Here is the statement:
"The reason we were attacked, the reason these people are dead... as I understand it (and my understanding of this is vague at best)... we’re told that they were zealots, fueled by religious fervor... religious fervor. And if you live to be a thousand years old, will that make any sense to you? Will that make any Goddamned sense?"Do you see the problem here? The problem is that Letterman admits that he is incapable of understanding what went through the minds of the killers. Nevertheless, he continuously criticized people who did understand what was going through their minds and were trying to put policies in place to stop them. Think of it this ways. What Letterman has said is the same as saying, "I sure don't understand cancer, but those doctors better not do anything I don't think is right in fighting it." You would smack that Letterman upside the head as a retard, yet the one who opines about Islam is considered nuanced.
Now look, I get that this is largely hyperbole on Letterman's part and the reality is that he just doesn't have the stomach to face reality, but this is not an uncommon thing for liberals. In fact, it fits their mindset. Liberals have proven time and again that they are incapable of grasping that other people can have genuinely different mindsets. They show it in their inability to deal with opposition. They show it in their excuses for criminals and their need to see the perpetually unemployed class as "just like us, only suffering from bad luck," when the reality is that this is a drugged-fueled lifestyle choice. They show it in their need to describe people like Hitler as insane, when the reality was that he was quite sane until the end... he was just a rotten piece of sh*t. In fact, Liberals have proved so often and so consistently that they cannot grasp that others can legitimately have different beliefs that it strikes me as proven that they are genuinely incapable of understanding that not everyone shares all of their beliefs.
What Letterman says is proof of that once more. Like so many other liberals who assume that radical Islamists really do want equal rights for women (after all, they have daughters and liberals would never treat their daughters that way), gay rights, pro-environmental policies and $15 an hour wages at McDonalds, Letterman is completely incapable of grasping that Islamic terrorists genuinely believe that it is their duty to slaughter non-believers in the name of their one, true God. Like Charlie Manson, they not only shed no tears for their victims, they revel in the deaths and suffering of their victims. This is simply inconceivable to Letterman except as mental illness.
And if Letterman and his liberal friends cannot understand that, then how can they possibly propose valid solutions to the problem? So why won't they shut up when smarter people do talk about solutions? Because their very worldview prevents them from believing that anyone else can understand the things they cannot. Hence, what they don't know about cancer, no doctor can know about cancer either.
This stuff drives me crazy about liberals and it drives me even more crazy that they are too delusional and/or stupid to see it. This is why they are always caught flatfooted when their ideas implode and why they say, "Gee, no one could have known," even as every conservative and independent on the planet warned them all along the way.
I honestly do believe that liberalism is a mental condition... and Letterman just admitted that everything nasty he ever said about Bush or Cheney or anyone else who dealt with fundamentalist Islam was a statement made in ignorance. Good riddance, a-hole!
"They show it in their need to describe people like Hitler as insane, when the reality was that he was quite sane until the end... he was just a rotten piece of sh*t. "
ReplyDeleteHaha!
Kit, That is exactly the problem in a nutshell. Liberals refuse to believe that a sane person could want to kill other people. They want to believe that guys like Hitler must have been insane. The fact they can't understand that tells me that they are incapable of understanding something like the militant Islam problem, which means their solutions are based on ignorance.
ReplyDeleteThe irony is that zealotry was made for people who think as liberals do: uncritical, without empathy or remorse, righteous by virtue of knowing no other option.
ReplyDeleteI realize that you basically answered this already, but I still have ask the question: How is it that liberals can think admissions of ignorance make them seem more intelligent?
So, aside from his career spent entertaining millions of people, you're gonna let one quote define the man's entire existence?
ReplyDelete(he asked, only semi-rhetorically) ;-)
But Andrew - People like Hitler ARE insane...however Hitler was allowed to go unchecked all through out the 30's. It is the willing public all over Europe who did nothing that were the real problem. They could not imagine that Hitler could be a threat to anyone. They generally agreed with him (in theory) that I Jews were the problem and since most weren't Jews, what did they care. And it just wasn't Germans who heard it. Remember Churchill sounded the alarm very early and was thought a complete idiot that he could think such things. Is this sounding familiar?
ReplyDeleteHitler just had radio, live rallies, and the printing press to spread his message and see how pervasively he took his message to all of Europe and beyond and a very willing public.
So now we have the internet and none stop access to media....
Scott - Yes, actually. But then I have never liked Letterman. He is an angry bitter man for what reason I cannot fathom. But, all that aside, he defined himself by that quote in his final speech. Do you really think it was an after thought or by chance?
ReplyDeleteI could only handle Letterman in small doses. I never did think he was particularly smart. The Lefties are circling the wagons around Hillary right now and they know damn well she broke the law numerous times with her private server and her deals for cash as Secretary of State..
ReplyDeleteYou're sincerely outraged that a comedian was joking about an issue without having a comprehensive understanding of and practical solutions for it? That's pretty much what they do.
ReplyDeleteFor that matter, I honestly haven't seem much from Republicans. Obama's fantasy was he could charm the world into being America's friends. Republicans' fantasy is that tough talk and a few quick, easy wars (bomb Iran for a few days!) will change the world. Both are delusions which the parties believe in part because of ignorance, in part because hard reality is unpalatable to the public.
As was the case with Obama, the American public will give Republicans a chance, but also as was the case with Obama, the public will turn on Republicans over time. The war against Islamic extremism and the struggle to contain Russian and China's territorial ambitions (both of which are broadly popular within their countries) aren't going to be quick or easy.
Don't get me wrong, liberals are as delusional about foreign policy as you claim, but in my experience both sides are content to spread expedient lies when it suits them.
tryanmax, I don't get it either. But somehow ignorance is often proclaimed to be the essence of nobility. I suspect it's not really a claim of ignorance though so much as a claim to purity... "I am unsullied by such things making me pure on this matter, so let me now cast the first stone."
ReplyDeleteScott, Nope. This is just another great example of how asinine liberals are.
ReplyDeleteAs for Letterman personally, I find him to be odious. First, he's a nasty bastard who treats his fans like fools (deservedly). His fight with Leno was pathetic. He has repeatedly gotten into trouble for groping interns. And his moralizing has been wildly biased and wildly hypocritical. That's my opinion on him.
This is just another quote among many.
Bev, In all honesty, Hitler was not insane until later. He was a conspiracy theorist who let his anger inform his policy. He went insane later when it started falling apart.
ReplyDeleteExcellent point about Letterman. This wasn't just any monologue, this was his final thoughts in essence, and they were meant to be deep and personal. And what they showed was ignorance.
And seriously, imagine if Rick Santorum had said, "You know, I don't know anything about what gays think, but..." Every leftist on the planet would be screaming, "How can he make policy about gays when he admits that he can't even understand what gays are thinking!!!"
Critch, I never liked Letterman either. He's deeply cynical and he plays off smugness as a substitute for humor, using the old "the emperor has no clothes" bit where his fans want to be seen as too cool to admit he didn't actually say anything funny.
ReplyDeleteAnthony, I'm not outraged. I'm pointing out that Letterman, just admitted that he has no understanding whatsoever of a topic he has used to attack his political opponents.
ReplyDeleteAnd that said, no, I don't let people like Letterman hide behind the "I'm just a comedian" line because his criticisms are sharply ideological.
Bev, In all honesty, Hitler was not insane until later. He was a conspiracy theorist who let his anger inform his policy.
ReplyDeleteAndrew - I kind of missed making the point I wanted to make. It really is irrelevant what the status of Hitler's mental health was, it was the fact that there were so many people so willing to follow him and willfully blind to his evil. And not just Germans, it was most of western civilized world...until it was almost too late.
Now, I don't mean to equate the Clintons with Hitler, but their followers are just as blind. Do you think that any other politician Dem, Republican or Independent could get away with being a serial sexual predator like Bill Clinton and such an open liar as Hillary Clinton?
Liberals are genetically incapable of seeing the long game and are all just willfully blind to cause and effect. There's my sweeping generality for the day...
Speaking of liberals' inability to understand ideas they didn't come up with themselves, NYTimes ran an op-ed over the weekend exploring the notion that modern dictators rule with a "velvet fist" and not mass murder. Set the butchered idom aside for a moment and consider it: someone at the NYTimes thought the idea of a soft dictatorship was novel enough to warrant an op-ed. (Also, the writer couldn't conceal his admiration for strongmen while berating Western democracy for being less than panacea.)
ReplyDeleteAndrew,
ReplyDeleteHe's a comedian. If he were a presidential candidate or someone pretending to have the answers, it would be different, but as it stands he is just one of the many talking heads floating around (a popular position because it brings eyeballs and money without responsibility). Most of those heads are partisan but I can't say I blame them since its part of a public (perhaps even private) persona which helps them earn a lot of money.
Bev, That is a great point and I'm sorry I missed it. :D You are absolutely right. It doesn't matter if he was sane or not, the fact is that the German people followed him because they liked what he stood for.
ReplyDeletetryanmax, That is pretty funny. Almost all dictators at caring and loving at first, and as Huxley told us, you can control people through a gilded cage just as easily as you can with violence. And don't forget the first velvet dictator was probably the Romans with their use of bread and circuses to win people over.
ReplyDeleteBev,
ReplyDeleteDid you see Jonah Goldberg's last article? Good stuff.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418794/rise-house-clinton-jonah-goldberg
This is from the Wikipedia entry on “Gaslighting”: Sociopaths frequently use gaslighting tactics. Sociopaths consistently transgress social mores, break laws, and exploit others, but typically, are also charming and convincing liars who consistently deny wrongdoing. Thus, some who have been victimized by sociopaths may doubt their perceptions. Some physically abusive spouses may gaslight their partners by flatly denying that they have been violent. Gaslighting describes a dynamic observed in some cases of marital infidelity: “Therapists may contribute to the victim’s distress through mislabeling the woman’s reactions. . . . The gaslighting behaviors of the husband provide a recipe for the so-called ’nervous breakdown’ for some women [and] suicide in some of the worst situations.” A truly sociopathic liar (though his sociopathologies hardly end there), Clinton has a gift for making other people feel like there is something wrong with them for objecting to his deceptions.
Anthony, I no longer draw the distinction because these people are the same a political operatives, only they claim to be independent. To me, a Letterman or a John Stewart are no different than a James Carville.
ReplyDeleteAnthony,
ReplyDeleteGoldberg's most recent article was genius.
While I'm linking to NR articles, here is another good one.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nationalreview.com/article/418847/what-price-are-we-prepared-pay-keep-isis-check-kevin-d-williamson
Conservatives charge that President George W. Bush had effectively won the war in Iraq and that President Barack Obama subsequently lost it. This is more or less true, but some of my more hawkish friends omit the key fact: Barack Obama was elected for the express purpose of surrendering such gains as we had made in Iraq, the American people having judged the price of securing them too high. The electorate in 2008 was war-weary and, embarrassing as it is to admit, craven, and not only on the matter of our military campaigns. The electorate has come to take the Lyndon Johnson–Hermann Göring “guns vs. butter” rhetoric literally (n.b., Mr. Vice President!), as if through some transmutational property of politics we could convert the matériel invested in the long war with Islamic supremacists into subsidies for foodstuffs or, better yet, for health-insurance premiums. Senator Obama argued precisely that, and subsequent evidence suggests that he just may be daft enough to believe it.
--------
The candidates are incoherent and their strategies are implausible because they are seeking the support of an electorate with incoherent demands, who demand victory, if they think about victory at all, at an implausible price.
Anthony - Yes, I read Goldberg's article this weekend and It was frighteningly dead on. Not all politicians are socio-paths. I don't even think that Obama is a sociopath. He's just a classic narcissist. But Bill and Hillary are...I loved Jonah's explanation - The Rise of House Clinton
ReplyDeleteAnthony, I'm a big fan of Goldberg. He's one of the clearest thinkers out there.
ReplyDeleteGoldberg, Cooke, and Williamson are the three best writers at National Review. There are other good ones there but those three are the ones I read the most avidly.
ReplyDeleteAh, Letterman. You know, this reminds me of the age old question:
ReplyDeleteIf a late night host well past his prime retires and nobody notices for a week (like yours truly), did he even make a sound?
In all honesty, Letterman had a style that never really worked in the 11:30 timeslot. (O'Brien had/has the same problems, only much worse.) Leno was a genuine and worthy successor to Carson and it showed. In the end, Letterman was just an angry man who held it back less and less as he became the angry type of suit that he once railed against decades ago.
Speaking of good writing, John Nolte had a nice write-up on Letterman's rise and fall at BH last week. LINK
But if it's the real dirt you want on the Letterman-Leno feud, try reading Bill Carter's book, "The Late Shift," released in 1994. (I've only read pieces of it that I've found here and there, but it's really good.)
It later became the basis for the HBO film of the same name in 1996. LINK (
Carter later followed with "The War for Late Night," (2010) documenting the Leno-O'Brien feud. (Warning: may cause members of Team Coco to renounce their membership.)
Well, OK. I'll give Letterman some credit. He did do this commercial at the height of the above feud. LINK Seriously, it has to be seen to be believed.
Rustbelt, Letterman's style was the art of making people think they were in on a joke. In my experience, he rarely actually told jokes, he just implied a joke and his audience would laugh at his brilliance... even as there had been no brilliance except in getting the audience to trick themselves. It was a version of the Emperor Has No Clothes for smug people.
ReplyDelete