Executive summary: Filling government positions with elites is better than filling government positions with dumbasses via nepotism.

Quote :

"Say it loud: I'm elite and proud! By Bill Maher April 13, 2007 | Say it loud: I'm elite and proud! The right-wing crusade to demonize elites has paid off. Now the country's run by incompetents who make mediocrity a job requirement and recruit from Pat Robertson's law school. New rule: Now that liberals have taken back the word liberal, they also have to take back the word "elite." By now you've heard the constant right-wing attacks on the "elite," or as it's otherwise known, "hating." They've had it up to their red necks with the "elite media." The "liberal elite." Who may or may not be part of the "Washington elite." A subset of the "East Coast elite." Which is influenced by "the Hollywood elite." So basically, unless you're a shitkicker from Kansas, you're with the terrorists. If you played a drinking game in which you did a shot every time Rush Limbaugh attacked someone for being "elite" you'd almost be as wasted as Rush Limbaugh. I don't get it: In other fields -- outside of government -- elite is a good thing, like an elite fighting force. Tiger Woods is an elite golfer. If I need brain surgery, I'd like an elite doctor. But in politics, elite is bad -- the elite aren't down-to-earth and accessible like you and me and President Shit-for-Brains. But when the anti-elite crowd demonizes the elite, what they're actually doing is embracing incompetence. Now, I know what you're thinking: That doesn't sound like our president -- ignoring intelligence. You know how whenever there's a major Bush administration scandal it always traces back to some incompetent political hack appointment and you think to yourself, "Where are they getting these screw-ups from?" Well, now we know: from Pat Robertson. I wish I were kidding, but I'm not. Take Monica Goodling, who before she resigned last week because of the U.S. attorneys scandal, was the third most powerful official in the Justice Department of the United States. Thirty-three, and though she had never even worked as a prosecutor, she was tasked with overseeing the job performance of all 95 U.S. attorneys. How do you get to be such a top dog at 33? By acing Harvard, or winning scholarship prizes? No, Goodling did her undergraduate work at Messiah College -- home of the "Fighting Christies," who wait-listed me, the bastards -- and then went on to attend Pat Robertson's law school. I'm not kidding, Pat Robertson, the man who said gay people at DisneyWorld would cause "earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor," has a law school. It's called Regent. Regent University School of Law, and it shares a campus with Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network studios. It's the first time ever that a TV network spun off a law school. And that's all America needs -- more Christians and more lawyers. You see, years ago Pat became concerned that our legal system was coddling criminals, forgiving them instead of meting out that Old Testament "eye for an eye" justice Jesus Christ never shuts up about. So Pat did what any red-blooded, Hindu-hating, gay-baiting, glue-sniffing Christian would do: He started his own law school. And what kid wouldn't want to attend? It's three years and you only have to read one book. The school says its mission is to create an army of evangelical lawyers, integrating the Bible and public policy, and producing graduates that provide "Christian leadership to change the world." Presumably from round back to flat. U.S. News and World Report, which does the definitive ranking of colleges, lists Regent as a tier-four school, which is the lowest score it gives. It's not a hard school to get into. You have to renounce Satan and draw a pirate on a matchbook. This is for the people who couldn't get into the University of Phoenix. But there's more! As there inevitably is with the Bush administration. Turns out she's not the only one. Since 2001, 150 graduates of Regent University have been hired by the Bush administration. And people wonder why things are so screwed up. Hell, we probably invaded Iraq because one of these clowns read the map wrong. Forget religion for a second, we're talking about a top Justice Department official who went to a college founded by a TV host. Would you send your daughter to Maury Povich University? And if you did, would you expect her to get a job at the White House? I'd be surprised if she got a job on the "Maury" show. And then it hit me: This is why Bush scandals never catch on with the public -- they're all evangelicals of course, and nobody is having sex. So there you have it: It turns out that the Justice Department is entirely staffed with Jesus freaks from a televangelist diploma mill in Virginia Beach. Most of them young women with very little knowledge of the law, but a very strong sense of doing what they're told. Like the Manson family, but with cleaner hair. In 200 years we've gone from "We the people" to "Up with people." From the best and brightest to dumb and dumber. And, come on, America is a big, well-known, first-rate country, and when we're looking for people to help run it, we should aim higher than the girl who answers the phone at the fake abortion clinic. It's not just that this president has surrounded himself with a Texas echo chamber of war criminals and religious fanatics. It's that they're sooooo mediocre. This is America. We should be getting robbed and fucked over by the best. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., asked at a hearing, "Should we be concerned with the experience level of the people who are making these highly significant decisions?" But in the Bush administration experience doesn't matter. All that matters is loyalty to Bush and Jesus, in that order. And where better to find people dumb enough to believe in George W. Bush than Pat Robertson's law school. The problem here in America isn't that the country is being run by elites. It's that it's being run by a bunch of hayseeds. And by the way, the lawyer Monica Goodling just hired to keep her ass out of jail went to a real law school. [] "

[Edited on April 14, 2007 at 9:20 PM. Reason : http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/04/13/pat_robertson/]

4/14/2007 9:20:13 PM

wow. Christian bashing AND ignorance in the same column. good work, Bill.

btw, Bill, when Rush and company complain about "elites," they aren't complaining about professionals who are good at what they do; they are complaining about people who think their shit doesn't stink. They are complaining about people who are so arrogant that they actually enjoy the smell of their own farts. You know, people like you, Bill...

4/14/2007 9:32:05 PM

Remember when George Bush tried to put Harriet Miers on the supreme court? LOL

4/14/2007 9:36:17 PM

I thoroughly enjoyed that read.

Quote :

"wow. Christian bashing AND ignorance in the same column. good work, Bill. btw, Bill, when Rush and company complain about "elites," they aren't complaining about professionals who are good at what they do; they are complaining about people who think their shit doesn't stink. They are complaining about people who are so arrogant that they actually enjoy the smell of their own farts. You know, people like you, Bill..."

Okay, from now on, any person who shares an educated opinion will preface that opinion with "my shit stinks," just so folks like you won't feel threatened by all the book learning.

4/14/2007 9:50:41 PM

Remember when George Bush was gonna let Dubai Ports World handle security for all those US ports? LOL

4/14/2007 10:05:02 PM

Remember when Bush said he was going to veto the war spending bill and say it was Democrats fault the troops didn't get their money? LOL

4/14/2007 10:07:09 PM

Remember when George Bush assured us Michael Brown was doing a "heckuva job" handling the Hurricane Katrina aftermath? LOL

4/14/2007 10:08:59 PM

Remember when George Bush dressed up in a flight suit and landed on an aircraft carrier and declared mission accomplished. HOLY SHIT that was retarded. LOL

4/14/2007 10:15:34 PM

Bridget, saying that your shit stinks doesn't address what I'm talking about. I'm not "threatened" by anything Bill Mahr says. But he acts pretty damned arrogant, and his above column smacks of the arrogance that makes people call liberals "elites."

Remember when John Kerry lost to the most unpopular president in American history? LOL!

4/14/2007 10:19:06 PM

^Okay, whatever. New argument...

Quote :

"aaronburro: btw, Bill, when Rush and company complain about "elites," they aren't complaining about professionals who are good at what they do; they are complaining about people who think their shit doesn't stink. They are complaining about people who are so arrogant that they actually enjoy the smell of their own farts. You know, people like you, Bill..."

If this is true, then why don't Rush and Co. just use arrogant? Why do they use elite?

Could it be that they mean something else by their use of the word, elite, and you're just manipulating definitions to make a cute and tidy response to Mahr's compelling point?

4/14/2007 10:28:59 PM

remember when Bush and the Republicans made fun of John Kerry because he knows French and speaks as though he has a college education?
man, that guy was a douche. using all those big words and whatnot.... certainly not the kind of guy we want running the country.
If I wouldn't have fun "having a beer" with him, I don't want him to be my President!!

4/14/2007 10:35:06 PM

Quote :

"when Rush and company complain about "elites," they aren't complaining about professionals who are good at what they do; they are complaining about people who think their shit doesn't stink. They are complaining about people who are so arrogant that they actually enjoy the smell of their own farts."

whats funny is, this was the first thread i read after just taking a big dump. i had just eaten baked beans and that shit went through me quick. it smelled so bad, i was enjoying it. you know:

*sniff* -- "holy fuck that's strong!" -- (*wafts air upwards from ass to nose*) --- **SNIFFFFFF** -- hooo, gotdam thats a motherfucker! -- (*wafts air again*) ****SNIFFFFFFFFFFFF**** -- Oh, Jesus!

in fact it smelled so hardcore, im really looking forward to the second round.



[Edited on April 14, 2007 at 10:48 PM. Reason : ]

4/14/2007 10:40:08 PM

well, I'm not really manipulating words here, bridget. The word "elitist" implies extreme arrogance. So it is only natural that the word "elite" would be used synonomously with it.

And why don't they say "arrogant?" The same reason a person might say "despicable" instead of "bad." It's harsher and implies a greater degree of arrogance than just "arrogant."

4/14/2007 10:48:09 PM

Maher is more effete than elite

And Robert Byrd wants to know if democrats can take back the word Klan too?

4/14/2007 10:49:29 PM

^ eh, now you are moving beyond the vocabulary of the yokels Besides, effete looks too french for any red-blooded American to be saying...

4/14/2007 10:50:42 PM

^^^So when Rush and Co. say "elite," they really mean "elitists"? Like, they just got tired of saying the "ists" part over time?

The point is that when they say "elite" or "elitist," they aren't referring to arrogant people. They are referring to people they don't agree with. And what do you know...most of those people have good educations, cushy jobs, and are well-compensated for their expertise. So what's the best way to attack them? Call them arrogant and elitist, of course.

It's totally lame.

4/14/2007 11:17:49 PM

They call them elitists, not because they are wealthy and educated (FYI, there's plenty of people other than liberals who fit that mold) but because they think that they know what is best for everybody else and try to use our government as an instrument of controlling other people's lives, since they, after all, know what's best for the rest of us...

4/14/2007 11:23:27 PM

well, it also happens that most of those people they disagree w/, with their good educations and whatnot, also look down upon every one else. you know. elitists. let em say what they want. it really doesn't matter either way.

4/14/2007 11:24:43 PM

Quote :

"Wlfpk4Life: They call them elitists, not because they are wealthy and educated (FYI, there's plenty of people other than liberals who fit that mold) but because they think that they know what is best for everybody else and try to use our government as an instrument of controlling other people's lives, since they, after all, know what's best for the rest of us..."

No shit on that FYI, by the way. I never said otherwise.

Again, the point is that they call them elitists because they disagree with them. Rush thinks he knows what's best for everybody and he wants to use the government to that end (lock up all the drug users!!!!), but he doesn't consider himself elitist, does he?

^Prove to me that these people (which we've yet to identify) look down on everybody else. And prove to me that Rush and Co. don't look down on everybody else. Can you do it?!?! No, you can't.

Keep crying about all the "elitists" looking down on your bullshit opinions. "Oh, I'm a backwards asshole who clings to the past, and people don't like me. BOO HOO."

[Edited on April 14, 2007 at 11:32 PM. Reason : ]

4/14/2007 11:30:12 PM

Quote :

"Again, the point is that they call them elitists because they disagree with them"

actually, that's not why they call them elitists, idiot. They call them elitists BECAUSE THEY ARE ELITISTS.

haha, "prove" that they look down on people? YOU JUST DID IT FOR ME!!! "backwards assholes." case closed, bitch. now shut the fuck up and get in the kitchen and make me a fucking sandwich!

4/14/2007 11:34:33 PM

^No case closed. You are a backwards asshole. You wanna know how I know that?

Quote :

"aaronburro: now shut the fuck up and get in the kitchen and make me a fucking sandwich!"

How many times have you made this "joke" towards me?

Sorry, fuckface, you're an ignorant piece of backwards trash. And the rest of the country is leaving you behind. Have you considered moving to the Middle East?

4/14/2007 11:42:11 PM

please. keep saying "backwards." it only furthers my point. why don't you proceed to tell me how all Christians are ignorant fools, too. that'll really show me!

and it's pretty sad when your only remaining argument is to attack something that you KNOW is a joke.

4/14/2007 11:44:37 PM

I'm not an elitist, kid. I got plenty of respect for the ideas of plenty of people who disagree with me. But if calling me elitist makes you feel better about being a dumbass, go for it.

4/14/2007 11:48:08 PM

It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing, but rather the way the message is delivered in a way that smacks of arrogance and a condescending attitude.

Look at the language that Maher uses to describe his political opponents - red necks, demeaning the intelligence of certain young female lawyers who graduated from a university that was founded by a man he doesn't like, religious fanatics, etc. How am I supposed to take him seriously? They don't make the Bar exam any easier for Podunk U than they do for Harvard's law students.

Sure, Rush has an opinion on what would make this country greater, but I'd be willing to bet that he puts a lot more faith (in comparison to the elitists he labels) in the people to make decisions for themselves rather than having the government do it for them.

[Edited on April 14, 2007 at 11:54 PM. Reason : bah]

4/14/2007 11:53:07 PM

^Do you really believe that?

Okay, let's ignore Maher's words and take all the politics out and really get down to the bottom of this word, "elitist."

The whole "elitist" thing is really just flipping what the Democrats have been saying about Republicans for years back onto the Democrats. And it has nothing to do with "arrogance" or "faith in the people." Neither party (or their respective pundits) trusts the people; the government hasn't trusted the people since its inception. This is all about appealing (sp?) to voters.

Can we all agree on this?

4/15/2007 12:05:39 AM

No, I'm fairly certain that Democrats have been calling republicans "rednecks," "inbred," "hicks," "slackjawed-yokels," and the like for years.

4/15/2007 12:08:09 AM

^If that's true, my mind is being blown here.

4/15/2007 12:20:18 AM

hey, knowing is half the battle.

4/15/2007 12:22:05 AM

link or quotes please?

4/15/2007 12:25:42 AM

Quote :

"backwoods bornagain bible-thumping retards --joe_schmoe "

4/15/2007 12:51:40 AM

Quote :

"They call them elitists, not because they are wealthy and educated (FYI, there's plenty of people other than liberals who fit that mold) but because they think that they know what is best for everybody else and try to use our government as an instrument of controlling other people's lives, since they, after all, know what's best for the rest of us..."

REALLY? OH MAN I HAD NO IDEA, WHAT A CLEVER USE OF WORDS TO SNEAK THIS IDEA INTO PEOPLES HEADS. THANKS FOR LETTING US KNOW THE REASONING BEHIND THE TALKING POINT, IT WASN'T OBVIOUS AT ALL.

4/15/2007 12:57:10 AM

^ well, Bridget didn't get it, and neither does Mahr, so it must be confusing to some people.

4/15/2007 1:04:37 AM

Actually, aaronburro, you and Wlfpk4Life gave different defintions of the word "elitist."

Maybe y'all should PM each other or something next time.

4/15/2007 1:10:51 AM

considering that our definitions were the same, I'd say you are wrong

4/15/2007 1:13:42 AM

I find that Monica Goodling information disturbing.

4/15/2007 1:18:10 AM

^^No. Wlfpk4Life went into detail about wanting to use the government to further beliefs and not putting faith in the people. And what was your definition? "people who think their shit doesn't stink"?

Yeah, that's two entirely different things.

4/15/2007 1:24:10 AM

well, if that's as far as you read, then I could see how you could make that stupid assertion. It;s too bad that we both hit on the topic of arrogance. Namely, that libs are so arrogant that they think their shit don't stink, for one, and that they think the rest of the world needs to be "shown the right way" via the gov't

4/15/2007 1:30:59 AM

He put actual ideas behind his understanding. And you went with "arrogant" and "think they shit don't stank."

And both of you are full of shit. Bill Maher has embraced a definition and thrown it back in your face.

I'm not gonna embrace shit because it's too much work to answer to multiple interpretations of the fucking word.

4/15/2007 2:01:55 AM

no, Bill Mahr embraced a strawman. That's one of the reasons he is full of shit

4/15/2007 2:11:46 AM

Conservatives use the word "elitist" because it's the easiest way to dismiss experts/scientists/professors without actually having to address any arguments.

AKA, poisoning the well.

That's it. It's the liberal version of "redneck." You'll notice that conservatives use "elitist" far more often than liberals use "redneck," though.


P.S.

This isn't thread worthy, but needs to be posted:

Quote :

"As the president approached the car and instinctively tried to stick a powered extension cord into the vehicle’s hydrogen tank, the Ford boss pushed Bush aside and yanked the electrical cord from Bush’s hands."

[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 2:42 AM. Reason : laff]

4/15/2007 2:33:55 AM

oooor, because so often liberals are dismissive of anyone who doesn't have 18 PhDs in bullshit spewing

4/15/2007 2:47:39 AM

You liberals and your PhDs! You don't know anything!


Both sides often dismiss people offhand.

Conservatives are the only ones dismissing people who actually know something about the subject they're debating, though. Liberals don't have a catch-all term for dismissing an expert in his/her field like you all do.

4/15/2007 2:53:31 AM

^ riiiiiiiiiight. you mean like all those people who listen to GW opponents and let them actually present their side and don't accuse them of being in the pockets of oil companies... riiiight.

4/15/2007 3:32:43 AM

Quote :

"because they think that they know what is best for everybody else and try to use our government as an instrument of controlling other people's lives,"

I'm really glad that Republicans don't try to force what they think is best for everybody upon us like the Democrats do. That's why Republicans support gay marriage, equal rights, free speech, the legalization of drugs, and a medical system that doesn't tell women what to do with their bodies.

4/15/2007 10:50:12 AM

^^ That's actually a great example; both sides dismiss each other.

The major difference being we have people who are actually qualified to make an argument (scientists). I've heard these people referred to as elites plenty of times.

4/15/2007 11:36:38 AM

You do know that story is a spoof, Boone. It was a made up joke gone awry.

Essentially aaronburro's and my interpretation of elite is basically 2 sides of the same coin.

Yes, I do think that Conservatives put more faith in the individual than the government. I agree that both parties do use and abuse some of their core constituents (blacks for the Dems and the religious right/pro life movement for the GOP immediately comes to mind).

So Maher embraces the fact that he's an ignorant and closeminded pain in the ass. Good for him. He obviously connects with those who foam at the mouth for anti-religious rhetoric and thankfully only a few others.

Quote :

" That's why Republicans support gay marriage, equal rights, free speech, the legalization of drugs, and a medical system that doesn't tell women what to do with their bodies."

Gay marriage interferes with the establishment clause - marriage is wholly a religious institution and the government shouldn't be legislating morality. Free speech...hmmm, do you have any examples of this? Drug legalization - considering the immediate destructiveness of drug use, I would be hard pressed to see any rational government would condone or endorse this practice. Abortion - it's a child, not a choice. Do we really need to go into why Conservatives want to protect the rights of the unborn?

4/15/2007 11:39:58 AM

Quote :

"Gay marriage interferes with the establishment clause - marriage is wholly a religious institution and the government shouldn't be legislating morality."

Marriage isn't a wholly religious institution as long as there are legal implications for being married. Furthermore, the government IS legislating morality by preventing consenting adults from marrying one another due to other people's wholly religious concerns.

Quote :

"Drug legalization - considering the immediate destructiveness of drug use, I would be hard pressed to see any rational government would condone or endorse this practice."

Alcohol is far more destructive than marijuana, but of course nobody is calling for its prohibition again. I see no point in going over this tired argument once again.

Quote :

"Abortion - it's a child, not a choice. Do we really need to go into why Conservatives want to protect the rights of the unborn?"

See above: I see no point in going over this tired argument once again.

4/15/2007 11:49:44 AM

Quote :

"Gay marriage interferes with the establishment clause - marriage is wholly a religious institution and the government shouldn't be legislating morality."

hahahahahah self pwn. If marriage is a wholly religious institution, then why is the government administering it in the first place? THAT's a violation of the fucking establishment clause. Either the government gets out of marriage altogether or it extends it to everyone.


[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 11:59 AM. Reason : dsf]

4/15/2007 11:59:05 AM

Marriage is a religious institution, end of discussion. Its origins were founded specifically as a convenant between a man and a woman in the eyes of God. How can you deny that?

The government should stay out of redefining marriage. It's not the government's place to overturn thousands of years of religious traditions and practices.

As for the destructive values of pot vs. alcohol, alcohol is closely regulated with regards to its use and sale. Laws are in place for its overconsumption and misuse. I cannot see how you can compare the consumption of, say, one beer to one hit of LSD or any other hardcore drug. It's not reasonable or rational to condone such a practice.

4/15/2007 11:59:35 AM

Quote :

"It's not the government's place to overturn thousands of years of religious traditions and practices. "

Sure it is. Slavery, legal racism, sexism -- those ring a bell?

4/15/2007 12:01:21 PM