Michael Moore vs Jon Stewart

This article recently made the rounds through pundit fandom and sparked a few arguments, as I'm sure the author intended it to:

Just as one is likely to hear criticism of [Michael] Moore in liberal circles or carefully qualified appreciation, i.e. “I like him, but I wish he wasn’t so strident,” one will never hear any blasphemy spoken against the idol of modern, urbanite, educated liberal culture, Jon Stewart.

It’s impossible to understand the hatred of Moore from the cocktail party and faculty lounge scene of the liberal establishment without also understanding the same politically impotent group’s love for Jon Stewart. Understanding the juxtaposition of Moore and Stewart reveals the true depths of the failure and soullessness of modern American liberalism.

Personally I think Stewart is much more likeable than Moore, but I found myself nodding my head at the observation that many Daily Show fans don't like embarrassing displays of emotion or undignified tactics - things like LGBT activists glitter-bombing anti-gay politicians.

Compromise

h/t Stuart Carlson

Wrestling with Zinn

Once when I was eleven or twelve, my dad kept my brothers and me at the kitchen table after dinner. In a grim voice, he warned us that there were big changes coming to America’s school system and we would have to be on our guard.

Dad told us that schools were about to start rewriting American history and indoctrinating their students with a politically-correct ideology called Multiculturalism. The goal of this change was to empower other countries and cultures by making us feel ashamed of our Western heritage.

Instead of learning that Christopher Columbus was the heroic discoverer of the New World, we would be told that he was a bad man who murdered the Indians. Instead of learning about the noble ideas of the Founding Fathers, we would be told that they were atheists and slave owners. If we didn’t pay attention, our teachers might trick us into thinking that America is evil and send the quality of education in this country down the drain.

Eighteen years later, I can say with relief and some bemusement that multicultural education has not led me to intellectual ruin. (Though of course that’s exactly what an indoctrinated person would say... Just kidding, Dad.) What it has done is encourage me to rethink old assumptions and work harder to empathise with different points of view. In a lot of ways it’s the driving force behind my love of travel and my curiosity about people.

The latest step in this journey was to read A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn. I knew almost nothing about him when he passed away a little over a year ago, but my progressive friends responded to his death with such emotion that I bought the book that same afternoon. The thick, densely-written paperback sat glaring at me from my bookshelf until this past Christmas, when I set the goal of finishing it by the end of my holiday.

The Fight Over Assange

Here’s what I think of when I explore the debate over WikiLeaks and the sexual assault allegations against Julian Assange.

For the past couple of years, I’ve been an occasional visitor to a left-leaning blog that focuses on news, politics and pop culture. Members of this online community post articles and videos and use the comments section to have discussions about them. They are smart, snarky and opinionated, and their debates on a single topic can last for days.

If I’ve learned one thing from my time there, it’s that if you want to make this blog burst into a flame war of epic proportions, a foolproof way is to pick a fight about gender and/or sexuality. First, you post a provocative article about some complex but extremely personal subject – sexual assault, feminism, maybe transgenderism if you’re feeling adventurous. Then, when someone responds to the post with annoyance or discomfort, you answer them in a patronising way that implies they’re being “hysterical”.

After that, all you have to do is stir things up as necessary and enjoy the show.