being a grown up, making change, owning and using our power, takes commitment and planning and compromise and work and sacrifice and truth and reality, none of which this generation traffics in.
And why do you think that is?
Gee, it must be Monsanto’s fault and politician’s fault. Bad Monsanto, bad politicians; we’re good, though, right? We’re just innocent and nice and good, and they’re so mean to us. Bah.
If 90% of Americans stopped buying products with Monsanto’s GMO products, or stopped voting for the politicians who get in line for Monsanto, then Monsanto would do what 90% of Americans want. But that’s too much to ask of today’s average American because, like children, they want everything easy, don’t take personal responsibility, they expect someone else to make the sacrifice, clean up the mess, do the heavy lifting, fix the problem.
but if he was telling the truth he defines “private sector” as big corporations. Small businesses are struggling like mad.
I as much as said that. Small businesses are struggling because the big corps and banks are hoarding their cash. Sorry I didn’t spell it out in greater detail.
I am disenfranchised because my “representatives” are wholly-owned by corporations. Yes, Zal, I walk your talk. I spend a lot of time and money to buy very close to home, particularly food–right from the farmer. I shop at the big stores as a place of last resort. And still, my representatives caved at the Mighty Oz that is Monsanto. We were SO close in CT to having a labeling law and our “leaders” ran away from their lawsuit threat with their tails between their legs. Same in VT.
Since Monsanto won’t allow labeling, how can the average consumer avoid buying Monsanto GMOs? Since both sides are the same side, owned by the same corporate sponsors, who the hell else is there to vote for? The media outlets are also corporations. A handful of people speaking truth to power on a blog is drowned out by the bazillions of dollars poured into lying to us to keep us bickering over crap. Both political parties are corporations and make up their own rules as they go along. They decide what choices we have from the outset. If the Republicans beat Obama, it won’t be because they put up somebody better, it will be because they put up somebody ELSE.
Oh, but I can just enfranchise myself. Poof–I’m enfranchised.
Well Zal, I think it’s a bit more complex than that. I’m posting a link to a Catherine Austin Fitts interview. Yes, it was Alex Jones who interviewed her, which does not nullify anything she says.
I invite everyone to at least listen to it. The interview is about an hour long, but one does not have to watch it per se, just listen to it.
Hope that link works as I couldn’t get it to copy and paste.
No, SophieCT, not poof you’re enfranchised. I said it takes a significant number of people (I used your 90% figure but obviously a great many fewer could make it happen) willing to make the commitment and sacrifice and do the work to make it happen. We need one another to work together on a real revolution — and part of the reason it doesn’t happen is because of these pretend revolutions like OWS and excitement over Obama and Arab Spring. Like with processed food, the fake stuff is rolled out and looks good, looks like the real thing, then people are satisfied with the fake stuff and so the real stuff, which is a lot less easy, doesn’t have a chance.
I’m not saying Monsanto and politicians and bankers aren’t to blame. They are. But so are we, and yes that includes you if you defend OWS and the Arab Spring Show when they’re happening.
Oh, and if you want to know which products have GMO in them, there are articles and lists all over the internet. It’s not a secret. Do the work of researching it, the information IS available.
Oh, and if you want to know which products have GMO in them, there are articles and lists all over the internet. It’s not a secret. Do the work of researching it, the information IS available.
Now you’re just being a disallowed expletive. You know nothing about me and yet you talk like an authority on the subject. You also know nothing about GMOs. Lists all over the Internet are useless when you’re looking at two vegetables side by side. Lists all over the Internet mean nothing when an organic farm is unfortunately downwind from a GMO farm. The minuscule information isn’t even always correct. You have no concept of the enormity of this.
I do the work every day. Now you do the work–not Googling and calling that research, but get off your ass, go to farms, read books, talk to farmers, talk to Jeffrey Smith.
I’m no authority on the subject but as a lay person I do know something about GMOs and about Monsanto. I’ve been reading about it for many years, and it’s part of the reason I’ve resurrected the farm we bought a decade ago. And I haven’t pretended to know anything about you; I responded to something specific you posted. You’re wrong about information regarding GMOs on the Internet – certainly everything posted isn’t reliable but there IS good information available.
The subject was mass movements and whether or not movements like OWS and Arab Spring bring about the change their boosters claim — it was one thing to attack my position at the start of those movements but taking issue with my position now that events have proven me right is curious indeed.
Yes, we were talking about protests and I used GMOs to illustrate some point and you picked it up to say two things I found completely stupid. The first was that we could avoid GMOs simply by reading lists on the Internet and the second was that I should try researching it sometime.
I pointed out there are articles and lists on the Internet in response to you asking,
Seems a reasonably intelligent response. And I suggested you read them because your asking that question seemed to indicate you didn’t know how to find out which products contain GMOs.
And I told you that was a non-answer. There is no list of everything that contains GMOs. Could you stop already?
BTW, you suggested I talk to Jeffrey Smith. I don’t know him and wouldn’t impose on his time but the average consumer you were concerned about can learn how to avoid buying GMO products by navigating through his websites online — you know, on the Internet as I suggested. He provides a lot of information on the Internet, for instance his website Institute for Responsible Technology has a tab labeled Buy Non-GMO, which has lots of useful information and even provides a link to download his Non-GMO Shopping Guide brochure and suggests we “keep it with you whenever you shop.”
Jeffrey Smith provides lists of products that don’t contain GMOs:
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/docs/Non-GMO-Shopping-Guide.pdf
Apparently, you can’t stop. I am well acquainted with his site and his work. As I pointed out numerous times, the available information is inadequate.
How about this, Zal: alfalfa is now GMO, don’t ask me why because it grows like a weed. Cows eat alfalfa. Cows make milk and cows make beef. That kind of tracking isn’t being done and won’t be on any list in any meaningful way. There is a group that certifies non-GMO food but it is TINY and voluntary. It comes nowhere near providing an adequate amount of information. 90% of the people want their food labeled. Instead of you twisting the argument into me doing research that can’t be done, why can’t you acknowledge that the people we elected to represent us are not because they either represent Monsanto or are afraid of Monsanto or both?
Sophie, I never twisted anything, I forthrightly answered the points you made and the questions you posed.
I’ve said both Monsanto and politicians are to blame. And of course the people we’ve elected to represent us are on Monsanto’s side, our elected officials are on the side of corporations across the board. That does not absolve us of responsibility; in fact it’s all the more reason we need to be diligent about avoiding the lure of mass movements. We give away our power by going nuts over Obama and OWS and a Facebook “revolution” in Egypt that results in the opposite of what benefits us.
“If 90% of Americans stopped buying products with Monsanto’s GMO products”
This is not possible, since foods are not labeled and you cannot know if GMOs are in what you are buying or if it is Genetically Modified food. GMOs don’t wear name tags.
Apparently Frankenfood is so safe they don’t want you to know you’re eating it. Thus the pushback on the labeling demand. Truth is, PLENTY of people would stop buying GM food if they knew where it was. That’s why Monsanto threatened Connecticut with a law suit and made them back down on their labeling law. USDA feels labeling is unnecessary, but then a Monsanto point man was appointed to the USDA by Obama to make sure this kind of opinion occurs. There was also a FOIA request for emails that were exchanged between the WH and Monsanto but last i heard they didn’t get around to releasing them. Even when the law is on the side of regular people, it doesn’t matter any longer. DC has officially placed themselves above the law.
Thanks for this. This victim thought process is exactly the kind of laziness and entitlement I’ve explained is a major part of the problem among today’s Americans, which is childish — and what Americans accomplished before the past 30 years proves has not been part of the American character all along as Lola insists. We are not entitled to be taken care of, we are entitled to take action and we have a responsibility to take action when taking action is required to protect ourselves.
It certainly is possible for a significant portion of the American population –especially if 90% want labeling– to demonstrate dissatisfaction with GMOs by targeting our consumerism to non GMO food and then our votes to new political candidates who respond to that action the way we want. But that takes time and effort and sacrifice when it’s so much easier and cheaper to just buy Bisquick and blame Monsanto.
You are wrong that we cannot know if GMOs are in what we’re buying. There are hundreds of books and thousands of websites devoted to this subject, and if you read through enough of them you realize it’s not all that hard to see common denominators and identify the tens of thousands of products with GMOs in them. Furthermore, there is labeling, as Jeffrey Smith’s site that I linked to shows, that identifies a lot of non GMO products, so approaching our buying from that angle is another possibility.
Cheering mass movements like Obama and OWS and Arab Spring rather than refusing to use our credit and debit cards and refusing to buy GMO products is exactly what the corporate hierarchy wants because it distracts the population from using its power in ways that benefit us while at the same time handing it over to them. Monsanto is rich and powerful for the same reason Pfizer and JP Morgan Chase is: us. Our money, our support for their shitty products. Americans keep handing over their money to them while griping that “it isn’t possible” to stop. It’s possible, Americans just don’t want to be bothered.
You are wrong that we cannot know if GMOs are in what we’re buying.
That is the most willfully ignorant drivel yet. I have to hand it to you–you won’t let your lack of knowledge get in the way of pontificating your ill-conceived opinion.
Not only are you wrong, but you’re abusive about it. Don’t waste your time whipping off another reply–you will still be wrong and come off as relentlessly abusive.
You ought to read Jeffrey Smith’s websites. I assume you respect his research and conclusions, you’re the one who told me to talk to him; I suggest you listen to him. He lays out in forthright and simple terms, in user friendly format, how to identify and buy non-GMO foods. If you’d like, I’ll be happy to post links for you or anybody else who wrongly believes we can’t know if GMOs are in the food we buy.
Thank you for mentioning his name; I’m adding the information he provides to the bank of my own knowledge.
We don’t have to be victims of Monsanto or any other corporation, the choice is ours.
Zal, now I know you’re intentionally being a ratf-cker.
You ought to read Jeffrey Smith’s websites.
Scroll back and see that I said I did. Numerous times. You go read that pdf and attempt to put it into practice in your daily life so you can realize how uniformed your comments really are.
He does not say that you can know which foods have GMOs. He gives broad tips on how one might avoid them. IF you read it and live it, you will see that you can never be sure and that there are millions of products you cannot buy if you want to be on the safe side.
Have you read a food label lately? Good luck avoiding corn, soybeans, canola, sugar beets, and alfalfa-fed livestock.
That is why we want labeling. That is how we will not be victims of Monsanto–not by having to do more research than a grad student just to make lunch and then still not being sure. But since you glanced at an online flyer, you are now an expert.
You’ve called me a ratfucker and you’ve called my comments stupid, and you’ve accused me, who has not name-called you at all, abusive. I agree with Maya Angelou: “The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them.” Although I respected you before, now I know who you are. Another disappointment. You’re disgusting.
I read it, top to bottom. I went shopping today and it was very easy to put it into practice; but then I’ve been shopping this way for years. You make it seem like it’s some major impossibility, and that speaks volumes about you. It’s not that hard to buy non-GMO food, it just takes information and attention, and the willingness to not have everything exactly the way you want.
Shame on you for being one of the pretenders who move your fingers over the keyboard as if that’s engagement in Social Change but can’t be bothered to buy with discrimination. Shame on you for being part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Maybe you haven’t read what he’s written.
Or maybe you’re a liar.
He gives broad tips like avoid processed food that lists soybean and sugar beet (broad but also specific and easy to follow), and he also provides a long list of specific brand names that are committed to including no GMO products at all. A LONG list that makes it reasonably easy to find non-GMO foods for good cooking.
How dare you attack me with Jeffrey Smith’s name and not even read his websites? Shame on you. You’re exactly the kind of false protester that’s draining power from our population. Of course you defended OWS, you’re as smarmy as they are.
I read dozens today. It’s easy as long as I have my glasses, and I walked out of the grocery store with five bulging bags of food, none of it with the ingredients Jeffrey Smith suggests we don’t buy.
You’re a jerk; you fooled me before this conversation but you are a jerk plain and simple.
I’m no victim of Monsanto or anybody else. You are. And you’re a victim because you make yourself a victim. One doesn’t need to be a grad student to follow a simple list of ingredients and brand names. Even a ratfucker who makes stupid comments like me can manage it with relative ease. Maybe one day you’ll grow up and be able to do it, too. There’s always Hope and Change.
Zal, thank you for proving many of my points, much better than I ever could have.
As long as Israel has the gall to keep existing, the Muslim Brotherhood will go from strength to strength.
http://www.howcultswork.com/
“:But where is the policy based Democratic counterpoint to the Tea Party’s ascendency?” Matt Taibbi has made some unbelievable cogent arguments in response. Unfortunately, very few people have been listening, other than when he called Goldman Sachs a vampire squid. Name-calling sometimes, when it’s clever, works but then it doesn’t necessarily change behavior.
The other unfortunate reality in response to your questions is that there isn’t a policy argument the Democrats can make in response to a Paul Ryan because the math no longer works without hurting a constituency the Democrats can’t afford to hurt. That is the almost farcical bind they are in. You see, we do absolutely have to either raise taxes (which politicall won’t work on either side) or cut subsidization for some part of the population – the math of our situation demands it. The Republicans can afford to push policy options that cut spending on much of the public sector and on the poor because they don’t rely on their votes. The Democrats, on the other hand, can’t push those options because they do rely on their votes but they also can’t push options that will end spending/subsidizations on the wealthy and corporations because they rely on their $ and powerful behind-the-scenes support. So, Dems truly are stuck – only thing left is name-calling.
Well said! Theoreticaly they could suggest we stop our ten war fronts… it’s our endless, world wide overt, hidden, and proxy wars that are draining away the money for anything else…( and not the greedy teachers etc. who want to keep health care…the nerve! ) . But that’s another bind since war all we manufacture and export anymore . Besides suggesting we pull back on our wars would be seen as “blocking the cock” …the real 3rd rail of politics! lol
i don’t get it, i don’t think maher is funny at all! personally, i think rush and laura ingraham are more funny and more entertaining than that guy.
Naughty, as a certifiable armchair shrink, it appears Maher has deep seated sexual insecurity issues. I mean, look at him, listen to him, he has as much sex appeal as a can of paint. No normal woman would find him desireable. So he ends up with gold diggers and hookers, which only results in further confirming his insecurities, and circumvents his latent homosexuality.
I don’t think Maher is closeted, but anyone who lashes out so much at others has to be covering insecurities of some nature.
He’s just got a bad case of YDS. Yippie dog syndrome. The little people always do. I know; I am one.
Zaldonis and Paper Doll- I love your comments and think you are (unfortunately) dead-on.
Kim, I agree. To simplify, we end up with the politicians we deserve. The appalling aspect of Obama is not Obama, it is that we the people fell for him, over a decorated war hero and an experienced and hardworking Senator. The other appalling aspect to all this is that O’s approval rating is above single digits, and it may be a close race.
We the people, did not fall for him. Our very existence on this blog is testament to that. They, the people, did not listen to us (and to quote John McLean, they’re not listening still). I don’t have the politicians I deserve. I have the politicians the Republicans and Obots deserve. And yet here I am with their mistakes.
Exactly Sophie. And I’m not buying this grown up crap being pushed in this thread. Stone cold truth: Americans have always been assholes. Assholes with good ideas and hardworking ethic for self-empowerment, but assholes nonetheless. This grown up business is hippie nonsense. Take it back to the Rainbow Gathering, thank you very much.
Of course not — you go around trying to trick people and boast that you’re successful at it. Tricksters thrive on the childishness of today’s culture, and they protect the tools of their trade.
And assholes spend a lot of time complaining about what other people are doing, so thanks for proving my point.
Well put, SophieCT. We did not fall for him. We did not vote for him, and we do not deserve him.
You may not have fallen for Obama but if you fell for Arab Spring or OWS, it’s the same thing in different wrapping. And there’ll be more upcoming because we are in a time that spawns mass movements.
Have you read Eric Hoffer? In the early 1950s he explained mass movements in The True Believer (in fact I’m pretty sure Hope and Change, literally, appear in the first chapter) and that they may look different but how and why they’re actually the same and the role they play for people.
“Present company excepted” goes without saying here. We didn’t join the cult or drink the Koolaid or the Tea, but here we are.
None of us in today’s culture are complete innocents. We still fall for talentless celebrities, butt-ugly ‘fashion’, read terrible, popular books, and ooh and ah over manipulated food that is too precious by half. We think clever and ‘smart’ mean the same thing when they don’t. Sometimes I wonder that some of us know enough to come in out of the rain. I can say this stuff because I’ve been guilty of all of the above and more. Dh and I knew we were over it, when our kids gave us a gift certificate to a very fancy NY restaurant. When the waiter brought us an appetizer about the size of a Chiclet, we both burst into gales of laughter, and the spell was forever broken..
Exactly, sophie.
We’ve see how some who weren’t taken in by Obama in ’08 are now defending him, or some who weren’t taken in by Obama were taken in by the Arab Spring (insisting Muslim Brotherhood wouldn’t win power through a fair election) or taken in by OWS.
The thing about a con is it plays to specific vulnerabilities; just because we’re not fooled by one con doesn’t mean we’re immune to being fooled.
Loved Jay’s comment re; Will vote for principles.. That perfectly sums it up as does ‘too soon old, too late smart’..Once a person finds a way of being that feels true for them, everything else is noise. If we can win our inner war with vanity, we are less apt to fall for the latest con, at least on our good days. The fragments of the Obama cult that still exist stem from the fact,imo, that many of us still want to sit with the cool kids, even if they’re jerks.
Yes, exactly sophie.
Americans have largely turned in their authentic selves for false images and are not living lives that are true, least of all to themselves. When we create a dreamworld it’s ourselves that we deceive. This results in emptiness, a longing that we then try to fill with more pretense and false fillers, and the pseudo-substance of mass movements like Obama or OWS or what’s next. As Joni wrote those many years ago about Woodstock, we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden.
And me, I have to go let our chickens out of their coop and into the yard. It’s a gorgeous summer morning here in Connecticut.
Odd that someone championing the anti-ageism cause would play into ageisms hand by using a 50 year photo of himself.
lol, 50 years. Actually that photo was taken before film was even invented.
You use “militant” to differentiate between classes of feminists. Would you mind defining “militant” in the context of feminism? Thanks in advance.
PS Feminism is the reason Hillary, and other women, are able to run for high office.
“Mansplaining” -when a male has the audacity to explain to women that which women are intimately, and often painfully aware of based on personal experience and history.
If a commercial tv program ( Harry’s Law) and a single word (Mansplaining) are hugely insulting to you try imagining that feeling multiplied by a majority percentage of the population multiplied a million times on a daily basis over thousands of years, and you will have a clue about the general experience of women. Only a clue though because there are so many other elements that go into the experience of being a woman or girl.
Your failure to acknowledge the hypocrisy of using sexism in an argument against sexism says all we need to know about you. This makes you a ‘scroll by’ in my book.
In a normal situation, I have no problem with militant feminism. If militant feminism is what is important to you, fine. But when your beliefs lead to political gridlock and force us to end up choosing between Romney and Obama because militant feminism is not an inclusive movement, then I must step in and shine a light on the madness because eventually I am affected by polarizing groups.
Militant feminists are generally not likable people and they don’t care that they are not likable, but most importantly, they don’t care that their crowding around Hillary Clinton makes her less palpable to tens of millions of people.
When given the choice to get Hillary Clinton elected by focusing on the ageism issue, an issue that would actually drive men and women together, for a change, the militant feminists will throw that idea under the bus and demand that sexism be the top priority.
Men are victimized by society as well, maybe not as much as women, but there are a substantial amount of men who tried to be good, upstanding people, and have had surprises come their way from the opposite sex.
There are millions of men who pay alimony to a spouse who may have just gotten bored with her life, had “nothing to do with the guy”, yet the guy is now having to try and support himself, ex-wife, and kids as well.
Militant feminists don’t care about that reality, and as a result, they lose credibility among a lot of men. Fairness matters all the way around. I bet most men out there have at least one male friend that got royally screwed over by the system and had their life left in shambles by woman who just changed about commitment after guilting the man into committing to her.
Ageism causes includes both sexes, and would actually bring both sexes together in a more harmonious way.
dailypuma: So that can understand your point, please define and differentiate militant feminism vs. “regular” feminism.
Militant feminists basically hate men, love to post stories that make men look bad, rarely if ever point out the good that men do, use words like mansplain.
I’d like to chime in on that too, SophieCT. Militant feminists are why I no longer call myself a feminist.
To me, militants (of any stripe) see their oppression everywhere and in everything, even when there is none there. They also seem to eschew the fact that there are differences between the sexes. They’re too black and white about the subject. I used to be more black and white with my own thinking, but since I’m so much less so now I can’t stomach militant thinking — even in the gay male community, the subset that I’m a part of.
Jay, I suspect militancy, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. For some, a militant is simply someone who disagrees with them. For others, a militant actually has lethal weapons at hand. I’m trying to find out where in that range this discussion lies.
I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat. –Rebecca West
Yes, it’s a fine needle to thread I suppose, and definitions about such things can be by and large personal.
The sentiment that ‘all men are alike and bad’ that comes through when some feminists express themselves is what I’m trying to pinpoint here. For instance, ‘militant lesbians’ (primarily in the seventies) who would not talk to men. Can’t get on board with that crap.
Feminists who want to combat women not being treated equally I usually don’t have a negative reaction to. I’m usually in agreement with them.
Sometimes gender doesn’t matter — but sometimes it does. That gender always matters seems to me to be just wrong.
It’s up to Sandy to define what he means by militant. Is it a woman who stands her ground and will not defer or is it an armed and dangerous woman. I also want to know what “militant feminists” did in 2008 because as far as I could tell, there weren’t any!
I’m generally leery of people who use modifiers like that. It’s a divide-and-conquer tactic. “Oh, but you’re not one of those feminists [or insert your own favorite group here].”
I did explain militant feminism up above, perhaps you did not see it before you posted your response above. A feminist wants progress, a militant feminist will never be satisfied because men are scum and pretty much no matter what a man says or does, they prove their scumminess just by speaking.
An example of militant feminism would be the attacks that Louis C.K. was put through for one diatribe against Sarah Palin, which ironically he did because he is obviously a serious democrat who just went too far.
A further look at Louis C.K.’s work would reveal some incredibly deft material that elevates women many times higher than the men. A militant feminist will find the one thing they need to crucify a guy, and then celebrate the crucifixion over and over.
One of the most empowering, pro female story arcs I have ever seen came from a Louis C.K. episode that aired on HBO back in 2006, Lucky Louie was the show. Yet militant feminists have him in their line of site and he will be forever scum.
You do realize, of course, that your disdain for younger people also falls within the realm of “ageism”, right?
According to the ratings numbers regarding the TV show Harry’s Law, it takes 7 people over the age of 49 to NOT equal one person under the age of 50 in terms of demographic importance. To try and reverse the argument as being ageism against the young does not apply in this instance.
As a Boomer, I think most of my peers Vote, we were raised to consider it our duty. If a candidate depends heavily on a so called ‘youth vote’, good luck with that.
I want to throw in a comment here about ageism…after the stuff above. The cancelation of Harry’s Law is worth noting as it gets to something so many too often forget. TV is business. Period. No one is spending millions on a show to NOT make money. NBC intends to make a profit. We may become attached to their product but in the end that is all it is to NBC. A product. CBS once famously ditched a line up of top shows because the audience for them was older and less prone to spending money. They went for “city folks” in the aftermath and it worked. Mary Tyler Moore, All in the family, Bob Newhart, Carol Burnett, Maude… all skewed urban and younger – for the 70s at least. Harry’s Law got the ax though it had good ratings because the people who watched are far less prone to advertising. Age does that. Makes one more prudent and more immune to selling, which is mostly about sex.
Conversely, 30 Rock, a wonderful show, has always had bad ratings. It was allowed 5 years because the audience it did have skewed rich. Even with a smaller audience it was worth keeping because they had more dough. Advertisers like that. NBC gifted it with one more half season…i suspect mostly so Tina Fey could wrap things up. Her gifts as a writer are enormous and NBC may want her around in the future.
Ageism exists, but in the case of TV unless 60 somethings suddenly become fad followers or impulse shoppers TV will always skew young. It has to. Young people spend money on what they are told to spend money on. TV tells them. Its power remains awesome. Now I will say that today’s young ones are so distracted by everything else that TV must go VERY deep into the barrel to grab an audience. Carol Burnett had 2 other opponents. Now she’d be up against 100.
But numbers can be manipulated so easily, and inaccurately. Cutting age bracket demographics from 4 to 2 has proven astoundingly manipulative. 18-49, and 50 to death, that’s it? Really?
That’s crazy. There should be FOUR age brackets for demographics. 18-34, 35-49, 50-64, 65-end of life. If there were four categories, then it becomes more believable to say, this so was only popular in one demographic, so it was cancelled, if indeed that was the case.
But if a show is solid in two age categories, and trending upwards in a third category, then keep the show on. Some further ironies to consider. Younger viewers channel surf more than the older crowd, so they may end up watching less commercials overall.
Now lets talk ratios. Are 7 or 8 people over the age of 49 equal to one person under the age of 50? Because Harry’s Law ratings were so good they were only short of the magical 18-49 demographic by about 400,000 people, but they had an EXTRA 4.4 MILLION people watching who over the age of 49. Are we too believe that 400,000 people under the age of 50 are more valuable from an economics point of view than 4.4 million people over the age of 49? I find that ridiculous, and a perfect example of how ageism is being used to manipulate content to reality tv, mostly dumbed down TV.
I have a theory that the real reason Harry’s Law was cancelled was that it was going to be a HUGE magnet for political ads from now until November. If I am not mistaken, political ads get the LOWEST AD RATE that a channel has given to any other advertiser over the past year. By canceling Harry’s Law, NBC avoided being flooded with low paying political ads. If this is the unmentioned reason why Harry’s Law was cancelled, than this is borderline treason, passing the buck of low cost political ads onto the other channels by canceling a channel’s NUMBER ONE RATED show that was going to draw a TON of political ads.