The Young Turks November 30, 2015 Hour 1

In Membership, The Young Turks Hour 1 - On Demand by klingbeil2149 Comments

Video Player
Planned Parenthood shooting. Portrayal of the shooting in the media. Paris climate conference. Black Republican denounces his party. Cenk commenting from the control room while Ana and Iadarola host. Cenk sitting in the control room for the Planned Parenthood terrorist attack story. On Friday, a PP clinic in Colorado Springs was attacked, resulting in a standoff that led to multiple deaths, including one police officer. After media and Conservative figures dismissed the fact that this attack was motivated by extremist Republican rhetoric, they’re still holding onto the explanation that this had nothing to do with their violent talk. Cenk gives his take on the PP attack from the control room. Conservatives won’t call it Radical Christian terrorism. Video of Carly Fiorina avoiding calling the attacks terrorism, while she accuses the Left for blaming the messenger when most Americans are against what Planned Parenthood does. She went on to compare this terrorist to #BlackLivesMatter protesters. Video of Ted Cruz claiming that he read the suspect was a transgender man, so he isn’t going to blame the Leftists for this guy’s affiliation to Libs. Cenk points out that White men that conduct mass murder when driven by radical ideology are never called terrorists.  

Climate Change Conference is going on in Paris, and Pres Obama spoke at length about America’s responsibility in doing something about our contribution to the problem. CJ Pearson, the Black Republican whiz kid has rejected the Republican Party after their response to racial discrimination and to the Chicago police murder.

Hour 1 Source Articles:
Sign up for The Young Turks daily source articles email newsletter: http://eepurl.com/PLlqD

Republican Candidates Finally Comment On Shooting, Continue False Attacks On Planned Parenthood
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/11/29/3726248/republicans-respond-planned-parenthood/

Now we have the motive: All evidence suggests Planned Parenthood shooting was act of domestic terror
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/30/now_we_have_the_motive_all_evidence_suggests_planned_parenthood_shooting_was_act_of_domestic_terror/

Viral Conservative YouTube Star Renounces Conservatism
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cj-pearson-renounces-conservatism

The Paris climate talks won’t solve global warming. Here’s what they’ll do instead.
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/30/9818582/paris-cop21-climate-talks

Comments

  2. I see the cult of Harris are unthinkingly repeating their Ayatollah’s gibberish verbatim here once again, very tiresome.

    2. Hey if you can muster an intellectual response to the ideas, we fellow liberals would welcome the discussion. The TYT comment boards have never been as active as they have been discussing Sam Harris’s writing. As much as you might irrationally hate me for having a different point of view, I am proud to see so much thought being put into this discussion where as before there was little from the TYT crowd. I think the more we talk about Harris, the more everybody wins because you have to actually discuss the ideas if you want to be taken seriously and discussing ideas means telling the truth about people’s views. Lying is the quickest way to lose credibility, and name calling after someone points out you are lying is the quickest way to lose integrity.

      1. Cuckoo…. Cuckoo… The Cuckoo cultists are here again to repeat things we’ve all read before (and dismissed because we know garbage when we read it) to make themselves feel superior! Everyone rejoice!!! I wonder which one of their Ayatollah’s ridiculous opinions they’re going to repeat at me next under the guise of making a point??? I can’t wait!

          1. Ha! my use of the word Ayatollah was ironic in the first place but apparently it went wwwwwwwwwwwwwhistling over your head. I’ve wasted enough time on you cultists, I have reasonable people to engage with. Feel free to hastily scrawl some ever to be unanswered nonsensical reply in order to get the final word your delicate little egos will no doubt demand of you.

            2. You obviously don’t want to be taken seriously. The TYT comment boards have never been as active as they have been discussing Sam Harris’s writing. As much as you might irrationally hate me for having a different point of view, I am proud to see so much thought being put into these discussions where as before there was little from the TYT crowd. I think the more we talk about Harris, the more everybody wins because you have to actually discuss the ideas if you want to be taken seriously.

      2. I have this new found respect for you after having read what you just wrote, it tells me that you do care about the truth and reality & that you’re willing to hear the other side of the argument in case there is something you can learn from it or in case there is something you may have missed.

        I respect that also because that is exactly how I think, my brain (nor sam harris’ brain) will or can be guaranteed to be able to figure out all the permutations and possibilities and options and scenarios etc… I’ve learnt a long time ago to always seek and never let arrogance or ego get in the way of me being able to see or find something I’ve missed. Often people have to make a trade, protect your ego from harm and pay a severe price, or let go of your ego and accept that one can never really know everything and in turn prevent a catastrophe from taking place… I have learnt to let go of my ego because the price I would have to pay to protect my ego will almost always (as I’ve witnessed in the world around me) be a very hefty and expensive, devastating cost.

        Nice one.

        1. Not entirely sure if you are serious or if you are mocking me but it seems genuine and very well put, thanks. I agree, letting arrogance and ego get in the way of an honest exchange of ideas carries a hefty price indeed.

          You can disagree with me on my perceptions, but if you do tell me how I’m wrong, it does not advance the conversation to attack and slime a conversation partner with labels and presume they are your sworn enemy for disagreeing in civil conversation.

          I only ever get animated in these boards when I see blatant misrepresentations distorting the conversation trying to ‘win’ liberal brownie points and youtube clicks instead of discuss the bedrock principles of the underlying ideas being entertained.

          I don’t want to make this post negative but I want to point out that it appears to me to be more and more of a liberal tactic to try to attack a person for holding an idea instead of attack the idea that person holds with reasoned argument

          But Kudos for the civility, always appreciated..

          1. I was definitely being genuine, I’m glad you interpreted it that way.

            I think as human beings we get into that discrediting character scenario’s, because there is some use in assessing someones character to see how credible they are, but you’re right in that if we go overboard, it’s not that productive and will just divide, and it’s always better to engage the idea than the character from purely a productivity sense anyway.

            We can’t all know everything, that’s part of the problem, and because of this we need to rely more on independent experts who study and analyse this stuff and the scientific output they produce.

            Even as an example, the Gallup poll: it is the official, most reliable poll done on muslims, unlike the pew poll on muslims which I’ve written about on why it’s so flawed. Having said this, even in the Gallup poll it says 7% of muslims have radical beliefs.

            7% of muslims world wide say they think 9/11 was justified, but as sound as that poll was, maybe actual radicals might be a bit less or a bit more. What if someone would say violence against westerners (including innocent victims) might be justified, but doesn’t agree that 9/11 was, or the other way around? My point being, the connections that link these things need to be firm, maybe the 9/11 example is enough to understand but maybe it can be done better.

            I’m willing to accept that 7% have these views, it doesn’t mean 7% are willing to act on them. If they could trade 9/11 for an attack against the perpetrators, would they, and would that make them any less radical or just about the same still?

            My point is we need to give precedence to accuracy since that is the only way we can figure out reality, anything less and we’re just unintentionally lying to ourselves.

            Do you accept the 7% figure, if not how would the question need to be asked to establish who does and doesn’t have radical thoughts?

            1. 7% is still 119 million people. Which is 1/3 the population of the US. And you can’t get in to some of the most fundamental Muslim regions to conduct polling so the numbers will always be a rough guess.

  3. I dont think i am being crazy in saying that if you ask Sam/Bill if they think that any of the things Cenk pointed to as being domestic terrorism if they consider it terrorism. I pretty sure they would say “Yea”. Please Cenk stop bringing it up. That is fine if you dont like them. But right now you are looking like a Douche specially to the people that agree with you on most things. I am not a follower of Sam my self. But Between this bullshit(I did not mind the interview just the after math) and the Karen Interview you have started to lose my respect.

  4. Cenk’s poor face :\ I love these tri-panels with one of them in the control room. I also like Jayar chime-ins when they happen. whoever’s in those Monster headphones just exudes coolness.

  5. oh emm gee, JOHN IS NOT FUNNY!!! stop trying. you would actual not be terrible to watch if you stopped the not funny jokes at the worst possible time.

  7. Right Wing terrorism is a problem, everyone agrees, the ideologies of Islam and Christianity (except Jesus was pretty liberal in many parts, not so much Muhammed) fall on the right wing of the political spectrum values so you are correct, right wing terrorism is a problem. You can criticize christianity and fundamentalist christians for inciting violence just like you can criticize islam for inciting violence. It’s nice to see that Cenk John and Ana are so neatly uniform. Spent 40 minutes talking about planned parenthood and didn’t even learned anything new.

  9. 11:15 FacePalm. Fundamentalism isn’t a problem when the fundamentals of a religion aren’t a problem. For example Fundamentalist Jainism or Fundamental Amish don’t blow themselves up, a fundamental Jainist is dedicated to extreme nonviolence. Islam is a religion of conquest established by iron age desert tribes. The fundamental interpretation of Islam, needless to say, depends on what idea’s you are fundamentalist about. Evangelical Christian Fundamentalists have different Fundamentals than Radical Islamist Fundamentalists. John indeed seems to make this point at 22:30. Claims this crazy person was influenced by the Bible.

    1. I don’t know, if he was influenced by the bible (most likely not, because there is no clear anti-abortion message in the bible), but he was certainly influenced by his christian belief system. Here is one of my biggest disagreements with Sam Harris, who made your argument almost literally in the interview with Kyle. Sam says it’s not christian doctrine, because it’s not in the bible – I would argue that it is christian doctrine, because it’s actual lived and taught doctrine – the basis here is not the “holy” book, but publications/interpretations of whoever holds the right to interpret dogma in whatever christian organization. F.E. If the pope speaks “ex-cathedra” his word is seen by fundamentalist Catholics as the word of god himself – there is of course no word of the pope in the bible, because this particular institution was created much later. If you’d ask any christian (or none christian for that matter) in the country if an anti-abortion stand is a christian position – the vast majority of people would agree, I guess… It’s the same with “Fatwas” btw

      As for fundamentalism vs religion. Everyone agrees that secular religious people are not to be infringed upon, in fact I think Sam says they should basically get citizenship right away. So if you fight the religion, you at least risk antagonizing a whole bunch of people – not because it’s not OK to criticize their doctrine, but because of the political situation, misunderstandings etc, plus it’s unnecessary. If you fight against fundamentalism, you get the radicals of all religions – yes, you may also disencourage people to take their religion literal, who otherwise would be also benign, peaceful people. But you are fighting an important ideological fight, that solves the problem, doesn’t antagonize peaceful people and close the door to any interpretation that could come out of any of those books. Sam himself gives examples of benign doctrine can become dangerous in particular situations – not all fundamentalists might be as dangerous, but all fundamentalism is a path against science, logic, facts and argument – secular religious interpretation is not – my grandma was very, very religious (ikn her mind), but she was the one who encouraged everyone in our family to pick up and understand science + she was the first woman in our family to work for herself, earn the money for her own household, fought for feminist causes and so on and so forth – same is true for most of my friends in high school, who happened to be Muslim – a lot of people in Germany (where I grew up) are Muslim, most of ’em secular…

      1. Interesting and well thought out points.

        The goal is indeed to discourage literal fundamentalist radical interpretations of the religious text by creating a space for secular and liberal muslims to modernize religious interpretations into something benign and peaceful through dialogue.

        1. You know… if you lay out your thoughts, make arguments and discuss substantively – ignoring the noise (and that’s every name-call on both sides, misrepresentation and the accusation of such, assumptions and speculations etc.) that’s irrelevant, on the surface – you can actually have an exchange of thought, opinion & argument and even, at least on particular issues/points, eventually agree… :-)

          1. I wholeheartedly agree, and I don’t have anything against you personally, I respect that you put time into reasoning your positions thoughtfully and I like that when we disagree we can do so respectfully.

            Indeed a lot rests on how leaders choose to interpret and communicate the religious texts to the people. The fear of antagonizing religious people by criticizing the fundamental interpretation of the doctrine is what seems to be motivating Cenk to promote criticizing christian terrorism as an equal threat to islamic terrorism (which comes across as white washing/obscuring the issue to apologize for criticism of Islam.

            I disagree with Cenk and others who fear a negative reaction by bringing up contradictions in the Quran. If criticizing someone’s religion makes them join ISIS that is their failing not yours. I think something better to keep in mind is that these Radicals are often not entire certain of their beliefs and if you can introduce even the tiniest shred of doubt you may deprogram an islamist and prevent a potential terrorist attack.

            I also think the effects of fundamentalism differs depending on the fundamentals being interpreted. The Quran is shorter and more instructive and easier to take straightforward than the Bible. The fundamentals of Islam are much more consistently authoritarian, consistent with the example of the prophet.

            1. I think the real fear is not that moderate muslims join ISIS, but that right-wing nutjobs don’t get it right. In Europe are a lot of groups that started as critics of Islam, that ended up supporting racist policies – sometimes not even connected to Islam – Netherlands: “Weed only for Dutch”, Swiss: “No more German invaders” etc. – those are of course stupid slogans, but it goes as far as supporting groups that violently attack refugee shelters…

              That’s the fear, that many of us have. and that’s connected with the fact, that “Christian terrorism” might not be overall as dangerous or present as “Islamic terrorism”, but terrorist attacks commited by Christians combined (for all different reasons) are a much bigger threat than Islamic terrorism and/or terrorism committed by Muslims. Even in Today’s France, domestic right-wing terrorism kills more people than Islamists, in Germany the numbers are >400:0, in the US it’s overwhelming, esp including mass shootings, and so on and so forth.

              There is a fear, that we neglect that, and the conviction, that regardless of the underlying doctrine or reason overall, we should concentrate on eliminating the actual, concrete on the table threats first, at least make sure that those problems don’t get bigger, while we have our eyes on other issues. All those Islamists are imho themselves nothing else than fascist, right-wing, terrorist groups – domestic in their resp country. So yes, it may be the biggest problem worldwide and it’s certainly the No. 1 concern in those countries, and yes we have a responsibility in “deprograming”, I prefer influencing, showing them alternatives, secular ways etc. but I don’t think it’s anywhere near of being the biggest problem in our own, western countries/cultures…

              1. I agree with practically everything you said, definitely get rid of concrete threats first, and this is important to point out and discuss. I totally totally understand the rational fear of the far right of these countries (and ours) getting it very very wrong on the issue of muslim immigrants and refugees and terror etc. Marginalizing them and treating them all as potential terrorists is obviously not going to help. No person is beneath integrity and no idea is above criticism.

                But this is where I think it’s also important, there is an equivalent fear many of us hold that if the liberals get it wrong, if we continue to apologize and make excuses for atrocious ideas and ideologies, and then god forbid another major attack happens in the West, we will end up giving our governments to the far right wing reactionary loons out of ignorance and fear. Having a massive public reaction to more and more traumatic terror events without rationally understanding the issues will push us further down that authoritarian path. I think you have it right in your analysis to worry about right wing reactionaries.

                I only caution that apologist liberal approaches to criticizing illiberal ideas (for fear of provoking terrorism and pushing moderates into terror groups) will actually promote or enable illiberal ideas to flourish, which will then provoke terrorism and push moderates into radical positions anyway, which will then empower the radical right wing and the fascist ideas they hold every time an attack happens and people still don’t understand the issue.

                1. I agree, I think it was my first or second comment on this issue – that’s the real divide! At the end – fear is not the right impulse, is not really helpful on both sides of the aisles – eventually substantive debate, facts, logic, science etc have to take over and are the only tools to come to the right conclusions/decisions/strategy and tactics.

                  I think we actually found a productive way to address and debate all those issues – now we have to only initiate this kind of dialogue on a societal scale :-)

    2. You make an intriguing point. I never really thought about fundamentalism being anything but a bad thing until now. You’re right, we’re always sold this false narrative that fundamentalism alone is the problem and not the fundamentals of a religion like you said.

      1. Indeed, the content (fundamentals) of what a text says matters when you say someone believes a strict interpretation of that literal text (which is fundamentalism).

        This is a point definitely lost on Cenk. He immediately tries to counter this point, he conjures up any instance of violence where the perpetuators happened to be christian, then he claims christians either did it because of christianity (claiming they are just as dangerous or more so than islamic radicals) or he tries to make the opposite point that muslims don’t commit violence because of the religion just like christians don’t really because they ‘don’t really believe it’.

        He often tries to have it both ways and make both points. The thing is, no one is saying all violence done by muslims to other muslims is only in the name of Islam (though Cenk often tries to claim christian on christian violence was done in the name of christianty when there is not clear link). Then on the occasions he does grant that religious dogma influences christian nuts and jihadists he goes overboard trying to make the point that the religion wouldn’t be interpreted strictly if not for U.S. foreign policy. Which is Chomsky’s argument. Which I disagree with. Of course the US had a role in picking certain winners and loser during the cold war which certainly changed things and the power balances but these ideologies have existed and been seeping into those populations minds for a thousand years before the US had any power over the ME.

        1. Dude, amnesty international did a study – very thorough, 5% religious reasons, 95% political/revenge based. We don’t need to speculate, the data is available.

          I think even 5% of terrorism being committed for religious reasons is enough of a reason to try to solve the problem of religion or even islam, but remember, we have no right to speculate when the data has already been hashed out, as long as the methods are congruent (and we have no reason to believe they are not).

          1. Well a few points, religion enables political/revenge based divides. I do agree that there are very few cases of terrorism that are soley JUST because of the religion and nothing else (though they happen, something Cenk admits and something many religious apologists deny). My main concern is that terrorism is enabled by religion and i believe you would have less political/revenge based terrorism if people didn’t hold dogmatic views towards radical islam.

    3. Dude, Islam isn’t based on conquest. Your example, although correct about about Jainism, isn’t correct for islam. Kuran is a diverse scripture, this is why a religion that isn’t fundamentalist can be interpreted in fundamental ways – for it to not be interpreted in fundamental ways, it would have to be very pure, like jainism. Why do you think jihadism is a separate strain of islam? Because within the context of islam and the kuran, it can’t be done. They have to create a new strain in order to make these violent ideologies plausible.

      Please don’t make the mistake sam harris keeps making, that is to read a line from the kuran or sharia law and assume that all followers of islam abide by it, of course they don’t, they are mostly normal human beings who don’t live by the crazy shit in the kuran or sharia because it would involve doing horrible things and going to prison. However, harris gets a line from the kuran and interprets it in such a fundamental manner that he suggests most or all muslims follow that particular line like it’s their last will & testament – of course they don’t. Sam can’t produce evidence to prove his fundamentalist interpretations, so he just draws direct connections between things where such a direct connection doesn’t exist.

      This is why Noam Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald, myself & others call Sam Harris a fundamentalist, because he projects this fundamentalist understanding upon muslims – an understanding that just isn’t true unless they are in the minute minority of jihadism or wahhabism.

      1. Just a few points, Sam Harris talks quite a bit about specific numbers, he never claims they all believe one line of the doctrine. I have always been under the impression that he is very cautious not to paint with too broad a brush, if ever he makes a claim about how many people believe anything he cites polls (polls you may disagree with) but he does not say they all hold to a fundamentalist interpretation.

        He does say (and this is what many may be misunderstanding) that fundamentalist interpretations of Islam are the most honest readings of the doctrine and that fundamentalists are the truest followers of the prescription commanded in the books. Point being that an honest reading of the doctrines (believing every word to be true as the book commands you) yields a fundamentalist islamic worldview. If that’s still confusing ask again and I’ll try to reword it.

        Outside of jihadism and wahhabism there are still islamists (people who want to overthrow democracy but aren’t suicidal) and run of the mill religious conservatives who often sympathize with radical jihadist ideas (without engaging in them themselves). We need to empower liberal muslims in these societies if we ever want a secular liberal society to develop.

        Full disagree with most of your first paragraph. Islam is actually based on conquest, the book is shorter and more straight forward than the bible so it’s easier to take away an authoritarian conquest mindset. Especially since there prophet was a prime example of a conquering warlord. Compare that to the liberal hippy jesus who was basically saying ‘you don’t have to follow all that heinous shit in the old testament’ and you get very different religious world views. Jihadism is a natural outgrowth of the commands ordered in the Quran.

        Please take a look at this http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html

  10. Interesting near the end of the hour how Ana threw in a thinly-veiled reference to Cenk’s Armenian Genocide editorial at Penn.

  11. I was sad today; because my member account and paypal i guess had an issue..so i had to re-subscribe for the first time in many many years.. So I likely lost my first 1K member spot ive held
    :(
    Now; Cenk will never call my member number. I don’t think it’s fair that “origional” members that get mentioned, never have to worry about losing their member number again. I technically went from the first 600 members, to what?? member 1,373,283? I judge the passing of time by how old Pro is; as an example, and now i’m just a “neophyte” to everyone. Ugg.

    Good show as always.. Darn PayPal bumed me out.

    3. Resubscribe as in setting up a new payment for your old account or resubscribe as in creating a whole new account?

  12. I love Ana’s rant about Carly Fiorina, but she just can’t help herself by taking a totally unjustified swipe at Obama on the gun issue..

    Obama isn’t the problem when it comes to sensible gun legislation. .

  13. WRT The PP assault. Both Breitbart and Fiorino have blood on their…whatevers.
    Remember the guy who Killed Dr Tiller~? They found books by Glen Beck
    when they searched his place.
    Connect those dots~!
    UPAYA

  14. If she hasnt had an abortion she has more than likely taken the Plan B pill. I’m sure thats something she has fought to restrict access too.

Leave a Comment