Dispatches from the Culture Wars

It's shooting fish in a barrel, but very well delivered. Bravo, sir.

Posted by: kehrsam | October 28, 2009 9:16 AM

Yeah life would be easier if he didn't think infectious disease was merely a construct of big pharma. On the plus side, its always good to see and hear republicans being mocked for their stupidity.

Posted by: JohnV | October 28, 2009 9:40 AM

I don't got no teevee, so I don't watch any of this shit. There are no "Talking Heads Bars" where I live (at least there is one thing to be thankful for in this spectator sports obsessed world) so I don't have to put up with the likes of Maher, Rush, Hannity, et al, unless I go to visit friends. I would never dream of telling them they should change the channel, so I just sit there and grit my teeth. Of course, if I get me oneathem teevees and they come to my house, I hope they're okay with pornos.

Posted by: democommie | October 28, 2009 10:24 AM

Ken in Tucson @ 5 stated:

Anti-vaccination hysteria is not the ideology of liberalism any more than YEC is the ideology of conservatism. Both are the "idiology" of idiots.

I strongly disagree. Both ideologies leads some of its adherents to different and sometimes similarly absurd positions though they get there through different thinking.

I never claimed that anti-vaccine woo is a domain exclusive to liberals; I do argue that a large set of liberals who are not critical thinkers get there because of liberalism's knee-jerk distrust of certain groups, in this case Big Pharma. I would never claim all liberals share that tendency, but that you can be predictive which political idealists will be attracted to certain woo-like positions - which better explains Maher's positions perfectly on science and falsifies that his positions are based on either being informed or good critical thinking skills. I've been having a debate for several weeks now with a conservative relative regarding the efficacy of vaccines vs. the conspiratorial meme going around in Christianist circles that the H1N1 vaccine is a part of a New World Order plot so again, I'm fully cognizant that one doesn't have to a liberal zealot to be anti-vaccine.

In addition, we know for a fact, and can be predictive on this observation, that YECs are predominately conservative. That's because both conservatism and liberalism attracts certain types of personalities to their movement. So while I never stated that being a liberal condemns one to a certain type of flawed thinking, we can safely predict that some liberals will take irrational positions and while those positions will overlap to some degree with conservatives, e.g., anti-vaccination, we can also predict differentiation between the two based on the psychology of the people who join either group. We can also safely predict that each group might share a certain brand of woo, but often will possess different motivations for arriving at that position, but not always. For example, with the anti-vaccination group, part of it is the far left's distrust of a global economy run by plutocrats, a distrust which is shared by the socially conservative populists' distrust of some plutocrats (read Jews) working towards One World Government.

In my previous comment post I am arguing that the evidence strongly argues that Mr. Maher's positions come out of liberal ideology rather than by any well-honed critical thinking skills - the latter of which I'd argue is a defining aspect of liberalism for many of its adherents. The fact that the liberals who support anti-vaccination arrive at that position based on a type of woo-like thinking that inflicts some liberals can not be denied.

Lastly, I am merely holding Mr. Maher to very standards this forum uses for conservatives, i.e., how can non-conservatives take a particular conservative seriously on anything when we have evidence they can't or don't think critically on at least some matters? We know the possession of political ideologies risks (it certainly doesn't guarantee) one to a particular form of irrational thinking, in this case Maher falls for a typical one on the liberal side shared by some conservatives as well. To avoid dealing with this general weakness on our side is equivalent to conservatives wanting to both avoid consideration of the evidence for evolution or avoiding the best arguments for why non-conservatives want to destroy Ms. Palin and Rep. Bachmann's political careers.

Posted by: Michael Heath | October 28, 2009 12:10 PM

MikeMa @ 7 stated:

Michael Heath, I think you give Maher too much credit when you say that his gross failings in understanding science show him to be "..losing moral authority in all matters."

The operative word being "losing", but not "lost". I've tolerated him for years now, but you have to see the Frist interview with Maher's defensive follow-up on the following week's show to recognize how far off the deep-end he's gone.

Does Maher have the ability to redeem himself? I think he does, unlike conservatives whose ideology often causes them to be incapable of adaptation. But we can't ignore the fact that recently Maher's become ever more strident with his woo.

I still watch him as well but now I feel like a hypocrite for doing so. For example, if we're going to generally condemn a Rick Warren because of some of his positions in spite of his holding many other reasonable positions, than we should use the same standard for 'our guys', otherwise we risk taking the very same type of hypocritical position in the public square that we see much more often from conservatives. I do fully condemn Rick Warren and I'm getting to the point with Maher where I may have to do the same - I'm giving him time to analyze his position because the last time he raised it, it became apparent he hadn't done his homework and it appeared he implied that as well. So I'll give him a chance just like I would hope I'd do for anyone.

MikeMa @ 7 stated:

That's a little much in my opinion since, after all, he is an entertainer.

We can't ignore the fact that Maher has strong opinions and is absolutely dead serious about selling those opinions in the public square. Comedy is merely the device he uses to get our attention and pay the bills, but I'd strongly argue he's serious about influencing others. But it's not a mere shtick, he's serious and I respect him for that.

In addition, that sort of excuse is often the defense we see out of conservatives when we criticize their influential members in an open forum where they get boxed-in, like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity. I dismiss it all since all these people do use their bully pulpit to influence the public square and our politics. Therefore, they are fair game.

If we don't want to be hypocrites, we need to hold our team to the very same scrutiny and standards that we use when criticizing or even dismissing conservatives.

Posted by: Michael Heath | October 28, 2009 12:34 PM

So Ed, as a semi-retired stand-up comic, does Maher's delivery drive you crazy? To me, it screams, "I am reading a bunch of cue cards that my writers put together for me!"

Posted by: Ferrous Patella | October 28, 2009 12:58 PM

MikeMa @ 13 - FWIW, I admitted I'm giving myself the very same beating.

Posted by: Michael Heath | October 28, 2009 1:30 PM

dogmeatib - I never intended to imply that Maher's actual argument was that Big Pharma is bad. I am claiming that appears to be the motivation for his position given it's a consistent explanation relative to his positions on both climate change and evolution as I framed them in my first comment here. You are pointing out his rationalizations for his position, of which I'm well aware.

I would tend to give Mr. Maher more slack for possibly playing the mundanely ignorant contrarian in spite of the scientific evidence if that was how we framed all his science related arguments. But it's not; which is why I purposefully framed his position on vaccines within the framework of his arguments for climate change and evolution for purposes of detecting patterns.

In light of all three positions and how he makes arguments about all three, I do detect a consistent pattern across all three positions, i.e., they are all arguments made by someone with an axe to grind against conservatives. There is no consistency in terms of the science or even rational thought.

I hate having this observation because I root for the guy, but the facts are what the facts are. His show is currently on hiatus and on his last show it was evident he's cognizant of the criticism. I'm hoping he'll bone-up on both the efficacy of vaccines and cancer treatments prior to his new season. Educating oneself and adapting one's position are defining liberal features; let's hope he takes this task on.

Posted by: Michael Heath | October 28, 2009 2:38 PM

william e emba @ 17:

A recent example of someone applying kneejerk "liberal" reflex thinking and getting the science wrong was Keith Olbermann's naming Brian Deer "Worst Person in the World" a few months back, as reported in this blog.

I could not find a record of Ed blogging about Brian Deer on this blog. I did find this blog post from Orac criticizing Olbermann for naming Deer "Worst Person in the World".

There is nothing scientifically wrong about Olbermann's criticism of Mr. Deer, in fact it had nothing to do with science but instead Olbermann's self-professed claim to some journalistic standard which he argues Mr. Deer abandoned in his story by failing to note he was the very complainer of an anti-science advocate that he reported was getting complaints. Orac in turn criticizes Mr. Olbermann's integrity and fealty to journalistic standards, believing Olbermann was merely using Deer to once again criticize Rupert Murdoch, with some empirical evidence presented validating that motivation.

I point this out merely to clarify the record that the referenced event in way had Olbermann advocating an anti-science position.

Posted by: Michael Heath | October 28, 2009 5:42 PM

Llewelly - Maher frequently engages in hyperbole regarding climate change in parts of his show where he's not telling a joke nor does he frame his hyperbole in a manner where anyone but those of us who are intimate with the science would know it's hyperbole. For example, I've heard him talk claim that we risk see the oceans boil or all of humanity will soon go extinct.

Given the success of the denialist crowd in continuing to prevent America and Americans from accepting and acting on anthropogenic global warming, Maher provides ample ammunition for them to discount what science informs us regarding climate change.

Posted by: Michael Heath | October 28, 2009 10:44 PM

Michael - "For example, I've heard [Bill Maher] claim that we risk see[ing] the oceans boil or [that] all of humanity will soon [become] extinct."*
Citation required. - DJ
----------------
*Emendations mine.

Posted by: DingoJack | October 29, 2009 9:28 AM

In light of all three positions and how he makes arguments about all three, I do detect a consistent pattern across all three positions, i.e., they are all arguments made by someone with an axe to grind against conservatives. There is no consistency in terms of the science or even rational thought.

Again, while I agree with you in general, I'm not certain that you could really support the "conservatives bad" meme with these three issues. In the first two, he has accepted the scientific evidence because, from everything I've ever read or heard, he firmly agrees with the results. The hyperbole, exaggerations, etc., are, IMO, part of being an entertainer rather than a professional spokesperson. He definitely does not fully understand all of the science, but from what I have heard/seen, he does have a better than average layman's understanding of the issues.

His stance on evolution is closely tied to his overall stance on religion. From what I've seen he doesn't have much use for either conservative or liberal religious arguments, he's a rather militant, albeit not very substantative atheist. His arguments tend to be rather simplistic and trite, but also likely are intended to be as entertainment rather than issue advocacy.

His stance on vaccines, while wrong, fits in quite well with his stance on diet, distrust for the for profit pharmaceutical industry, for profit medicine, etc. He's wrong, but given his overall stance on health and wellness, it is a consistent position.

His stance on global warming is, from what I can see, the more likely ideologically driven one rather than substance driven. This one, I would agree, is much more the "conservatives bad" argument. But really, given the stance that most neocons adopt regarding this issue, it is a rather logical one. The sad thing is that conservatives appear, on this issue, to have completely forgotten what the root of their label is, they have turned conservation into another "liberal" word when it doesn't have to be by any stretch of the imagination. They've turned business and profit into "evil" constructs when it comes to the environment as well, which also doesn't have to be. I would argue that this position, while a correct one, is his more knee-jerk reactionary position of the three, but again, his opponents on this issue are also knee-jerk reactionary so... *shrug*

Posted by: dogmeatib | October 29, 2009 8:12 PM

I used to really love the Bill Maher, and hate how embarrassing some of his views are, when he's so great at skewing the right. Have to say that his making fun of the "pro-family" types who are against the HPV vaccine is really strong evidence that his main bias is anti-right wing, not anti-idiocy. Though I can't tell if the bit about the typhoid vaccine is part of his orthorexia, since that seems to be his magical protection against other vaccine preventable diseases.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Maher-on-HPV-vaccine-idiocy

But yes, he can be damn awesome on targets where the right-wing position is crazy wrong. Fortunately for his career, there is no danger of them being in short supply.

Posted by: Djinna | October 29, 2009 10:47 PM

DingoJack:

Earth will survive AGW just fine; the organism that is it's may not.

Posted by: democommie | October 30, 2009 7:33 AM

Yeah, whatever. Bill Maher's a hero; he thinks rectal insertion of seaweed proteins and avoidance of vaccinations will keep the world disease-free and bubbling with happiness. Worth all the praise he gets, for sure.

Posted by: MC Iced Borscht | November 14, 2009 11:59 AM