That is the best new rules segment in quite a while. Glad he talked about the numbers. Many Americans refuse to believe those numbers when faced with them.

I grew up believing in America the great, but that wasn't the America I lived in and it wasn't the country I left. It's just the one we actually have. Too damned bad.

It's ironic that Bill Maher refers to Brazil and then says that the USA invented the airplane. In fact there is a big debate whether the Wright brothers or Santos Dumont, a Brazilian who also invented the wrist watch, invented the airplane, with most of the world siding with Dumont. Just wanted to through it out there.

Why is it that almost all of our politicians and media are weenies and the American people have to depend on Bill Maher and Jon Stewart to get the unvarnished truth? Comedians. We get our truth from comedians.

This was an amazing segment... best in a while. Thanks for posting this, Norm.

"In fact there is a big debate whether the Wright brothers or Santos Dumont, a Brazilian who also invented the wrist watch, invented the airplane, with most of the world siding with Dumont. Just wanted to through it out there."

You're right about that; I lived in Brazil once and got teased to no end by my housemates for once confidently declaring that the Wright Brothers invented the airplane.

Andrew Sullivan, for some reason, is ubiquitous. His publicist must be a very busy bee. But it's hard to tell what's so interesting about what he has ever said; it's usually a distillation the ripest piece of conventional wisdom available. 'Bush isn't a conservative!' Neither is the Iraq War, even though Sullivan wanted to base his entire 2004 presidential vote on his support for this one issue. The "Bush isn't a conservative" crowd has some intellegent people in it (even though they get about 1000 times more exposure than they deserve given that they are about 5% or less of the population). Sullivan isn't one of them. He's in the part of that crowd which likes all the slogans about conservatism but none of their effects.

It makes sense that we'd get the most truth from political comedians.

Criticism and skepticism are the first steps in the pursuit of truth.

Very good New Rules segment! By the way, Norm, thank you for the download links! Saves me from digging through the HTML :)

Adding to the above disscussion on the invention of the aeroplane....

Infact there is one more claim for this invention, actually a recorded even in some of the news sources back then in India.

Infact, i even posted anarticle on my blog on this in Dec, 2005.

Check it out, if you guys are interested....

http://blogofadesitexan.blogspot.com/2005/12/rewriting-history-or-telling-truth.html

John in Santa Fe: "Why is it that almost all of our politicians and media are weenies and the American people have to depend on Bill Maher and Jon Stewart to get the unvarnished truth? Comedians. We get our truth from comedians."

Smudge: "It makes sense that we'd get the most truth from political comedians.

Criticism and skepticism are the first steps in the pursuit of truth."

You both have your heart in the right place, but you should be aware that Stewart and especially Maher will twist reality to both their own ideological ends (not to mention that of their writers), and to more easily fit their jokes. Few people today realize the power that comedy has on the political landscape. If something is funny it must be true because surely otherwise I wouldn't have laughed .... IIIINNNTT, WRONG. You can dress up the Communist Manifesto in stand-up comedy and everyone would buy right into its ripe pathos aimed at the common joe.

Please don't seek truth from comedians. The greater the comedian, the more dim the political awareness. George Carlin is a god (See: Jammin' in New York), but his understanding of some things is so off that I find myself laughing because he's such an idiot. I don't with Maher, because Maher is about 1/10th the comedian of Carlin. When Maher doesn't understand something and makes a joke about it I can't even laugh at him.

Soccer is not bullshit!!!!!! It's like the Cardinals won the "World Series" but WTF it's only in the US.

Anyway Bill has a vital point but because he is a funny head noboduy is going to take him seriously. But it is right the US are getting more and more self-centered. My advice to all the American people: "TRAVEL", go abroad. The first step to stop being stuck in self-contemplation.

By all means, let's continue to excuse badmouthing our country and mocking anyone who finds anything good about it. Continue to support pessimism, self-doubt, and recrimination.

Meanwhile, they're rioting again in France; in Argentina people are being shot in the street or dying of starvation; in Britain they're manufacturing evidence against Iraq and spreading it around the world; in Russia they're trying to elect a hardliner to bring back Communism; in China there are no personal freedoms ...

But by all means, let's keep grousing about the great country we live in and pretending it's "constructive criticism". C'mon, where's the "Americans are idiots!" crowd? Where's the "I'm moving to Canada!" crowd. Here's your chance to pretend like you knew all these numbers all along, that your sour grapes were really a soul-searching cry for help.

And we did invent the airplane. Stop trying to rewrite history to put your own country down.

Dionysus says "Please don't seek truth from comedians."

Uh, why the hell not?

Comedy and comedians are fucking great sources of truth, potentially. If you disagree with Maher, tell us where he is wrong.

Soccer ain't bullshit, of course. But the US does owe China a trillion dollars, and "in most of the industrialized world, nearly everyone has health care, and hardly anyone doubts evolution".

Guess what--he's leaving it up to you to decide what is true when he's giving us a throwaway cheap sex or toilet joke, when he's mixing a clever slur with a piercing insight, and when he's being deadly serious.

I don't agree with his reflexive Zionism, but he's not trying to be my expert.

He leaves it for you, the discriminating viewer, to decide what is reality. He's no expert, and never claims to be.

There are no experts in politics, no spin-free, non-ideological objective truths. Some media are more intelligent, perceptive, engaging, or funny, but in the end the amount of truth contained is independent of all of these attributes. I believe that in every situation it is up to you to figure out what is truth and what is Republicanism--er, lies. Someone like Maher makes it harder for us today than the old days of Cronkite, the preacher, or the President telling us how it is, but it makes it more real, as well.

Many have pointed out that most liberal commentary/debate is coming from comedians. (You have to include G. Trudeu’s Doonesbury, too.) Is it because cartoons/comedians get the message across more effectively? Isn’t that how O’Reily, Hannity, Limbaugh, et al have gotten their message out to the masses? It’s all entertainment. I just think Doonesbury is one of the best sources of editorial “truthiness” there is today.

And I quite agree with Yoh64fr: TRAVEL! Even to go from a RED-state and visit a predominately BLUE-state…you might learn something.

I know…I know…it’s better to get cross-culturized by visiting/living-in a foreign country…but sometimes just visiting your neighbor might improve your understanding of your fellow man. Personally, I am grateful to the Danes for teaching me a few things and tempering my American arrogance a wee bit.

Anonymous said // And we did invent the airplane //

Well, there were some pioneers of aviation, but "we" ain't one of them.

We did not invent the aiplane, and you did not invent the airplane.

"Uh, why the hell not?

Comedy and comedians are fucking great sources of truth, potentially. If you disagree with Maher, tell us where he is wrong. "

I'd like to make a full detailed report on such, but that would take a lot of time to waste, I'd prefer to waste time in small bits while visiting this blog. Because I, like most westerners, enjoy our freetime to catch up on daily events in small doses. Sugarcoated and dumbed down, then presented to me by a comedian so I can digest it better without having to face any realities that one faces when they venture around Iraq or Afghanistan. Those things pain me, so I revert to Jon Stewart to make those things irrelevant by the very act of talking about them so as not to completely deny them and somehow rationalize why they shouldn't be happening. But I'm still doing myself a disservice by permitting Jon to convince me it's a funny matter, it's making me complacent with it. It's diverting my attention away from the reality and to an idealistic future where that reality can be swept under the carpet. Jon knows he's an entertainer and this is all he's ever said he wants to do, is to make people laugh so they can enjoy themselves. Maher I don't quite get the same from, he doesn't really give off the sense that what he does is no more important than the people who work in lighting on his show. I really get the sense that he believes he's doing something by talking about politics and giving his opinion on things to a mass audience. I never learned anything valuable from someone's opinion. I've watched Carlin stand-ups 20 times over and each time, as I've matured, I've seen deeper genius in them, and faults, and new truths and new angles and a new faux pas. Each time I come back to him I realize that with George alone, I never could have understood that much about him. I needed Locke and Plato and Macchiaveli and Heidigger to understand these things. Purely aging doesn't do it either. I have friends who reminisce about drinking vodka in my basement still and haven't realized 10 years later that that sort of life has no qualitative value over becoming an OxyContin addict and sucking dick for freebies.

The jester cannot be king, he'll always be the jester and will know the absurd and comedic things that jesters know and say the funny and dumb things that jesters say. Right now we have something that contradicts that; we have a jester in our most high office. And the results? ...

just off the top of my head, one thing bill maher got wrong was implying that the bill of rights applies (or should apply) to foreign terrorists.

anonymous, bill maher isnt "badmouthing our country", hes badmouthing parts of it, with the intention of making it better. if you are so deluded that you cant see any flaws, you will never ever improve yourself. nationalism can blind you very easily, no matter where you live. let me say explicitly that self-doubt is definitely something to be supported, especially when you are by far the most powerful nation in the world. we need restraint, we need things to strive for, even if that means recognizing our failures. of course, this sort of thing might require a more humble leader than bush, his unilateralism and secrecy (and other power grabs) are kind of the antithesis of all this.

The wikipedia entry on the Bill of Rights says that the rights apply to both citizens and non-citizens. There is no citation that I could find does anyone have a definitive source?

You Americans are funny. OMG we are not the greatest country in the world. The horror! LOL!

Norm,

Article I, Section 9 states that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

"Well, there were some pioneers of aviation, but 'we' ain't one of them."

Orville and Wilbur Wright were pioneers in the field, conducting the first successful significant flights and obtaining patents for their inventions. Don't let your irrational America hatred cause you to rewrite history.

"We did not invent the aiplane, and you did not invent the airplane."

So it's okay to say 'we' when you're insulting the country, but not when you're discussing our accomplishments? If your statement holds then 'we' are not responsible for the Iraq war either.

norm, i looked very briefly and couldnt find anything. it might be that the bill of rights applies to both citizens and non-citizens on american soil.

To put the discussion about the first aeroplane to rest, it was actually a New Zealander back in 1903, 8 months before the Wright Brothers. Take a look. http://www.nzedge.com/heroes/pearse.html

The invention of the airplane isn't the first invention/discoverer to face controversy over who gets the credit. The reality back then, as is the case today, is that it doesn't matter who the inventor is, but who can convince everyone else that they are the inventor. Example, calculus, theory of evolution, the telephone, the airplane, etc.

The problem in correcting/clarifying the historic details leaves open the door to the opporuntity of changing history.

In terms of other countries surpaassing the states, the problem is that American is entrenched in it's current technology infrastructure that it makes it diffult to adopt new technologies. Countries with little to no previous constraints can jump ahead to the newer technology. Why build 1G cellular networks when you can go straight to 3G?

Hi Anonymous!

How to begin...

Ok, so the decision about overthrowing Saddam Hussein was a decision that us Americans, in our lifetime, quite recently in fact, decided upon, even though us liberals and conscientious objectors did not agree with this decision. And yet, as an American, I have no choice but to feel responsible for the actions of my fellow contemporary Americans, even those conservative Republicans for whom I have little in common with.

However, neither you nor I are aviation experts and we have nothing to do with the scientific advances in this regard.

I don't think that being patriotic has anything to do with this discussion. No, I am not a patriot, except in the sense that I am a patriotic Earthling, feeling a connection to, and agreeing with, all those humans on this planet who share with me a common goal.

The bottom line is that I don't feel competitive vis à vis other countries. Such a concept is foreign to me and to me comes across as being completely ridiculous.

History, or at least in the history of playwrights, has shown king listening to the words of jesters or comedians.

Everyone needs someone who can speak truth to him, without feeling hurt or his dignity damaged. And the jester can always be depended for this as you don't have to take him seriously.

Just read Shakespeare's King Lear and his relationship with his jester.

Why else do you think Jon Stewart cultivated his self-deprecating attitude in which he mocks everyone, including himself?

He performs the role of the modern jester who presents uncomfortable truths but generously allow his viewers or audience the chance to laugh with him. Or at him.

The decision to accept his views or laugh at them out of mind is a choice that he presents to all his viewers every night.

His show is probably the only real example of democracy in US right now.

"And yet, as an American, I have no choice but to feel responsible for the actions of my fellow contemporary Americans, even those conservative Republicans for whom I have little in common with."

I offered the most obvious analogy for current events, and in response you chose to focus on the immediacy of the issue. This is a distraction, so I suggest you apply your analysis to the statement "We forcefully stole this land from its righful owners", or "We owe reparations to X party for our wrongdoings". Although one could argue that the effects of these actions remain immediate issues, the actions themselves are not. Do you still agree with the sentiment of those statements? You acknowledge the existence of a collective responsibility in your response. Yet you only seem to think this applies for negative issues.

Allow me to illustrate. You - and a couple of other posters - have gone to great lengths to attribute the invention of the airplane to some obscure inventor functioning before the Wright Brothers, or to cast doubt upon the accepted version of the relevant events. An example of this is the mentioning of Richard Pearse. Disregarding the numerous and obvious flaws of this view of the events – that is, disregarding:

1. The fact that the supportive article to which we are redirected actually states: "There is uncertainty about whether [his experiment] met the definitions of sustained flight".
2. The general dodginess of the details and overall amount of supposition and inference.
3. The fact that for just about every major innovation at any point in history, there have been numerous people working on the problem at various levels of success, from the telescope to the automobile and onward.

Disregard all that and consider your reasoning for questioning the accepted events:

"However, neither you nor I are aviation experts and we have nothing to do with the scientific advances in this regard."

You assert that because we are not experts in the field of aviation we cannot make a definitive statement as to the facts surrounding this case. While I accede to this point, certainly you can agree that the same logic applies to any attempts to shift the accepted credit for the task, such as the example given above. Are we any more qualified to make claims or decisions regarding that facet of the issue? Particularly when the claim is ill-founded and rather absurd speculation?

I simply cannot understand why someone would be so anxious to jump on a chance to take shots at their country. What could possibly be negative about being proud of our country for inventing the airplane? This is just rancor. I don't get that. Exasperation is just a form of giving up.

So to sum up: by the accepted historical doctrine, we Americans most certainly did 'invent' the airpline - in that citizens of this nation conducted successful tests of a working model which was used as the basis for the aviation industry. There is nothing wrong with accepting that fact. There is nothing wrong with celebrating that fact. Just as you can say "I am an American and I am against this", I can say "I am an American and I am proud of this". The two have nothing to do one another. It would behoove everyone - not just those who disagree with your political alignment - to remember that.

"Sugarcoated and dumbed down, then presented to me by a comedian so I can digest it better without having to face any realities that one faces when they venture around Iraq or Afghanistan. Those things pain me, so I revert to Jon Stewart to make those things irrelevant by the very act of talking about them so as not to completely deny them and somehow rationalize why they shouldn't be happening. But I'm still doing myself a disservice by permitting Jon to convince me it's a funny matter, it's making me complacent with it. It's diverting my attention away from the reality and to an idealistic future where that reality can be swept under the carpet."

If this is your reason, then you cannot blame the comedians. To do so is ridiculous. Analogy: Its like blaming the drug pushers for your addiction.

"So to sum up: by the accepted historical doctrine, we Americans most certainly did 'invent' the airpline - in that citizens of this nation conducted successful tests of a working model which was used as the basis for the aviation industry. There is nothing wrong with accepting that fact. There is nothing wrong with celebrating that fact. Just as you can say "I am an American and I am against this", I can say "I am an American and I am proud of this". The two have nothing to do one another. It would behoove everyone - not just those who disagree with your political alignment - to remember that."

I agree with what you said here. But I have to ask, are you arguing against self-criticism? I remember you did, yet my memory of that is blurry. Bill Maher made an excellent point. I find it absurd that some Americans are so convinced of the greatness of their country, to the point of ignoring its flaws. I hope you are not one of them.