Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Dennis Prager :: Townhall.com Columnist
To Understand the Left, Read this Issue of Rolling Stone
by Dennis Prager
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



The current issue of Rolling Stone magazine, its special 40th anniversary issue, reveals almost all one needs to know about the current state of the cultural left. The issue features interviews with people Rolling Stone considers to be America's leading cultural and political figures -- such as Al Gore, Jon Stewart, Bruce Springsteen, Cornel West, Paul Krugman, Kanye West, Bill Maher and George Clooney, among many others.

It brings me no pleasure to say that, with few exceptions, the interviews reveal a superficiality and contempt for cultural norms (as evidenced by the ubiquity of curse words) that should scare anyone who believes that these people have influence on American life.

First, the constant use of expletives.

As I wrote in my June 5, 2007, column, "'Buck Fush' and the Left," "Higher civilization has always regarded the use of expletives in public (outside of, let us say, theatrical performances) as a form of assault on civilization . . . ."

That is why the amount of public cursing on the left and the way curse words are accepted as part of public and formal discourse may be as significant to understanding the left as anything the left says. It is the left's way of showing rejection of the values of the middle class and of America's Judeo-Christian civilization.

Typical examples:

Chris Rock " . . . Bush f--ked up." "That's a major f--kup." "I say some harsh s--t."

Novelist William Gibson: "The s--t you've been doing for the past 400 years . . . ."

George Clooney: " . . . my sister and I were quizzed on s--t." "Now you're going to hear about all this s--t." "What the f--k's wrong with you?" China "doesn't give a s--t . . ." "I don't give a s--t." "This war is bulls--t."

Billie Joe Armstrong: "What the f--k are you doing?" " . . . when you say 'F--k George Bush' in a packed arena in Texas, that's an accomplishment." "I don't have a f--king clue what they're talking about." " . . . all the f--ked up problems we have." " . . . this girl was f--ked up." "Why did I worry so much about this s--t?"

Jon Stewart: "We have a s--tload of guns." " . . . that f--ked up everything." "We f--king declared war on 'em." " . . . the whole f--king thing's ours." "Two vandals . . . can f--k up your way of life." "I'll take those odds every f--king day."

Eddie Vedder: "Why the f--k is he doing that?"

Sam Harris: " . . . any religious bulls--t."

Meryl Streep: "Oh, f--k, why me?"

Tom Hanks: "People have stopped giving a s--t . . . ." "Where the f--k have you people been?"

In response to this, I will receive e-mails cursing me and noting that Vice President Dick Cheney once whispered a curse at Democratic Sen. Pat Leahy -- on the floor of the Senate, no less. These e-mailers -- and, to be honest, some religious conservatives as well -- do not see any difference between cursing in public and using an expletive in a whisper. Many people have lost the ability to judge actions in context or to acknowledge gradations of sin. Is whispering the f-word when one assumes that no one else hears you say it really no different from using that word in a published interview or on a television show?

But even if no foul language were used by so many of those interviewed in Rolling Stone, the absence of serious thought would be enough to fear leftist influence on the country.

Some examples:

Jane Goodall: "We seem to have lost the wisdom of the indigenous people, which dictated that in any major decision, the first consideration was, 'How will this decision we make today affect our people in the future?'"

The romanticizing of "indigenous peoples" is a popular leftist myth, believed not because it is true -- "indigenous people" were just as cruel and raped the land just as much as later groups -- but because it is a way of attacking the Western societies and cultures that replaced "indigenous peoples."

Bill Maher: " . . . [in 2003], it was a relatively small number of young Muslim men. Now, thanks to this clash of civilizations we've created, the threat could come from anywhere."

According to Bill Maher and many others on the left, we Americans created this clash of civilizations. Presumably, prior to 2003 the Islamic world was morally similar to Western civilization. This, too, is a dogma of the left: Before our invasion of Iraq, the Muslim world was populated by peaceful young men; violent Islamists were made by America, not by any aspects of Islamic culture and values. Maher should tell that to the Armenians, to the blacks of the Sudan, to the Israelis, to the Algerians who have lost tens of thousands to Islamic terror, and to the others murdered and maimed by young Muslim men prior to America deposing Saddam Hussein. As noted by a Labor member of the British Parliament in the Guardian this past Sunday:

"Ten years ago, in November 1997, 50 Swiss tourists rose early to visit the Valley of the Kings across the Nile from Luxor in Egypt. Suddenly from the hills came a group of Islamists. They shot, disembowelled and decapitated the tourists." While the American president was Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush.

Bill Maher on Republican opposition to radical changes and expenditures to fight carbon emissions: "I don't understand what any person doesn't get about 'You're going to die too!' I mean, do they have their own air? I could understand that, because they're selfish pr--ks by nature: 'I've got my own air. What do I give a s--t?'"

Another central leftist dogma: Conservatives aren't merely wrong, they're "selfish pr--ks by nature." That's why, as regards manmade global warming leading to catastrophe on Earth, the left doesn't address the challenges posed by many dissenting scientists. The left merely dismisses them as either paid by industry (the Newsweek cover story explanation for all dissent on this issue) or as human beings so selfish by nature that they even deny their own impending deaths.

Princeton Professor Cornel West: " . . . a morally insensitive period from Reagan to the second Bush, when it was fashionable to be indifferent to the suffering of the most vulnerable."

Again, the vileness of conservatives.

Cornel West: "Black folk in America have never been optimistic about the future -- what have we had to be optimistic about?"

No matter how improved the lot of the vast majority of black Americans, leftists like Cornel West continue to argue that there is no reason for a black American to be optimistic.

These were entirely typical ideas in the Rolling Stone special edition. Along with the cursing, the picture they paint of the left is not a pretty one.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columnist for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Dennis Prager's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
The essence of cultural leftism
is to systematically destroy what normal, decent people have built over the years. Hence, the institutions of higher learning are in thrall to anti-intellectual political correctness. Once-great denominations now are purveyors of religious fads. Civil discourse is replaced by expletives. Once we had decent movies, but now non-stop cursing, horror, sex, and car chases. Electing a republican is not enough, we need to thoroughly purge the culture.

King...
You missed the big 'E' on the eye test this time. There might be a difference between words spoken in private and words spoken in public.

Read "Rolling Stone Magazine"?
Must I?

King, why would you suppose that something said quietly, semi-private, between two grown men would be more troublesome to conservatives than several pages of foul language in a magazine that appears on newspaper racks from coast to coast?

That statement doesn't make any sense at all.

Cheney said it because sometimes men talk to each other that way.

The people in "Rolling Stone" talk that way because they lack the ability to express themselves articulately. That, and they think it makes them seem "edgey". Since the 60s the Left has always considered manners and decorum nothing more than a bourgeoisie affectation anyway.

A bunch of grown people thinking foul language makes them sound like Lenny Bruce if they sprinkle it among their socialist platitudes.

VOCABULARY
The vocabulary of the Left is really atrocious. You see it on their Blogs, in their articles, and in interviews. They are supposed to be the intellectuals, the intelligensia, the nth degree of moralism and paragons of integrity.

From their constant swearing they are only the paragons of naked teen age boys in the locker room.

As to celebrities, why would one expect anything intelligent to come forth. They are the bobble heads of the world. If someone did not put a cue card in front of them, they would not be able to think, let alone speak.

The Left are nothing more than rude, inconsiderate, and disrespectful people. I wonder how they talk to their families, especially their children.

Aack!
Rhapsody.com keeps sending Rolling Stone as a free gift.
I don't want it. Havent looked at the thing since t he '60's.

Keep passing it to the elderly hippies down the street.

I can be incredibly snippy, but using f this and f that is just a sign of poor education.

There are thousands of words to use to take someone to task. Look them up!

Must I, as well?
I quit reading Rolling Stone when I no longer understood what had happened to music.

If Pat Leahy was half a man, he would have shut up about what Cheney said to him, instead of running to the media and crying, "OOOh, see what this awful man said to me!"

Leahy is a punk, a hypocrite, and a poseur. I used to spend summers in Vermont as a child in the 50s, and to think of what the Left of his, Howard Dean's and immigrant New Yorkers' type has done to that wonderful place makes me ill.

Back to the point Dennis Prager was making. Excessive use of profanity is certainly the mark of a sloppy mind, and such behavior at an event like this one is an example of sad, small men trying so hard to be hip and relevant and succeeding only in embarrassing themselves. There is little to no difference between behavior like this and the way pre-teens will sling obscenities around as their way of announcing, "Hey! I'm a big kid now."

Swearing is a sign of weakness
My parents taught me years ago to avoid swearing as it only demonstrated that I had nothing worthwhile to say. I didn't always follow their advice and as a result regretted my actions later on.

I have absolutely no respect for people that resort to this kind in-your-face dialogue. And this includes the Vice President. I know people get mad and frustrated, but that is time to show true class, integrity, and leadership. People may remember that one of the revealing things about the Watergate tapes was to hear President Nixon swearing up a storm. I believe that hurt his public image as much as anything else that happened during Watergate.

I have not been perfect in holding my tongue (competitive sports is my weakness), but I do have a limit. For example, I know I have not said the f-word since 8th grade (many, many years ago). And I never engage in what I call "religious swearing".

I will be forever grateful to my parents for teaching me this important principle.

Publicity
Rolling Stone did America a favor by giving a group of left-wing low men space on their pages to demonstrate their rude venality. One only has to listen to such low men for a short while to understand that human nature cannot be improved by mere talent, particularly when such talent is recognized.

The left turns most Americans off because it is foreign to them. Therefore, by giving the left an exclusive forum to demonstrate their foreignness, the MSM is alienating America from them. This can only be good for America.

Swearing is an art form
The things the left tends to denigrate (religion, heterosexuality, low taxes) don't require swearing, only a complete ignorance of civilized values.

Smash-your-thumb swearing has a time and a place, and f-wording over beers with the guys is hardly as sinful as say, swearing in front of children or even women.

It takes great genius to swear creatively, and in the cupboard of concerns I thought Mr. Prager would better serve readers and listeners by pointing out the folly of incivility in modern discourse instead of swearing as a standalone sin.

Rolling stone is not a music mag anymore
Like many other things controlled by lefties, the orginal function has been replaced by politics. Rolling Stone used to be an entertainment mag covering music but no longer does that. My brother regrets that he subscribed to it, since he was looking for a music magazine only to discover it is a political mag. He isn't even very conservative, so I wonder how many folks on both sides are annoyed by a music mag not covering music.

THIS IS A JOKE?
I am conservative but hey Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Tom Delay...........

Craig, Vitter: double standard?

How can anyone argue this was not a double standard?

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/craig-vitter-doubl e-standard



budbud - Actually, cursing IS a "sin"...



budbud writes: "Did he acutally call cursing "a sin" in this piece? Good Lord."



Your dispute about what is “sin” is not with Dennis…


“Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.” (James 3:10, KJV)



"But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth." (Colossians 3:8, KJV)



"Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. [30] And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. [31] Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:" (Ephesians 4:29-31, KJV)



"But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; [4] Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. [5] For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." (Ephesians 5:3-5, KJV)



"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. [16] But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness." (2 Timothy 2:15-16, KJV)



"In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine [shewing] uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, [8] Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you." (Titus 2:7-8, KJV)



If you do not think cursing is a sin, then your dispute is with God’s Word…



What is Swearing
I do not like swear words, though I use them
myself on occasion. The f word is a big turn
off, the s word is a big nothing. At best,
unladylike. I think every person quoted here
except one was a man. And, correct me if I am
wrong, but it was for Rolling Stone. The language you hear in the church basement is
rarely what you hear in a bar and vice versa.
And what would be said at a Rolling Stone event
would be way different from one for the Ladies Home Journal, by the same people.

If swearing is the crime of the century, then we
are indeed a lucky people.

Now if you want to read some really vile ideas,
search through posters under column after column
on Town Hall. There are some things that I just
cannot understand why columnists bring up here
on Town Hall. It is like they don't read the
postings themselves. Swearing exists under every
post, sometimes veiled, sometimes not. But that
is the least of it. The call each other
derogatory names and spew ideas that can hardly
be called anything other than pathetic and sometimes dangerous.

budbud- Please consider your language...




budbud writes: "Save me from these provincial hey seeds."



I believe the word you were grasping for was "hayseeds".


Furthermore, "Chist" (in your subject title) traditionally has an "r" after the "Ch" and before the “ist”.


And inserting the F-word between “Holy” and “Christ” shouldn’t be allowed to stand on this message board.


It has nothing to do with being “insensitive” or “offensive” or any other “PC” garbage.


It’s just wrong, plain and simple, and it ought to be removed.



Not my book.
Scott writes:
budbud - Actually, cursing IS a "sin"...
If you do not think cursing is a sin, then your dispute is with God’s Word…


NO. My dispute is with YOUR gods word, who I don't claim to follow.

As I'm not a Christian, the rules from the Christian Bible do not apply or pertain to me.

When you start following the precepts written in the holy books of other faiths, I'll start following the precepts written in the holy book of your faith.

It's somewhat presumptuous of you to talk to me as though I would automatically be a fellow follower of YOUR god and care in the least what the owners manual of YOUR faith says about anything under the sun as it pertains to me.




Proclamations of moral superiority
One of the Left's eternal irritations with the Right has been our pose of superior morality and gentility. The use of profanity and vulgarity in a public setting is consistent with the Left's anger over this; it's an act of defiance, even of rebellion. It's also an exorcism of sorts -- banishing the Right's leading figures by scatological means -- and a rhetorical tactic that evades substantive argument, as many conservatives will refuse to talk to persons who allow themselves such language.

I hope the public use of foul language is ultimately self-isolating, but it would seem that our entertainment media has made strides in normalizing it. The old four-letter vulgarisms are coming to be seen as no more offensive than the "like" and "you know" tics that have marred American speech for several decades. It could well be the stroke that puts an end to polite exchange across the political fence.

Maybe not. We'll see
Scott writes: "And inserting the F-word between “Holy” and “Christ” shouldn’t be allowed to stand on this message board."

And why

~

would that

~

be,

~

Scott?


Because you say so? Because there is some prohibition about appending some words after "holy"?

~

Or prepending them before "christ"?

~

Says who?


The TownHall censors? Can't wait.

~

More vertical space

~

to make the

~

point.

~


I'm so tired of Scott's sanctimony.

~


~


~


budbud - Please reconsider...


Scott wrote previously: “If you do not think cursing is a sin, then your dispute is with God’s Word…”


budbud replies: “NO. My dispute is with YOUR gods word, who I don't claim to follow.”


If you admit that your dispute is with my God’s Word (whether you claim to follow it or not), then what point is there in going after Dennis?



~~~



budbud writes: “As I'm not a Christian, the rules from the Christian Bible do not apply or pertain to me.”


But the Word of God applies to all men everywhere; to both Jew and Gentile alike. You may choose to reject it, but in no way does that mean it does not apply or pertain to you.



~~~



budbud writes: “When you start following the precepts written in the holy books of other faiths, I'll start following the precepts written in the holy book of your faith.”


I won’t be following any other “faith”, but your proposition is a false conditional statement; what possible logical reason would you have to begin adhering to God’s Word in the Bible if I began to follow some other faith?



~~~



budbud writes: “It's somewhat presumptuous of you to talk to me as though I would automatically be a fellow follower of YOUR god and care in the least what the owners manual of YOUR faith says about anything under the sun as it pertains to me.”


I presumed no such thing. My comments were not predicated on whether or not you might claim to be a Christian. If anything, I presumed that a person who spoke as you have spoken was NOT a Christian, so you have figured this exactly backwards so far.


Still, notwithstanding the blasphemy, it was beyond poor taste and common decency to have profaned Christ by preceding His Name with that crude and vulgar term.


I would be grateful if you would consider asking the site administrator to remove it or amend it to something that is not disrespectful.



WTF Dennis
Cheney didn't merely whisper the F-word. He told Pat Leahy to go f*ck himself, purportedly because Leahy had accused the administration of issuing sole-source contracts in Iraq to Halliburton. Isn't using the imperative form of the F word to a colleague on the floor of the Senate just slightly more offensive than using it as an adjective?

Incidentally, didn't Tucker Carlson describe GW as having sworn "like a truck driver" in an interview for Talk magazine in 1999?

Another quiz (lib slogans)
Anyone who knows what Hallibuton does,please raise your hand. What company is the only competitor?
Where are they located?

Quick now, my slogan chanting trolls!

You're proving his point
The libs/counter-culturalists seem to have a particular hatred for Mr. Prager. Accordingly, it's sweet to watch as they post comments that prove his points.

He said they would come out of the woodwork to cite Cheyney, and sure enough, here they are. If he wanted to I'm sure he could have also said that predictably enough, they would respond that cursing is "just words", that he is a right wing prude with more important things he should be writing about, and that cursing is an appropriate response to eight years of the unmitigated horror of living under the boot of the cruel, oppressive regime of George Bush and his minions. It's a beautiful thing.

scott
you've been flagged as offensive for being against free speech.

rolling stone
Does anyone actually read that twaddle?

It's all very intentional
Well written article, parsed quite well and certainly laying some foundations on principles and morality versus the anarcy and hatred of the left.

The left hates everything Christian, hates everything that's traditional American.

There is an anti-Christ roaming the earth. It is he who controls these people, which is why the left is so opposed to Christians and the traditions of America.

There are two races in the earth. Believers and unbelievers. All of us have a father, it is either God or the devil. This is the split between the left and the right. This is the reason for our culture war.

You cannot fix this socially. You cannot fix this diplomatically. You cannot fix this legislatively. It is a spiritual issue.

Prove It
Scott writes:

...the Word of God applies to all men everywhere...

Can you prove this?


For What It's Worth..
..when I lived and worked in the States my two colleagues with the foulest mouths were both self proclaimed Conservative Republicans. I often had to cover my delicate English ears when around those two!!!!
Having said that no one can swear like the Irish from my experience!!!

Brownie?
Michael Brown writes:
...The left hates everything Christian

What about all the Christians and Christian churches who are on the political left? Do they all hate themselves?

Michael Brown writes:
...There is an anti-Christ roaming the earth. It is he who controls these people...

Can you prove this?

Michael Brown writes:
...All of us have a father, it is either God or the devil...

A. Can you prove this?
B. Isn't the "devil" a character from the Christian storybook? If someone is not a Christian or not religious, and therefore doesn't believe in the existence of this character, can they still have this character as their father?

While We Are On Matters Cultural...
...I looked up footage of some of the acts advertised as being on 'Thou Shalt Laugh'. Blimey!!!! Sadly it would appear that not only has the devil got the best tunes, he has the best jokes too!!!!

To Everybody Who's NOT A Liberal
Folks: Why bother responding to these foul-mouthed liberal jerks; what does it prove?

Like their Hollywood brethren, the libs on this site never grew up mentally or emotionally. That's why they talk like 14 yr old teenagers. These mental cripples are incapable of expressing themselves adequately in any other fashion, thus the torrent of expletives.

In their self-obsessed little worlds, these "progressives" equate crudity with 'sophistication'......How pitiful!

BTW: Cursing is defined as taking God's name in vein; use of the big *f* word; c**ks**k*r, etc., is simply crude. There ARE times when the use of the *f* word can be uproariously funny. However, when these liberal retards use it as every second word, they're merely demonstrating an inability to express themselves. A lack of education, no doubt.


Pseudo Leaders--Vocabulary Challenged
I've always thought that people who could not express themselves without throwing in an obscenity or two are volcabulary challenged. Or, they think they are relating to the "common man" by using the locker room language of the prols, which, come to think of it, actually illustrates their opinion of average Americans--paternal contempt. By the same token many of us feel contempt for them because these so-called stars, winners in life's struggles, can't seem to express themselves except by using all-purpose obscenities that have no meaning whatsoever. Would they be able to express themselves at all if suddenly they were deprived of all the gutter obscenities? Not bloody likely.

only once
did I swear at my fraternity brothers the way many of them did on a regular basis (it was normal in their talk, as with those interviewed in Rolling Stone, apparently). I was gone for a weekend. One fellow had made a huge mess whilst intoxicated, and left in the morning without seeing/realizing what he'd done. The others were waiting waiting for him to come back and clean it up. The next meeting I waited until my turn to speak, and then started off with "What the eff is wrong with you guys...." and went downhill from there.

I very seldom swear. You could have heard a pin drop, and many faces were wide-eyed, and then staring intently at the floor.

If you don't overuse swearing, it can be very effective. If you say the same thing when you hit your finger with a hammer as when you see a sunset, how does the word have any meaning?

budbud
Really , really good post.
God, i wish i had the 10 seconds of my life back that it took to read it.

Words mean things
Do we have this kind of talk as mentioned by D. Prager saturated thru our culture? Yes, more and more as the years go by. Talk is linked directly to the heart. Left or right, everyone has this problem, and as our culture continues to "slide toward Gommorah",as Mr. Bork has noted, what are we left with? We are bringing children into this world of little respect for decency, honor, and humility." A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good, an evil man out the evil treasure of his heart brings forth that which is evil, for of the ABUNDANCE OF THE HEART THE MOUTH SPEAKETH (JC:luke 6:45-47).

It amazes me....
how Hollywood and other celebrities think that the adoration they receive makes them intellegent and experts on foreign policy, or anything else, for that matter. Quite a few of the vocal lefties are camparatively uneducated. Oh, wait, they went to acting school!

The claim to fame for most of them is that their life's work has been to pretend they are someone else, using words someone else wrote and saying them in a manner prescribed by someone else. Wow!

The tripe they produce desensitizes them to traditional cultural values. While change is inevitable and even necessary, the denigration of those values without replacing them with something better is simply vandalism of the worst sort.


alwyr
good post, responding to these losers is a waste of time

Who CARES
what any of those pinheads in "Rolling Stoned" mag think? They are a bunch of worms that have no earthly idea how this world works. They are nothing outside of their liberal whacked out hollyweird, loopy world. I'm so glad to see the libquirts and their tripe being spun to what they think is the true american way. Time will solve all of lifes drib! Its just a matter of it!
And I said all of this without cursing. That was fun.

I always laugh...
when I hear people say "there's no need to swear" when something goes disastrously wrong. Like when an airline loses your luggage or a hotel mucks up your reservation. If there is a situation that swear words were invented for, it's that sort of time... but on the whole, this column is a load of garbage. As if liberals can judge all conservatives by an Ann Coulter column, or a Michelle Malkin column, or a Kevin McCulloch column, or even a Denis Prager column. They are no more than one individual's opinion, just as the views expressed in Rolling Stone are the opinions of their ideological opponents. Big deal. Rolling Stone has left wing politic. Get over it. I'd pay good money to see Prager take on Bill Maher though - he'd get eaten for breakfast...

Interesting
As far as I can tell, what this thread demonstrates is that some Liberals don't read very carefully. Consequently they don't so much argue against what is actually written but against straw men, uh, persons (often accompanied by hey seeds) which seem vaguely like what was actually written.

Prager says:
******
But even if no foul language were used by so many of those interviewed in Rolling Stone, the absence of serious thought would be enough to fear leftist influence on the country.
******
Evidently the Liberals here are giving that one a pass.

BUDBUD

You say the rules in the Bible do not apply to you,


Do you lie, steal, covet?

No, then you obey some rules in there whether you intend to or not.



Where did the ....
Where did the F word orginate? Is it in the Bible? Who says it's a "dirty word"? Maybe the word "Poo Poo" could be considered a dirty word?

It amazes me.....
how some of the Hollywood lefties (and others of their ilk) think that the drooling adoration they get makes them smart and experts on foreign policy. Many are relatively uneducated. Oh, wait! They went to acting school!! Wow!!

Seems to me their claim to fame is that they are good at pretending they are someone else, mouthing words written by someone else in a manner prescribed by someone else. Makes them great thinkers, philosophers and statesmen, don't you think?

The tripe they produce desentisizes them to traditional values and morality. Tearing down our society and cultural norms without replacing them without something better is simply vandalism of the worst sort.

Language
They say that God watches over fools and eejits, and I suppose this is a good thing, considering how many people have been seduced by what they believe is "cool," i.e., talking the "dirty talk" of the Left. The Left has ceased to care about real issues and now focuses all its energies on hating -- Bush, America, Israel, and the West in general. It has become the "Culture of Cynicism." The constant use of foul language in public (which is very different from cursing in the privacy of your own car when someone cuts you off), reflects this hatred and negativity, as it serves to degrade English, which has become the language of the west. (It also helps to disguise the fact that most of those who do talk that way are morons whose command of real language is limited.) The only bright spot in this is that ultimately, ugliness and crudeness are a turnoff -- and the the people that Dennis mentions in his article are bound for the bin of historical obscurity.

liberals and art
Ahhh... the cultural quagmire that is the liberal society... that produces the overwhelming majority of great art. can anyone name a modern Swiss musician, artist, film maker, actor? Probably not, and hats off to you if you can. What about any of those things from Iran (a very different but equally conservative society)? The liberal society produces great art, as seen in the US, western Europe (except Switzerland), Australia and New Zealand. If the downside to that is some foul language, I'd say it's a fair price to pay...

Why They Talk The Way They Do
It all comes down to mental laziness. Somewhat akin to today's brainless teenagers who talk "like, you know, I mean, like there I was, and you know, I was just going to like tell him...." In other words, they're too lazy to make the mental effort necessary to stop and THINK before they speak. WHAT they say is of no significance; the important thing is they're making sound; proof, I suppose, they're still alive, otherwise you'd never notice.

'Adult' libs are the same in THEIR mode of expression. If you don't believe me, go back and read what these utterly incoherent Hollywood dolts have to say for themselves.....Like 'Wow! I'm impressed!

Superficiality
Prager's first criticism of the Rolling Stone interviews is that they show "superficiality". He then goes on to devote the first half of his article to criticizing the use of swear words. There are so many substantial comments to be made about ideological differences beween Left and Right: perception of the role of government; rule of law vs the "Unitary Executive"; attitudes toward diplomacy vs warfare; tolerance of minorities; definition of social norms; the role of education and scholarship...we could go on listing and discussing here for months. Instead, Prager has been pretty superficial in choosing to dwell on whether or not people use swear words. He's right in line with the folks who judge a book to be "bad literature" because its characters use "bad language".

Is there anyone here who would care whether President Bush swore like a mule-skinner if only he could end the war in Iraq, restore a blooming economy, and lead our country in the ways of wisdom?

Leftists apparently can't read
budbud wrote:

"Is Prager really writing an article about adults using four letter words?

Really?"

No... NOT really. The article touched in part on the use of four letter words... but if that's what you think the article was *about*, then you neither thought very deeply about it, nor (in all likelihood) read past the first page.

And yet everyone is batting back and forth this whole "is swearing a sin or isn't it" nonsense, when that REALLY isn't even close to the point Prager was making.


"Is he really discussing the free use of explitives in modern society as a sign of us becoming less civilized."

Not really, no; got that one wrong too.

You're really not very bright, are you?

laziness
Lowering the standard always works, especially for lazy people who can't "think" of a better word or words to say that will get their point across.

No Moss
From what I've seen of this magazine,it is seems to be fore late teens who have unlimited funds and who will remain children forever. The main targets of their jibes would be those people who set out to provide the goods and servieces needed to make the economy run, and to provide these lost boys withthe wherewithal to take their leisure.

To Nutnfiner
Oh, my, you walked right into this one. "Their claim to fame is that they are good at pretending they are someone else in a manner prescribed by someone else." Fred Thompson? Ronald Reagan? Sonny Bono? Shirley Temple?

And we need not stop with actors turned politician or diplomat. How about a ne'er-do-well hard-drinking lousy-student screw-up frat boy turned President of the United States? A man who used family clout to avoid combat service, turned Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces? A man who can't put a sentence together without sounding like Mortimer Snerd, turned Leader of the Free World? The advance men, the PR staff, the image-makers, have been on the job 24/7.

Boutte
"And if Amsrica is such a great nation, why does it breed so many people in top positions that Prager so disapproves of?

There must be some design fault that keeps churning out so many "liberals", degenerates and cussers who disrespect Dennis's idols."

Indeed. What you fail to recognize - laughably so, in describing folks like Jon Stewart, George Clooney, Chris Rock, Tom Hanks, and even Cornel West (a PhD, but aspires to be a rapper, for god's sakes!) as holding "top positions."

The problem with American culture is that we lionize and idolize ENTERTAINERS, treating them like royalty. And by extension, those "intellectuals" who say things that our royalty approve of get welcomed into the club. It doesn't matter whether or not what they write and/or express is coherent; what matters is that the Lords and Ladies of the Royal Court - Barbra Streisand, Meryl Streep, Robert Redford, etc. - hear words and thoughts that don't violate the carefully-nurtured artistic empathy they trained themselves in. Thus, Norman Mailer, Noam Chomsky, and, god help us, Al Gore all get invites to the "Rilly Big Shew" that is the American cultural elite.

In the meantime, genuine intellectuals are afforded (at best) second-class status. In any reasonable culture, rational folks like Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell and Dennis Prager would find their voices echoing far more loudly.

MellerSJ2
Have you been reading Rosie O'Donnell's poetry again?

Well, at least you capitalized the appropriate letters...

budbud
"Back when people had morals and boiled people alive, sold and kept people as slaves, tarred and feathered people, denied woman the same rights as men, society was a much, much better, and far more civilzed place...because people didn't curse as much!"

So when slavery re-emerged in Sudan a decade ago, who was it who first noticed it and did something about it? It was evangelical Christians. It wasn't people like you, budbud. I'm not Christian, and I didn't like evangelical Christians very much, but I was impressed by that. I began to think better of them and less well of my fellow leftists.

As for its being only words, people like you say "Bush lied, people died." Bush, merely by uttering some words, caused people to die, apparently. Like it or not, words have power.

Plus, they can have unintended consequences. The use of unrestrained foul language in public began in the 60s, and it seemed like a good idea at the time. BUT it has hurt the poor. I lived in a poor neighborhood for years, and those people had no sense of when to turn off the swearing. Upper-class and middle-class liberals who swear know when not to use it (like in a job interview), but the poor don't.

Please reconsider your position. Think about the poor.

Silly Lilly
"...And we need not stop with actors turned politician or diplomat. How about a ne'er-do-well hard-drinking lousy-student screw-up frat boy turned President of the United States? A man who used family clout to avoid combat service, turned Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces? A man who can't put a sentence together without sounding like Mortimer Snerd, turned Leader of the Free World? The advance men, the PR staff, the image-makers, have been on the job 24/7..."


Whatever. How about you look to your idols the Clintons for the definition of Phony.

lilly
As usual, you display yourself - rather flagrantly; have you no modesty - as a thinker of the shallowest proportions.

"Oh, my, you walked right into this one. "Their claim to fame is that they are good at pretending they are someone else in a manner prescribed by someone else." Fred Thompson? Ronald Reagan? Sonny Bono? Shirley Temple?"

Fred Thompson is hardly on his way to winning the nomination. But given that he found is way into acting via a highly successful legal career, your point does not obtain.

Reagan? As you Leftists are fond of noting, Reagan was hardly a very good actor. However, prior to the presidency, he managed to distinguish himself as a very good governor of California.

And in case you failed to notice (what am I thinking... you're a Leftist moron, of COURSE you failed to notice!), while acting as president, he won the Cold War.

Sonny Bono really never spoke much on the national scene. Shirley Temple? Is she really at all relevant to national electoral politics?

Are these truly the best examples you can come up with? At any rate, it seems that all your example proves is that actors who are conservatives are fairly good at getting themselves ELECTED to offices, while Leftist actors just yammer incessantly. Let's see Barbra or Leo DiCaprio run for an office, shall we?


"And we need not stop with actors turned politician or diplomat. How about a ne'er-do-well hard-drinking lousy-student screw-up frat boy turned President of the United States?"

Does your feeble little brain consider this to be remotely on-topic, even within the context of your comments?

Military Lovin' Dogg......
Prager asks the very valid question: “Why are all these liberals such ‘potty-mouths’?” True to form, and like dogs worrying a bone, mental midgets such as Military Lovin Dogg offers up his ‘explanation’:

“So George Bush - the Phony AWOL pilot, flies a jet onto a carrier, and, his flight suit shining, announces victory - and the right rolls over. That he also served fake turkey to hand-picked troops one Thanksgiving was never an issue - only that it LOOKED good. So Prager takes issue with the bad words published in Rolling Stone.”

In other words, George Bush made you do it????? MLD - You are as pitiful as your dubious little moniker.

Fergus
Prager "touched in part" about foul language? Mate, you ought to re-read this garbage. At least 40 per cent of it is about swearing. And if you want to hear really foul language out of a musician, I suggest you pop along to a Ted Nugent gig. Foul language plus death threats! Yippee!!!
But seriously, if the largest segment of this article isn't about swearing, then what is it about? It's a totally ridiculous attempt to smear the left by making a sweeping generalisations drawn out of a handful of interviews in a music magazine. Come off it can't Prager think of anything more serious to write or to inspire him? I know lots of conservatives, in fact far more conservaties than liberals. And most of them use language that would shame a sailor...

Left
This is what always baffled me about the left. They are good at tearing traditions, dogmas, etc down but they never "build" anything

To Katy
Ooh, ooh, Teacher, call on me! I know this one! Halliburton is located in Dallas, Texas. That's where Dick Cheney was living so he could go to work at Halliburton every day. That's why he had a Texas driver's license. Texas: that's where Cheney voted as a Texas resident in eight election cycles. That's where his tax returns identify him as a resident of Texas.

Nevertheless, Cheney represented himself as a resident of Wyoming---and quick like a bunny ran out there and registered as a voter--- when he burst forth as potential Vice-President---because a lawsuit had been filed preventing him from doing so (the President and Vice-President can't be from the same state). Wyoming law says a legal resident of the state "must be an actual and physical bona fide resident of Wyoming in order to vote in Wyoming". SOS. (Pardon me, that's a swear word phrase)---power talks, the law walks.


Prager's selective outrage
Let's see, the Republicans have gotten us into a totally pointless war that is costing each American family $20,000, so far. They have brought the levels of government corruption to new hieghts through the K street project and the crony contracts in Iraq. They've politicized the justice department and used it to attack political rivals. They shown utter contempt for the Constitution by supporting the President in ignoring laws passed by Congress. They've turned a once loved and admired nation into the most hated nation on the planet. They allowed the largest attack on American soil to occur on their watch. They are intentionally manipulating reports about global warming.

But hey, those Democrats swear. And sometimes Hollywood actors make some shallow, ill-informed comments about politics.

If you want to understand the right, read Dennis Prager. He's a perfect example of how someone can fool themselves into believing whatever they want to believe.

Phylo out.

Critical Bill
Yes, "in part." Forty percent (I would agree with your math) is "part"; given that it is not the majority fraction, I couldn't very well say "in large part"; that would suggest that the article was MOSTLY about swearing - which it really wasn't.

So what exactly about my wording do you disagree with?

Do you deny that most of your Lefty brethren are acting as though the article was ENTIRELY about swearing? Certainly, you are about the only one to even take note of the latter 60% of the article, much less attempt to debate it.

As to your suggestion that Prager is making a mountain out of a molehill, please take note of the context: Rolling Stone has been a cultural touchstone for the Left, especially that portion which grew out of the 60s counter-culture (which, in intellectual terms, is the vast majority of the American Left; I can't really speak for your side of the pond on this). This was an issue of that touchstone celebrating its 40th anniversary; a weighty milestone. (Yes, all of the "stones" are intentional. I do enjoy my early AM wit.) And in so celebrating, they interviewed not just *any* entertainers, but the serious A-listers. Tom Hanks, George Clooney, Meryl Streep. The ones who have proven their heft in the culture, but who have yet to fade off into their sunset years.

This is a reasonable snapshot of the "culture" which institutions like Rolling Stone have engendered for the past forty years, and analyzing their means of expression - and the weight, or lack thereof, in the thoughts so expressed - is an entirely valid critique of the impact of the Left on the culture as a whole.

To Fergus Macetc
I just googled Shirley Temple. A conservative Republican, she ran for Congress in California. She served as Ambassador to Czecheslovakia and US Delegate to the United Nations. She then served as Ambassador to Ghana. After that she served as US Chief of Protocol in our State Department. Maybe she learned about all this stuff on the Good Ship Lollypop, but the likelihood exists that she got these gigs because of name recognition and image, both very big items with Republicans.


Actually the early people had it right
When they called the entertainers court jesters and dressed them as dunces. They also chopped off their heads when they ceased to be funny.

dumb article
And Richard Nixon was a saint?

People on both sides of the aisle swear and people
on both sides abstain from swearing.

Would it surprise Prager that Mel Gibson swears?
PJ O'Rourke?


And Mitt Romney and Harry Reid don't.

Let's move on.


amazing
I am quite surprised no one has commented on this--but when I was being taught manners, the prefacing thought to all of the lessons was, "Manners, and polite language are how we show respect to other people".

Prager misses the point. As adults, conservatives and liberals, don't find the language harmful, but what its use represents to other adults, and how it makes debate impossible. It is simply direspect for the other's point of view. I personally don't care for such abusive language, but I am not so stoggy as to think the only reason it offends people is because it is a sin. Whether it is or not is beside the point. Its use is a complete lack of manners. When used the underlying point from whomever is useing it is "I don't care who you are, or what you think, I am mad, and there is no convincing me otherwise"

Foul language in public is merely the price we pay for allowing half-wits (on both sides, but the left especially) to have public forums. Show me a person who can argue without cursing, and I will show you a person who can hear both sides of the debate, and has enough self-respect to fess up when their view is wrong.

lilly
I find it interesting that that was the only part of my post you could manage to respond to; very telling.

Also telling is the fact that you acted all smarty-pants, and yet the only question Katy asked which you could answer (I assume, since you *didn't* answer any of the others) was also the least relevant.

Your parents *did* have some children that lived, right?

Lazy writers
Having grown up with old movies especially the westerns.The movies may have been a little corny,but unlike todays movies and tv they did not use sex in the place of words.Look at any tv show and most movies.If they don't jump in bed in the first five minutes it will be something on the order of Shreck.One of my favorite tv shows is Law & Order.As of late they have started using more foul language,and it does't help the story line at all.GOD BLESS AMERICA

Fergus
Well, let's not get bogged down in details; if this article were a general election swearing would have won by a landslide. And it is fair to say that there are slightly bigger problems the world faces that Prager could have talked about rather than some people using words that offend his sensitive nature... but most people here, not just my "lefty brethren" are talking about Prager's focus on swearing. It's just a garbage argument about nothing. This website and the people who post on it are obsessed with what people involved in the liberal arts think. There is nothing to prevent any right winger from making movies; in fact, Mel Gibson does quite a good job of it (despite his weird anti-British obsession). But on the whole, when it comes to the arts, you lot are rubbish. Sounds to me like you are looking for a scapegoat rather than addressing the real issue for you guys - why society as a whole is rejecting conservatism.

Count me as one that is glad Cheney
cursed at Leahy. Leahy, leaker of top-secrets who shouldn't even have a career after that episode, said all kinds of vile things about Cheney. That's his right. Then the big phony (typical of dems) extends his hand with a big smile. Personally, if someone craps on me, I give it back twice as hard. Cheney should be praised for not being a phony and for telling the vile Patrick Leahy, just what he thought of him. Bravo!

Hollywood swears, and so do
a lot of other people. Go to any gathering of teen-aged boys, and I suspect your ears will be burning in short order. It hardly relegates them to Hell, or the Liberal side of the aisle.

Different areas of the country are more or less inclined to swear, and different cuss words appear more in some areas. I was raised in VT, where the F-word was as common as grass, and it had nothing to do with politics - or religion. I lived in TX for a decade, and it was far less common there.

While I am a product of my environment, I try not to swear, but it's because of a desire to be a more articulate speaker, not because I believe God has a problem with it, or because I'm a republican.

I don't think swearing makes you appear cool, or educated, but I also don't think it makes you an idiot, or a sinner - or a Democrat.

How silly.

Critical Bill
"The liberal society produces great art, as seen in the US, western Europe (except Switzerland), Australia and New Zealand. If the downside to that is some foul language, I'd say it's a fair price to pay..."

Guys like Jackson Pollock? Or that pretentious, boring conceptual art crap they award the Turner Prize to every year?

Yes. I shudder to think where we'd be without all that art I would be embarassed to store in my closet lest somebody accidentally see it while hanging up their coat.

Art needs some serious help these days. It is sylistically and creatively bankrupt. Art made mainly for other artists to fawn over while most people just scratch their heads and wonder what all the fuss is about.

And why did you bring the Swiss into this?

http://www.artcyclopedia.com/nationalities/Swiss.html

There's a list of Swiss artists, if you care to have a look. Switzerland being a conglomeration of French, German, and Italian speakers, it wouldn't suprise me if they produced quite a few artists. And they have.

Let's suppose your statement about Swiss artists is true. They still make the world's most precise and sought after timepieces. They are masterful craftsmen. I have long marveled at the ingenuity and skilled execution of a Swiss rifle or pistol. Artistry in steel.

A passion for exacting precision is not something I would scoff at. If it is a by-product of them being more conservative than Haight-Asbury, I'm not suprised. Unlike many liberal artists, most Swiss could probably change their own flat tire without whining on a cell phone for roadside assistance to come and save their lives.

alwyr-8:35 post
Agreed. It is laziness and also shows a general lack of intelligence. Let me add one thing. Generally, the characters mentioned in the article are the type that thought they were the "coolest" guys in school. And it was so "way cool" to be the first kid swearing.

Come on guys. You are now in your 40's and 50's. It just sounds pathetic and makes us think there is a lack of intelligence when you swear 4 times in one sentence. Grow up.

don't you just love
the way atheists troll around on Townhall and try to deflect everything written here to express their atheism?? Why do they want to boil every article down to telling us they don't believe in something? OOOOhhh!!! Wait!!! I know! Because, as Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said, "The more violently men hate truth, the more they think about it."
Come on now atheists. Can't you think of anything other than God? You think of Him more than a lot of Christians and Jews...that would be God touching your hearts and minds yet again. Always offering another chance while you breathe....

Citizen Carrier
The point about the Swiss is that a very conservative society does not tend to produce great art. Yes, there are lots of Swiss artists - I have a Paul Klee print hanging in my living room, and I'm pretty sure he was Swiss. But taking art as a whole, liberal societies produce more of it. I happen to agree with you on Jackson Pollock and the Turner Prize, but art is not just about painting. The best popular art, filmaking and music, have been for the most part produced in liberal societies. That's the truth, and you can argue that I'm wrong until you are blue in the face.

Citizen Carrier
I agree with you as to what passes as "art" these days. Today, anything that makes no sense or pokes a stick in society's eye, is considered great art. In Chicago, a decade or so ago, there was a display with a sign-in book, where to sign-in, you had to stand on the American flag. Art? No. Political statement? Yes. I swear I could take a dump at an art show, put a velvet rope around the area, and liberal dolts would fawn all over me for my "boldness" and "originality."

I think a fair definition of art is "something I couldn't produce myself." Our family went to the Art Institute in Chicago recently (sorry for ruining the stereotype that all conservatives are uncultured knuckle-draggers) and my 15 year old son said that this was real art. Even he realizes the stuff being called art today is just crap from a disturbed mind, angry he didn't fit into society.

viruddh...
Why bother coming to Townhall if you find it so “vile,” “pathetic” and “dangerous”?

I, for one, don’t take part in things that I find as offensive as you seem to find Townhall.

I don’t read Rolling Stone magazine, for example, as I find its content to be “vile,” “pathetic” and “dangerous.”

Don’t bother coming back if you’re bothered by what you see.

Hmm
This is not that different from the stance I take on a regular basis. If you were to boil down Prager’s article, you would find his opinion not unlike those that criticize my position. In essence, liberal bad, conservative good; therefore, when a liberal does it, it’s an example of their badness and when a conservative does it, it’s not as bad or they are forced to by liberals or it’s funny or the liberal had it coming, or it was the only way to get the message across, or a liberal said it first or liberals do it twice as much or they were egged on or………….

Cussin'
I got tired of readin', so if someone already put this out....?

The language used by conquered people usually becomes a form of cursing in the eyes of the conqueror. Many of our curse words are related to the various conquered peoples of Great Britain. I haven't followed this very far...maybe someone else has more knowledge?

Cookie
Has art not always been a political statement to a certain extent? Either used by the powers that be to embellish their image and reputation or by subversives to mock those same powers. Much of the art that survives from ancient Rome glorified the empire and those in power, in the same way that the art of the cartoonist has always been used by subversives. Art is as old as man - and its use has not changed that much. Perhaps there's just much more of it nowadays...

Critical Bill
I would only comment on you art statements to say that it is not "liberal" socity that produces great art, but a "free" society that produces great art. Art has no political leaning, and comes in many forms, and only when the artist is free to persue their ideas is great art achieved. So please don't try to say that art is either conservative or liberal, it is neither.

COMMIE MOMMY

.....LILLY ...

.....You have not answered my question ...

.....Why are there more Democrat millionaires in the Senate than Republicans and why is their wealth so much greater? ...

.....You wrote that you came to TH to find out what made the other 50% of the Country (Conservatives) different from your 50% (Liberals) ...

.....You concluded that the main difference was that Conservatives were GREEDY and motivated only by making money ...so my question to you is ...Did the rich Liberals in the Senate aquire their wealth by selfless altruism? ...YES OR NO .....can you back up your accusations or are you just a Liberal Troll Bomb Thrower? .....COLOSSUS



*@&%$*%! Stupid champaign glass...
"As I wrote in my ... column, ...Higher civilization has always regarded the use of expletives in public ...as a form of assault on civilization"

It is written! And I wrote it, therefore it is so! Nice try Dennis, but endless self-citation is really the province of the kind of "researchers" you'd find at the Heritage Foundation. Leave it to the experts.

"...rejection of the values of ...America's Judeo-Christian civilization."

Uh-huh. Suddenly we're all "Judeo" Christians again. Stop projecting, Dennis.

"Many people have lost the ability to judge actions in context or to acknowledge gradations of sin."

Moral relativism on Townhall! Read it people, right there: context, gradations of sin. We've seen this before tho - remember Leasure Stall Larry? When many of the TH faithful insisted that lying to your loved ones and boffing boys in bathroom stalls is preferable to actually cohabiting with a man (which included a delightfully violent gay-bashing fantasy from Dougiles). Hypocrasy, dualism or relativism? I'm just in so many minds about this!

People don't dislike conservatives just because they're selfish hamptons, they dislike them because they're dishonest hypocrites. Add ego and dogma and, voila, there's Dennis! Add shameless self-promotion and mindless propoganda... hey there's Dinesh. Blonde hair, grumble and a cadre of gay male buddies (bust!) and, hey Presto, there's ole Annie.

Sure, it's a spectrum, but judging by the comments here, it ain't a broad one.

Boldness and Originality
An art critic in "National Review" recently wrote that "boldness" is usually a euphemism for "poorly drawn". And "original" means "poorly drawn and ghastly".

And no, Critical Bill, I will not argue that the majority of "pop art" DOESN'T come from the wellspring that is liberalism. No...I would never argue anything contrary to that observation.

Would you say that Russia is pretty conservative? I certianly would, having been there for two weeks a few years ago. About as culturally conservative as they come.

Would you then argue that Russian film lacks creativity and artistic value? That would be a very difficult argument to make, having seen a few of them myself.

How about Japan? Do any societies come more straight-laced than that? Minus the Godzilla movies, can you think of artistic films from Japan? Or India?

I hope that the appearance of the neo-realist movement in art takes hold and saves the medium from its self-absorbed pretentiousness.

beyond the pale
Well, as I said before, we can argue about this until we are blue in the face. In my opinion, a free society is a liberal one. Conservatism, by the nature and meaning of the word, preserves the status quo and is resistant to change. Societies that were conservative became liberal, and with that became more free therefore encouraged the conditions under which art thrived. Freedom is itself liberal - unless your understanding of the word conservative is completely different to mine.

More CB nonsense
"Liberal" societies produce more or better art than "conservative" societies? Care to define "liberal", "conservative", and "art" before you make such stupid pronouncements? Was Mozart's Vienna conservative or liberal? Was Picasso's Spain conservative or liberal? How about Aztec society, was it liberal or conservative?

Art is a HUMAN endeavor which transcends the superficialities of everyday life. Trying to shoehorn one's personal politics into generalistic pronouncements about "art" is the mark of an undeducated idiot.

A LITTLE HUMOR FOR BOMB THROWERS

.....LILLY ...

...Q Why couldn't the over age hippie put her jig saw puzzle of Tony the Tiger together? ...

...A. Because she bought a box of Frosted Flakes ...hahahaha .....COLOSSUS

Citizen carrier
There are exceptions to every rule - and I don't deny that Russia, India and China have incredible culture and art yet are on the whole conservative societies, at least in terms of their more recent history. But all three have very long traditions in the arts that go a lot further back than their conservatism - remember, China and Russia have only been more socially conservative for the last 100 years, and their traditions in the arts go back thousands of years. As does the tradition of the arts in the middle east, but the conservative societies now in place there have strangled it out of them, which is a great pity. If you want to copy conservative islamic countries impact on the arts, be my guest. But dont be surprised if it stifles creativity.

buzzkat
And it is the conservatives doing the heavy lifting, allowing the weaker to perform their "art." Does CB seriously think that being able to read a script better than another is art? When off script, most of these "geniuses" barely have a coherent thought.

buzzkat
No idea about the conditions in which the Aztec citizens lived their lives; Picasso lived more of his life in France than in Spain and was no friend of Franco; Mozart's Vienna was, I suspect, deeply conservative at least in its upper echelons. But as I say, as the modern world has developed the arts have thrived best in liberal democracies. That is very hard to deny.

Give Prager A Raise
What a job! Pouring over the acres of bad writing to pull these quotes. Prager must have gotten a new French Press coffee maker and a bag of Jamaican Blue Mountain beans ground fine to make it through an entire issue of Rolling Stone without going into a coma. The left are dullards. Their every thought is a cliche, even the profanity is canned and passionless. The sloppiness of their thinking is necessary to avoid being trapped by logic. An example...if Global Warming is so vitally important why are they not demanding that production of electricity by coal be replaced by nuclear power? Several countries have done it already but these ecologists want to waste tens of billions building bird-killing windmills on every ridgetop and carpeting the 'pristine desert' we heard so much about when they were crusading against off-road vehicles,with acres of solar panels; neither method will produce anything near the amount of energy needed.
There are thousands of other examples.

Militarylovindog shows the lefts inanity
"No - it ONLY matters that Bill Maher articulated that American foreign policy is responsible for the terrorism aimed at American citizens - you see, in Prager's world, uttering hard truths about America - or even hard opinions - is not what GROWN UPS do"

As always the failure to utilize cognitive reasoning eludes the left. It is just this type of responce they ALL parrot over and over and over...ad nausem. When in fact there is over a 40 year history of attacks on America and many other locations globally by radical islamic fundamentalist. You see in the neo-commies world, uttering lies about basically everything is all they do, toss in a few f words for an even better argument.

How far we have sunk as a society
can be illustrated by a recent email forwarded to me because it was supposed to be funny. It featured a video of a mother reading poetry to a young girl about to go to sleep. At the end of the recitation a sweet little girl in a sweet little girl voice said, "Now what is that s--t all about."

Cookie
There may well be some truth in your comments about going off script - after all, who would be better placed to spot someone struggling with off-script chat than a fan of GWB? The man is a quarter wit in comparison to the people interviewed in Rolling Stone.

Prager is either...
... naive or is being very disingenuous. "The left" has no monopoly on bad language. And many, many expletives are edited out of quotations in newspapers and magazines; The Rolling Stone just happens not to edit them. Another article by Prager that doesn't pass the intellectual honesty test. Come on Dennis, the ideas these people are trying to promulgate are worth debating, why do we need to stoop to ad hominem attacks and intellectual dishonesty?

Critical Bill
Do you mean to say that as long as a person has more than a "quarter wit" swearing is OK?

CB, I would argue...
...that in the most liberal societies, artists such as we write about here become insufferably lazy. They atrophy.

They become dull.

So they roll out tired, lazy (and yes, cowardly) attempts to shock us with ill-mannered political statements about institutions that aren't a threat to anybody.

Like "Urine Jesus" (I couldn't type the "P" word!) or the Virgin Mary made of elephant dung. Yes, in this free, liberal society they can DARE to insult people who aren't really going to retaliate in any way. Maybe a protest or a boycott. Pretty avante garde, wouldn't you say? They could do that to Muhammad, which would be more daring, but knowing them would still be stylistically crude and uninteresting otherwise.

And so it is with film and music, if you want to avoid traditional art and speak of more accessible and "popular" art. The last truly artistic films I saw were in...a film history class. "The Bicycle Thieves", Italian neo-realism, etc.

Seen anything that good lately? At the multiplex?


viruddh: Really?
"viruddh writes:
Now if you want to read some really vile ideas,
search through posters under column after column
on Town Hall."

Really? I would be interested in hearing what you would characterize as being "really vile ideas" in contrast to the vitriol one encounters on "enlightened" Neo-Marxist sites, e.g., DK, DU, etc. Some of the most vile ideas have come from leftist females (e.g., the unconstitutional, sexist VAWA) like you.

Bad Words vs. Bad Actions
I'll take the F-bomb over real bombs any day of the week.

Torture Advocacy
"I would be interested in hearing what you would characterize as being 'really vile ideas'"

Did you miss any of the "waterboarding is okay" rationalizations?

CB
"The man is a quarter wit in comparison to the people interviewed in Rolling Stone."

Kanye West has a bachelor's degree in history? Hmm. Eddie Vedder was a trained jet interceptor pilot? (you may feel inclined to dredge up all that Guard stuff about how he didn't serve his full term or whatever. don't. He WAS a pilot, regardless).

Tom Hanks has an MBA from Harvard?

True, Bush admits himself that he was an average student (grades comparable to those of John Kerry), but to say Bush compares unfavorably in the brains department to a lot of people with, at best, high school diplommas, is just ridiculous. And no doubt Bush reads more books in a year than a lot of those people have read since high school.

Citizen Carrier
Nope, haven't seen a decent film in ages. And I'm not likely to - my social life, if going to the cinema can be described as social, is on hold as I have a two month old boy. He is much more entertaining than any movie anyway... think the next movie we will make the effort to go and see is "The Golden Compass". The books were fabulous, but I understand that the subject matter is not to everyone on Townhall's taste... but again, hasn't art always been about shocking people? I'm not sure that there is much new in that - and most artists throughout the ages have been slightly mental. Shelly, Byron, Picasso, Dali, Lautrec, Michaelangelo... the list of great artists who were also raving debauchers is a long one...

Too bad
CB--it is entirely too bad that you view art in such a narrow spectrum as politics, and labels such as liberal and conservative. Art can be used as a tool for politics, but true art transcends the political landscape. There are exceptions to every label that you have put forth, and exception to every label the opposing view has put forth.

So instead of plunging head-long into the samantic arguments you might want to view art for what it is--the closest expression and interpretation of the first inspiration, whether it is done by a wisened master or a 3 year old that has just discovered the color red. When you taint it with labels and politics you contort it into something it was never meant to be, elevating it, or dengrating it as proof for your own labels. Sad, just sad.

Citizen Carrier
You are confusing formal qualifications with intelligence. The two are not necessarily the same. GWB appears to have the intelligence to sit exams but other than that I am struggling to see it. He struggles to formulate any kind of answer that does not rely on soundbites when he goes off script - even his most fervent admirer must admit that. Einstein failed to get into his first choice of university - I suppose that makes GWB more intelligent than him does it? Bill Gates dropped out of college - does that make GWB more intelligent than him? Of course not. When it comes to intelligent off the cuff conversation GWB falls woefully short of what voters should expect from a president. More fool them I suppose.

CB: beyond the pale?
The mind is a delusion engine, and I would agree w/ you except for one minor difference. I have to function within the framework of the delusion I call “REALITY”. You ignorance of history is beyond the pale. The founder of what many think to be classic “Liberalism” (as in libertarian) is John S. Mill who believed in free exchanges in the marketplace of ideas. Doesn’t sound like the pro-HATE speech code Leftist Academic establishment. He believed in free-enterprise/market-based economies which were considered “liberal” at a time of PLANNED mercantile economies. Doesn’t sound like your modern mainstream Neo-Marxist. Actually, classic secular conservatism depends upon analytic thinking in contrast the hyper-emotionalism endemic to the modern Left, e.g., Benford’s Law of Controversy: Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available. Classic conservatives value the “INDIVIDUAL” & subscribe to anti-PC concepts like “personal responsibility.” In contrast the Leftist ESTABLISHMENT believes in group privileges (i.e., government-sanctioned victim groups: women, blacks, etc.) & debts (i.e., evil white males) in perpetuity in conformance with the old Marxist canard. Additionally, the pedantic Left seems to confuse “INCOME” (which the US government taxes) vice “WEALTH.” Conservatives also believe in positive change, e.g., ending the NEA’s power monopoly WRT the “education industrial complex,” unlike their current Leftist counterparts.

But do enlighten me…

Does anyone here suppose...
Right or Left, lib or conservative or "Ron Paul Other", that the discourse HERE in these forums would be greatly improved in quality if we all cussed like George Carlin after 3 joints and a fifth of vodka?

How many of you would still come here when the level of articulation had sunk below that of a communal shower on a Navy destroyer?

I wouldn't. It would cease to be intelligent in any regard.

Honestly. Would you? Most of the intelligent posters (regardless of ideology) would go elsewhere when instead of a well thought out or at least witty rebuke to a post became a series of "F-YOU!".

Which is one of the reasons I would rather talk to anybody here, even the most statist lib, than be in the same room within hearing distance of Kanye West of Chris Rock.

CB: Beyond the pale?
The mind is a delusion engine, and I would agree w/ you except for one minor difference. I have to function within the framework of the delusion I call “REALITY”. You ignorance of history is beyond the pale. The founder of what many think to be classic “Liberalism” (as in libertarian) is John S. Mill who believed in free exchanges in the marketplace of ideas. Doesn’t sound like the pro-HATE speech code Leftist Academic establishment. He believed in free-enterprise/market-based economies which were considered “liberal” at a time of PLANNED mercantile economies. Doesn’t sound like your modern mainstream Neo-Marxist. Actually, classic secular conservatism depends upon analytic thinking in contrast the hyper-emotionalism endemic to the modern Left, e.g., Benford’s Law of Controversy: Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available. Classic conservatives value the “INDIVIDUAL” & subscribe to anti-PC concepts like “personal responsibility.” In contrast the Leftist ESTABLISHMENT believes in group privileges (i.e., government-sanctioned victim groups: women, blacks, etc.) & debts (i.e., evil white males) in perpetuity in conformance with the old Marxist canard. Additionally, the pedantic Left seems to confuse “INCOME” (which the US government taxes) vice “WEALTH.” Conservatives also believe in positive change, e.g., ending the NEA’s power monopoly WRT the “education industrial complex,” unlike their current Leftist counterparts.

But do enlighten me…

Demosthenes
Erm, I congratulate you on your scholarly post, but if you could write it in English next time I would appreciate it.

With regard to all the explicatives and
Left, I am convinced of two things A. The liberal mentality is based upon feelings and the mistaken belief that if one has good feeling and good motives then their actions and proposed actions can not possibly be wrong. However it is the road to hell that gets paved with all the good intentions. Second the foul language and public rantings not only of those mentioned but the ramblings of the politicians (on both sides of the coin) simply reflect the emotional and intellectual immaturity that has been inculcated in the masses since the early sixties.

Isn't being dumbed down a beautiful thing? Because after all in that state of mind all anyone has to do is blame, accuse, curse, rant and rave with the expectation that Mommy and Daddy (excuse me) the government will fix it.

CB: Pithy commentary
The Left’s perpetual employment of profanity as “pithy” commentary WRT Mr. Bush is driven by an irrational anger whose basis is “cognitive dissonance”, i.e., how can the most ostensibly incompetent & verbally incontinent President(at least according to the leftist MSM) in the history of the U.S. accomplish the most far reaching conspiracy in the history of the U.S., including manipulating prominent members of the Democrat party (that so viscerally hates him) into voting in support of the Iraqi invasion? This includes 2 of 3 leading Democrat Presidential candidates. Which is it? Is Bush a moron or an evil genius? The more the current crop of “international socialists” spin their unsubstantiated conspiracy theories while attempting to invalidate Bush as a person, the more they sound like their national socialist forebears when they began their efforts to malign Jewry, i.e., sub-human but able to conceive & maintain a global cabal.

Coarse Language
The refuge of the dim-witted.

CB: Pithy commentary
The Left’s perpetual employment of profanity as “pithy” commentary WRT Mr. Bush is driven by an irrational anger whose basis is “cognitive dissonance”, i.e., how can the most ostensibly incompetent & verbally incontinent President(at least according to the leftist MSM) in the history of the U.S. accomplish the most far reaching conspiracy in the history of the U.S., including manipulating prominent members of the Democrat party (that so viscerally hates him) into voting in support of the Iraqi invasion? This includes 2 of 3 leading Democrat Presidential candidates. Which is it? Is Bush a moron or an evil genius? The more the current crop of “international socialists” spin their unsubstantiated conspiracy theories while attempting to invalidate Bush as a person, the more they sound like their national socialist forebears when they began their efforts to malign Jewry, i.e., sub-human but able to conceive & maintain a global cabal.

Counter culture
The problem these lefty artists and entertainers face is one of their own making.

I remember reading an article about the terrorist/protest group "Weather Underground" a few years ago. One of the female leaders suggested that members have an orgy in which male members would also have sex with other males.

The purpose? To demonstrate their contempt for traditional Judeo-Christian sexual mores and the gender roles of Western Civilization. For they weren't just about protesting Vietnam, they were about protesting everything "normal".

About the only nice thing I can say about the male members of the "Weather Underground" is that they did not "switch". That particular idea was not brought up again.

But that was what the Left was and is about. Breaking down barriers that were probably put up for very good reasons.

So, these artists and entertainers and their predecessors have TRIUMPHED. They have all but destroyed society's barriers and they place no personal limitations on themselves. Good work, guys!

That's why art and artists have become boring. They do not have to be creative within boundaries. Indeed, they cannot. For they have destroyed them all and there are no more worlds left to...defile.

Demosthenes
Sorry dude--your picking on the wrong person. I happen to agree with you, I was merely trying to get CB to come back to reality and realize that he was the one who braught art into a political conversation, where it does not belong. CB was the one who views "conservative" and "liberal" in such a way. You are correct in you definitions of conservative and liberal--but CB does not, and will not ever view these logical arguments as reality.
I happen to agree with the examples you put forth, politically speaking. So next time you might want to be a little less condescending, and read a few posts back to see that I was taking a different tack with CB, and trying engage him in the framework he put forth--art, not politics.

Demosthenes
Dude, you may well be an ancient Greek orator reincarnate, I don't know, but you need to take some time to make your posts readable. That's a 79-word opening sentence. Showing off how clever you are is one thing, but being clever-clever cancels itself out...

my 2 cents
I haven't read an issue through and through for about 35 years. It's just a waste of time.

The last issue I glanced through (about 8 or 9 years ago) had britney spears on the cover in her undies assuring one and all of what a caring soul she was, and in the back there was at least one full page of ads for 900 numbers (phone sex) including hot latino s..t housewives and other cultural worthies.

I needed a laugh for some reason or other a few years ago so I read their endorsement of john keey for president. I got as far as "America has lost its moral compass under George Bush." That was all I could take.

Anyone who takes rolling stone seriously for more than a minute is not to be taken seriously.

When Lacking The Gravitas
to put forth your idea in a non-offensive language, resort to shock speech so others won't notice the emptiness of your idea.

Many actors and celebrities have not been educated beyond high school (hi skul), and this shows up when they aren't reading lines written by others.