100 and 101 People

So its been a while since I last posted, and I've been doing my fair share of research for the blog. I'm suspecting 3 posts will come fairly soon and firstly I want to recommend these books:

100 People who are Screwing Up America by Bernard Goldberg
101 People who are Really Screwing America by Jack Huberman

Honestly, they don't get very heavy into current election issues (a few of the issues are touched, but its not the intent of either book), but they are a great sort of cliff notes to many many issues and who the players are in them.

The perspective of the books are as follows: Bernard Goldberg, who is a conservative Emmy award winning journalist with CBS News and his book greatly reflects this. Jack Huberman is much less known, but is far more liberal than Goldberg is conservative. He is also the author of the bestselling Bush-Haters Handbook. That should be pretty descriptive of his perspective on this subject.

Benefits from reading these books: How often does one get the opportunity to read two books on the EXACT same subject but also have polar opposite view points. I'd imagine conservatives would be much more insulted by 101 people than liberals would be of 100 people. For example two very surprising entries in 101 people are (#77) God and (#57) The Average American. I consider myself a moderate liberal but I was taken back by the entry on God. It was an interesting viewpoint but as I was able to bring myself to remain open on #57, #77 was a bit more difficult. I'm not one who's afraid to be offended (see Goldberg's 7th entry sequentially ), so these entries weren't enough to deter me from pushing on though the book. One criticism I did have on Goldberg's book is largely a contrast to Huberman's book in that I thought Goldberg actually had some very weak entries. The most notable was his entry on this old co-worker Bill Moyers. He basically gave him an entry as an example of a flip flopper but not in terms of an issue, but in terms of ALL the issues. Sure as a serious journalist politics has some extra value in how you influence America, but I had to question, "Is he really Screwing Up America because of this?" After reading 201+ entries of this subject I think I've found some people who should beat him out on the list.

100 Peple Who Are Screwing Up America TOC

One of the largest complains of 100 people has no Table of Contents. It seems like a very useful resource for a book of this nature. So I took the time and created one myself. The format is as follows:

Entry# Title - Pg#

For fairness in exposure you can see the TOC of 101 people on the link to its Amazon page in the above post (i.e. the chronologically next post). Also the complete title of the book this TOC is for is as follows:

100 110 People Who are Screwing Up America (and Al Franken is #37)

-=Table of Contents=-
America Bashers - 1
Hollywood Blowhards – 8
TV Schlockmeisters – 11
TV Schlockmeisters – News Division – 18
I’m Your Pimp, You My Bitch – and Other Great American Love Songs – 24
American Jackals – 29
I’m Offended, There I am – 35
Racial Enforcers – 39
White Collar Thugs – 45
Sex Warriors – 48
Reading, Writing, and Radicals – 52
-=The List=-
100 Rick and Kathy Hilton – 55
99 Matthew Lesko – 56
98 Sheila Jackson Lee – 58
97 Todd Goldman – 60
96 Eve Ensler – 62
95 Courtney Love – 64
94 Guy Velella – 65
93 Richard Timmons – 67
92 Kerri Dunn – 69
91 Barbra Streisand – 72
90 Michael Jackson – 74
89 Jane Smiley - 75
88 Aaron McGruder - 76
87 Sheldon Hackney – 79
86 Chris Ofili – 83
The Gaede Twins – 86
85 The Dumb Celebrity – 88
84 The Vicious Celebrity – 89
83 The Dumb and Vicious Celebrity – 83
82 Laurie David – 92
81 Tim Robbins – 95
80 Kitty Kelly – 98
79 Harry Belafonte – 100
78 Norman Mailer – 101
77 Linda Hirshman – 104
76 Barbara Foley – 106
75 Eric Foner – 108
74 Kathla Pollitt – 109
73 Barbara Kingsolver – 110
72 Ward Churchill – 112
71 Phil Donahue – 115
70 Jimmy Swaggart – 118
The Reverend Fred Phelps
69 Matt Kunitz – 122
68 Katherine Hanson – 123
67 Randall Robinson – 126
66 David Duke – 129
65 Oliver Stone – 131
64 James Wolcott 135
63 Amy Richards – 136
62 Howard Stern – 139
61 Michael Savage – 142
60 Ludacris – 143
59 Shirley Franklin – 145
58 Eminem – 147
57 Ted Field – 149
56 Diane Sawyer – 151
55 David Westin – 153
54 Neal Shapiro - 155
53 Anna Nicole Smith – 157
52 Markos Moulitsas – 159
51 Ann Pelo – 161
50 John Vasconcellos – 164
Jeremy Jaynes – 167
49 Ingrid Newkirk – 169
48 Robert Byrd - 172
47 Maxine Waters – 176
46 Barbara Walters – 179
45 Ken Lay – 182
44 Dennis Kozlowski – 183
43 Paul Eibeler – 185
42 Gloria Steinem – 188
41 Susan Berresford – 190
40 Scott Harshbarger – 193
39 Peter Singer – 197
38 Jim McDermott - 202
37 Al Franken – 204
36 Nancy Hopkins – 208
Lawrence Summers – 211
35 Jeff Danziger – 214
34 Bill Moyers – 216
33 Bob Shrum – 219
32 Jerry Springer – 222
31 Maury Povich – 224
30 Latrell Sprewell – 228
29 John Green – 231
28 Julian Bond – 233
27 Paul Begala – 236
26 Dr. Martin Haskell – 239
25 James Kopp – 240
24 Lee Bollinger – 242
23 The Unknown American Terrorist - 245
22 Michael Newdow – 249
21 Judge Roy Moore – 252
20 Howard Dean – 254
19 George Soros – 256
18 Al Gore – 258
17 Al Sharpton – 262
16 John Edwards – 266
15 Ted Rall – 270
14 Mary Mapes – 273
13 Andrew Hayward – 276
12 Dan Rather – 279
The Gang of Five – 283
11 Noam Chomsky – 286
10 Ralph Neas – 289
9 Jonathan Kozol – 293
8 Paul Krugman – 296
7 Margaret Marshall – 299
6 Jimmy Carter – 302
Ramsey Clark - 306
5 Anthony Romero - 308
4 Jesse Jackson - 312
3 Ted Kennedy - 315
2 Arthur Ochs Sulzberger - 318
1 Michael Moore - 323

Conservatives on Liberals and vice versa

One of the clear conclusion that has come from reading 100 People and 101 People (see first post) is that there is a definite stereotype that each side places on the other. By this I mean both conservatives and liberals have that picture on the dart board of a certain idea when they think of the other. The ironic thing is, it seems as though both sides are throwing darts at almost the same people.

For conservatives, their hatred seems to be focused on the cultural elite. Those (to put on a conservative hat) load mouthed actors, artist, models, and whoever that tabloid magnet for the week is, that seems to have that microphone glued to their face (hat off). For liberals their dart board picture is the economic elite. Those (to put on a liberal hat) fat, bloated, pockets loaded, union destroying, employee screwing entrepreneurs, and stock brokers (hat off once again. I need to get these cleaned, their both pretty dirty).

Now there are flaws where both sides aim their darts (although one side may actually use that image at a shooting range ). Granted the cultural elite may not have a profession that makes them the most informed individuals when it comes to politics, but when in our history has anyone from any profession not been encouraged to discuss issues. Granted, the cultural elite are probably more famous than anyone for understanding one issue well and ignoring the others despite the fact that their view, while great for that one issue, is absolutely one of the most ignorant things you've ever heard. Take Cameron Diaz for example when she said, "Women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. If you think that rape should be legal, then don't vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body, then you should vote." Sure her stance on abortion is sound in my mind, but virtually saying (in ANY context) "if you don't agree with me don't vote" is about the most ignorant, undemocratic thing I have ever heard. Hell she's basically slapping the right that gives her the freedom to discuss politics as an actress.

The economic elite may often been seen as greedy, but why should we immediately write off people who have overcome odds set in place by the America's Capitalist system. Say what you will about them being greedy, but doing so is obviously no easy task otherwise everyone would have achieved this status. Doing so, in some way, has also fulfilled part of the American dream where anyone can make it big. Sure there are those (think Enron and Walmart) that upon achieving that status, do everything they can to make it sure that anyone who is under their employment never have a chance to make it to that status themselves (again slapping the right in the fact that they are enjoying so much).

Furthermore, its ironic that when you come down to it these are very similar groups. How many of the Cultural Elite (Barbra Streisand, Cameron Diaz, Alec Baldwin) are not in some way successful entrepreneurs. How many of the Economic Elite (Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, Steve Jobs) are not in some way also successful cultural icons? I'm not saying the line is blurry because I believe it is quite defined, but it does make me wonder exactly how divided are conservatives and liberals. I think there are other stereotypes that seem to make the definition between the two much stronger than it actually is.

Conservatives are not racists or fascists or bigots or anything else. It is true though that more racists (et al.) will probably familiarize themselves with a conservative party, but this is similar to how a pedophile would probably jump on board with the liberal agenda because they are more sensitive to the strain being on a sex offender list puts on a person. That doesn't make all liberals sex offenders, and not all conservatives are racists. Liberals are not louder in the media than conservatives (it is more obvious when a loud liberal is talking though). Liberals are almost correctly defined as being loud mouths. I'd say I agree that when a liberal is talking, he is more obvious and possibly more obnoxiously beating one issue until its dead, but to say that liberals are heard from more in the media is something 101 People (liberal bias) gives a whole section of his book to disprove. The following is the most telltale in my mind:

The watchdog group Media Matters for America inventoried all guests who appeared on Fox, CNN. MSNBC during their January 20, 2005, inauguration coverage and reported that Republican and conservative commentators outnumbered Democrats and progressives nineteen to seven on Fox, thirteen to two on MSNBC, and ten to one on CNN. Moreover the rare Democrat or progressive usually appeared opposite conservatives, whereas most Republican and conservative guests appeared solo or alongside fellow conservatives.

Please note the replacement of the word liberal with progressive. Not for clarity, but to note the bias it gives this block of facts. To conclude, both stereotypes, in my mind and I hope I made my case on this, seem largely false.

What does all this mean about our two party political system? Well one question that has been plaguing me is that WAY before the 2000 election, political analysts were noticing that Republicans and Democrats were loosing their definition. At the time, they certainly were not agreeing, but taking less opposing views. There was speculation that we would actually see the two groups join together and at one point a third party would probably step in to give new life the system. Today that idea seems ludicrous. All thanks (?) to Bush the Republican and Democratic parties have never been more necessary, but while looking at the Candidates I'm not sure how much of a definition I actually see. It seems like no matter what, every candidate seems to have one goal, to not look like another George W. Bush! That by itself seems to fuzz the line very sharply as to what we actually need in this country now. This is just one more reason why I feel like this is going to be one of the most important elections in our country's history.