All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 19, 2010 - Jimmy Dore Show
56:48
20101119_The_Jimmy_Dore_Show_-_November_18_2010
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, this is Hugh Hauser and I am down here in the studios of Kai PFK for the Jimmy Dore show.
Oh boy, this is truly an amazing part of Thursday afternoons at 4 p.m.
All the celebrity voices at the Jimmy Door show are performed by other celebrities.
It's the Jimmy Door Show.
The show for lefties.
The kind of people that are telling us maybe on tearing down our nation.
It's the show that makes Anderson Cooper say charge talking to TV again.
So sit back or sit up or keep driving because it's the Jimmy Door show.
And now here's a guy who sounds a lot like me.
It's Jimmy Dore!
It's Jimmy Dore!
Okay, here are some quick headlines.
Republicans are plotting to ditch Michael Steele.
Even though he was the chairman of the party when the Republicans gained a record number of seats in Congress, Republicans are looking to replace Michael Steele, citing his mismanagement of RNC finances and that he didn't hate black people enough.
You sure about this thing?
Yes.
Will O'Palin, the 16-year-old daughter of former Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin, wrote multiple Facebook posts containing homophobic slurs.
The website TMZ reports that Palin's teenage daughter wrote comments on Sunday night when her mother's television show, Sarah Palin's Alaska, premiered after a classmate published Facebook update claiming the show is failing so hard right now.
Will O'Palin unloaded on the student calling him so gay and such a faggot.
Sarah Palin said that when she read the post, she was shocked to learn that faggot have two G's.
Hi, welcome to the Jimmy Door Show.
Coming up on today's show, we're going to talk about one of my favorite topics.
And by favorite, I mean the one that bugs me the most.
It's again the false equivalency of the left and the right and the way people dismiss liberals' opinions by just calling it liberal.
And that is going to be done through a clip through Howard Kurtz interviewing Ariana Huffington.
I'm going to play that.
We're going to talk about it.
And then also some more from Howard Kurtz and his opinion about how bad it was for Keith Oberman to donate $2,400 to three very minor candidates for Congress on the Democratic side.
And I say that to diminish his whatever kind of bad thing he did.
I say minor.
That's why I add that.
I thought you meant they were digging for coal.
That's right, Mr. Jeeves.
We're going to have Jim Hightower.
We're also going to talk about Don't Talk Touch My Junk Guy.
And Moron calls in, and he's got something to say about the Don't Touch My Junk Guy.
But Paul Gilmartin, when we said, I want you, what did you say about what's happening in the media today?
I think our society can be summed up as follows.
That we're in an intractable war in Afghanistan where soldiers are dying every day.
Charlie Wrangell was just proven to be a huge criminal and basically ushered to the door.
And every major news outlet, the top story is the Royal Wedding.
Yeah, but did you see the gown?
It's gorgeous.
It is nice.
It's nice, right?
Okay, now let's get to that Howard Kurtz and false equivalency.
I want you to listen to this clip and tell me if there's any hope for this society at all.
This is a clip of media critic Howard Kurtz, who keeps pushing the phony idea that there's no such thing as objective truth.
And that if someone's exposing politicians' hypocrisies and inconsistencies, we could dismiss them because they must be liberal.
Let's be candid.
I mean, Jon Stewart appeals to you because he comes at his comedy and satire and criticism from a liberal point of view.
Well, actually, if you watch his interview with the president, that was a tough interview.
We're going to play that later.
You suppose the Achilles heels of the president.
That's not a cheerleader interviewing the president.
Well, no, but it was somebody he came off as a disappointed liberal.
See, in Howard Kurtz's world, our media critics' world, there's only left and right.
There can be no objective truth, I guess, or even honest journalism, or even accurate satire.
In Howard Kurtz's world, when Jon Stewart is skewing a Republican, he's just being a liberal partisan.
And when he's skewering a Democrat, he's just being a disappointed liberal partisan.
Either way, we should dismiss him.
Because, you know, Jon Stewart doesn't play it down the middle like our pal Howard Kurtz does.
And by down the middle, I mean never challenging conventional wisdom, giving equal weight to bogus facts as accurate facts, and never challenging right-wing talking points.
You know, that down the middle.
But let's leave that as an interview aside.
When I see clips of the Daily Show on the Huffington Post, it's often skewering Republican targets.
You like that.
Wow.
Could Howard Kurtz be more dismissive of any opinion?
Sure, Howard.
I mean, how could Ariana Huffington, she couldn't possibly like a satirist like Jon Stewart unless he reflects her politics?
Because, you know, she's not a serious-minded political thinker whose work has completely changed the media.
She's just some girl who wants somebody to reflect her politics back to her.
Can I just tell you something, Howard, and the rest of the zombies over at CNN?
Being accurate with facts isn't liberal.
Telling the truth isn't liberal.
Asking tough questions isn't liberal.
It just happens that the only people left meeting those obligations today are liberals.
Because people like you, Howard, have abdicated your responsibility in favor of infotainment.
And you're a media reporter, aren't you, Howard?
And you haven't noticed any of this by now?
Bravo.
Let me bring in our guest on the phone from the host of the award-winning podcast, The Best of the Left, which this show has been featured on many times.
It's Jay Tomlinson.
Jay Tomlinson, how are you?
Thanks for being with us.
Oh, I'm well.
Thanks, guys.
Can I just get your, what is your take?
Now, you listen to more quote-unquote professional left-wing media than anybody.
And just let me, can I just get, what would be your reaction to the Howard Kurtz piece that I just played?
I mean, basically, I mean, you can take it in two ways.
One is I think his way he describes the Daily Show as being left-wing and from a liberal perspective, I don't think that's wrong at all.
But your take on it is that he then dismisses them because of that.
And that's where I think everyone goes off the rails because, you know, as I've heard said many times, like, there would be nothing wrong with Fox News if they just fetched up to what they were.
And the Daily Show, they do what they do, and they don't hide who they are.
They come across as obviously liberal, but they are principled in their liberalism.
They don't, you know, liberalism doesn't equate to being pro-Democrat.
It's, you know, they have their positions and they stick with them regardless of.
That's an excellent point.
Yeah, but so I mean, my whole thing is that exactly.
Somebody once said, once you label me, you negate me.
And so that's what happens a lot.
They go, oh, he's a liberal.
He's a liberal commentator as if what he's saying isn't accurate.
I mean, do you see that when you look at the left-wing media?
I mean, you hear it all.
Is there anything comparable to the inaccuracies that happen on the right?
No.
I mean, I don't think so.
I think, I mean, at least the people who I listen to on the left, they are the principled liberals.
I mean, those are the people who I respect, and those who are the ones who I think qualify as being of the best of the left and get on my show and things like that.
On the right, I feel like they're really much less principled.
They really are more.
Andrew Sullivan.
I think he's a principled.
I think David Frum is kind of principled.
These guys are conservatives.
They're not right-wingers so much.
In other words, the same way that not every liberal is necessarily a dyed-on-the-wool blue Democrat rooting for what's good about Andrew Sullivan and really David Frum only lately is that they are that they're more like, okay, the people that used to be on our team are now insane.
And we care more about the actual principles that everyone thought that we all believed in.
And so how can we not criticize?
In other words, if we're against having huge deficits, how can you not criticize George Bush for that?
Like that's what makes them, like they are, you know, and again, we're getting into labels, but like they're not Republicans.
They're conservatives the same way like people, I would say the four of us, are not necessarily Democrats more so than progressives.
In other words, we're not like when a Democrat is non-progressive, we don't hesitate to call them out.
And it's the same thing with the Andrew Sullivans on the right.
Like they don't fit into that simple category.
But that's like two people for the entire.
Really, I can't think of another one really on the right.
I mean, especially even the leaders.
Chuck Norris?
A three.
That's three.
But Chuck, see, that's the thing.
And then like Chuck Norris, he actually listens to the guys who are spewing the misinformation, and he's like your classic idiot.
And it's like, I mean, he really, he's like a Sarah Palin Republican, the death panels, and Obama's a socialist.
And it's got to be, I'm betting you nine to one.
He lives on a ranch, and his closest neighbor is 15 miles away from him.
It must be frustrating, though, to be in a dialogue and be him and know that you don't have the option of kicking someone in the head.
I find it frustrating.
I'd love to be able to kick people in the head.
Jay, do you find it as just as frustrating?
How would you weigh in about the controversy over what Jon Stewart and say Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher were having?
Sure.
I mean, this whole discussion about the rally, I suppose, and how serious should it have been taken and what was really the point of it.
I mean, Stewart kind of came out and said it wasn't really clear what it was about.
But my take on that is kind of similar to what we were just talking about is principled liberalism versus just pure partisanship on either side.
I think I really, really appreciate people who are principled in their beliefs and use those beliefs as an absolute cudgel to beat people over the head with.
And that's what Jon Stewart's rally did not do.
He had this enormous opportunity to be highly political, highly motivating, tell people to vote, tell people to get active, and he didn't do that.
He just, you know, he never intended to.
It wasn't part of his plan.
And that's what he was criticized for by the others in the media who really thought he had this opportunity that he just didn't follow through on.
And his pet issue is the media.
It's what he's best at.
He considers himself a media critic.
And so that's what he used his rally to do.
And he talked a lot about the media and a lot about the tone of the discussion in the country.
And in doing that, I think he accidentally made these false equivalencies that everyone is so riled up about, myself completely included.
I mean, it made me sick the equivalencies he made, but I think that they were almost a byproduct of what he was trying to do.
I don't think he, you know, his point wasn't to equivocate, but was to make this broader point about tone, and then he kind of accidentally made those equivalencies.
From the interviews I've heard him do, from what I heard him say at the rally, that's kind of my broad takeaway on that.
Yeah, I mean, my whole problem with it once you, if you can't, if you say no one is a racist, then what do you do when you meet a racist?
Well, then if you say it, so if you dismiss everyone for, I mean, you have to, I guess you just have to rely on my thing is you have to call a spade a spade, and you have to call out a racist when you see one.
You have to call out someone who's a corporate mouthpiece when there is one.
And you have to call someone out when they're a religious bigot or any kind of other, or just any kind of maniac there is.
And if you don't scream it, you know what happens?
We have illegal wars, and we start ordering torture.
And we have an economy that cracks.
That'll never happen.
And we have people who lose their houses in record numbers because people were busy being civil.
Yeah, there's like that's the problem is that it's okay to be angry at someone who's a racist.
But they're wrong.
They're entitled to their opinion, I guess, but they are wrong.
One race is not better than another race.
It's not a sin to get cranked up about that.
I mean, I hate to use the whole example, but because people can dismiss you when you use this example, but if you were in 1930s Germany, would you be like, hey, the Jews and the Germans, you just need to calm down and calm down.
Your reticuls talking about nobody's evil.
No, so actually, sometimes there is a side that's evil, and you have to stand up against it.
And I think that's the problem.
But don't you think sometimes the mistake is made that people rush to whitewash something as evil when there's more nuance to it?
Yes.
That they bring their baggage to it.
No doubt.
So how do you discriminate between, okay, this is where there's pure evil and it needs to be stopped.
And this is where there's some room for dialogue and nuance.
And these people can be reasonable.
If you have a media outlet that consistently says things that are factually not true on an hour-by-hour basis that claims to be a news station, that's evil.
That's flat-out evil.
Because the fourth estate is there, so democracy works.
So they are seditious.
They are ruining democracy.
So that's evil.
But have you seen their share price?
No, it's very important.
It's earning very nicely.
The problem with that is that.
You know what, we've got to move on to the next topic, Ben.
I'm sure what you're going to say was brilliant.
Well, you write it down.
And Pithy sent it to me in an email.
But Jay, can you stick around?
We have one more segment about Howard.
Keith Olberman donated $2,400 to three Democratic candidates in this last November's elections.
And that didn't sit right with our favorite media critic, Howard Kurtz, and he had this to say.
There has to be some kind of line separating journalists.
I know you consider yourself a journalist from partisan players.
I would put giving money to politicians on the wrong side of that line.
If it's not, how about raising money for politicians?
How about advising politicians?
How about writing speeches on the side for politicians?
At some point, if you cross this line that I'm talking about, you're no longer one of us.
You become one of them.
See, Howard Kurtz thinks there's a line.
And he puts making donations, which are made public to anyone who cares to look them up.
He puts those donations on the wrong side of that line.
According to Kurtz, it's the same as holding fundraisers for politicians.
And he's such an astute media critic that he hasn't noticed that there's an entire cable news network that not only allows their hosts to hold fundraisers, but actually puts politicians on their payroll.
Yeah, Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, they're all going to run for president, and they all have been employees of Fox News.
It's not that their campaigns are accepting donations from Fox News.
Fox News is putting cash directly into their personal bank accounts.
How much?
How often?
Who knows?
But I guess that's not an ethical quandary because did you hear?
Three minor league Democrats got $2,400 each from Keith Olbermann.
Yeah, Keith's a real puppet master, Howard.
Just imagine how much influence you can buy with $2,400.
$2,400 won't even keep Sarah Palin in ammo for a weekend.
But Kurtz doesn't stop there.
According to Kurtz, executives at news corporations can donate.
Once you get up to the corporate level where they're not meddling with newsroom decisions, whether it's Time One or General Electric, News Corp, then, you know, corporations are going to give money.
They lobby.
They have corporate interests.
I think that people in the news business, even the commentary business, I think those people should not.
I do not think they should write checks at politicians.
See how this works?
Executives at GE and News Corp can donate because they have no control over what's on their news channels.
Keith can't donate because apparently he's in charge of NBC News.
See, Kurtz thinks a news organization's corporate parent doesn't call the shots in the newsroom.
Is he lying or just brain dead?
GE is one of the biggest defense contractors in the world.
And I guess that had nothing to do with NBC's half-assed coverage leading up to the war in Iraq.
I guess Phil Donahue getting fired from his top-rated show on MSNBC had nothing to do with his being the one and only anti-war voice in the mainstream media.
Sure, corporations are notoriously hands-off when it comes to things that affect their bottom line.
They wouldn't dream of meddling in the newsroom.
That would be unethical.
And Howard Kurtz agrees with Keith.
He agrees that he can say whatever he wants on his own show, have whoever on as a guest on his own show.
He can talk them up or down, however much he wants.
But now viewers are going to have to wonder if Keith gave them money.
Well, first of all, you don't have to wonder because the records are public.
And second of all, Kurtz never explains why there's supposed to be a difference between voicing an opinion via campaign donations, again, in public, and voicing opinions on your TV show, also in public.
You know, frankly, the idea of money equaling free speech is a little stupid in the first place, since it means that those who have more money get to have more speech.
Not exactly free speech, is it?
But at least on the personal level, you can't give more than $2,400 to a candidate.
On the corporate level, there are no such limits.
But what Keith did is what's truly dangerous, despite the fact that he could have gone the corporate route and kept the whole thing hidden.
But Kurtz still thinks that journalists give up certain rights when they become public figures.
Why does he think that?
No reason given, just because.
But the icing on the cake of this whole interview is that if Howard Kurtz is known for anything, it's for his own screamingly notorious lack of journalistic ethics.
This is a guy who was paid by the Washington Post to critique the media, including CNN.
He was also at the same time paid by CNN to critique the media, including the Washington Post.
Collecting paychecks from multiple media entities when you're supposed to be the media watchdog, that's not an ethical dilemma.
Making three small public campaign contributions that are in line with the political opinions you present on television every single night, that's an ethical dilemma.
You know, asking Howard Kurtz to judge journalistic ethics is like asking Charlie Sheen for tips on a happy marriage.
Now, if Kurtz would just go away for good, that would be one less dilemma for all of us to worry about.
Oh, and I put some edgy bass guitar at the end of that.
It needed some thumb work.
It really did.
I like to think of you sitting there recording that with your bass in your lap.
No, this is the guy from the point.
Sorry, Robert.
It's the Seinfeld bass rift guy when he was going through a really nasty divorce.
His serious side.
Now, Jay, you've probably heard more commentary about this on the – Do you know?
Essentially, that it's absurd to think that this rule that MSNBC had in place was applied appropriately because there's no conflict between the donation he gave and the fact that he's obviously he never tries to be a down-the-middle journalist without a conflict in his opinion.
I mean, everyone knows what he is, and no one should be surprised about his donations.
I mean, that's you know, I mean, I felt the same way when Keith Oberman made a big deal out of Fox giving money to the Republican campaign.
I'm like, I mean, so they're just now confirming publicly what everyone, I mean, it's, I don't know, I didn't understand what the big deal was like, oh my God, there's gambling in here.
Well, as soon as Fox stops pretending to be fair and balanced, then we can stop being offended by donations like that.
As long as they're putting up a facade, then we need to continually work to tear down that facade.
And Oberman doesn't have anything like that that he's hiding behind.
What do you think it is about the mainstream media meeting like CNN and the New York Times?
What is it that it seems like they bend over backwards to find something good to say about Fox News or the conservatives?
They always seem To be pushing the point of their argument that they'd agree with instead of challenging all the parts that they don't.
I have no idea.
I've wondered at that general question ever since the media came to the defense of Fox when the Obama administration dipped their toe in the pool of going after them, you know, kind of back in the early days, almost two years ago.
And all of the other networks that should, by all rights, hate Fox, came to their defense.
And I honestly don't know the motivation behind that.
I've never been able to figure that out.
Paul Gilmartin, I believe it's a genetic thing.
I think genetically, liberals and progressives are uncomfortable with conflict and want to diffuse it and work to defuse conflict.
And I think genetically, people on the right like to punish and thrive on conflict because it gives them a sense of being and a sense of power.
I think there's some truth to that.
But it's not just the desire for conflict.
I think that the basis between if you're a conservative, you want to keep things the way they are.
So there's not too much discussion to be had about that.
If you're a progressive, you want things to change and get better, and there's a lot of discussion about the best ways to do that.
So one side is naturally there's going to be more infighting than the other.
I think a lot of that is genetic.
But I think at the same time, the mainstream media, like it's been, you know, really decades now of the right wing working the refs and saying like, you know, hammering home, the liberal media, the liberal media, liberal media.
And so just like, you know, in any sporting event, you work the ref.
Like, you know, when you complain about a call, it's that you get the next one.
And that's all it is.
Like, now they bend over backwards.
Well, we don't want to get called liberal.
I feel like that's what Jon Stewart kind of has a little bit of that inside of him, too.
Like, he can't, he can't, you know, he can sit there with the Rachel Maddow and say, you know, I like you, which I just felt like, oh, I don't know, what was it?
Did that make anyone else like sick a little bit when he did that during the interview?
I like you, Rachel.
Did you see that?
By the way, I didn't see it.
I didn't see it.
Okay, you guys didn't see it.
Did you see it, Ben?
Jay, did you see it?
Yeah, yeah, I saw it.
I think maybe the feeling that you had when you saw that is because kind of instinctually you hear, I like you, but I'm going to attack what you do.
And that's the sort of thing that he comes across as attacking things that don't necessarily deserve it when there are other places.
What did you feel about his rationale when she was trying to hold his feet to the fire for making false equivalencies the same way that Bill Maher took him to task?
And then his defense to that or his explanation was that he doesn't do the weather, he does climate.
That I actually like.
I like that analogy a lot.
even worked in climate change for a couple of years, and really kind of associated with that.
And I definitely see what he means by, because he does take the larger perspective of things rather than getting down to the you know, the It wasn't really an answer to what she was asking.
That's the problem.
Yes, if you're taking the time.
Well, I was just going to say that the thing about, you know, that didn't bother me either so much, the idea of like, well, I'm trying to get the big picture here.
I think he missed, you know, the idea, the big, if you just look at the very, very big picture, it looks like a lot of yelling.
But if you look at what one side is yelling about versus what the other side is yelling about, you realize that some things should be yelled about.
Yeah, from space, it looked like, I'm sorry, but from face, it looked like during World War II that it was just a bunch of bombs going on.
But if you get a little closer, there's actually a conflict that people have to stand up and fight.
I think during that conversation, he definitely made the comment.
And this is where I got the impression that if he gave the impression like he was drawing an equivalence between Fox and MFNBC, and he said, look, I was in Article doing that.
And he explained in that interview, he was like, look, anyone who's seen my show knows we have a special place in our heart for Fox.
And I think that was the message to everyone like us saying it's not the same on both sides.
And he gets that.
I really have no doubt in my mind that he gets that.
And but like, you know, I'm not like here to defend his point of view.
My favorite part of that interview was actually when Jon Stewart tried to claim that he wasn't part of the political conversation.
He tried to say, he's like, I'm so outside of it.
I'm just a spectator, you know, kind of talking about what's going on.
And Maddo was like, no, like, you're here.
You're part of the game.
You're the president goes on your show.
I think Jon Stewart, deep down, is afraid that he may be contributing in some way to the divisiveness that's happening in this country.
And I think he thinks to himself, how can I be more of a healer and less divisive?
And I think the rally was his attempt to be more of a healer and less of someone contributing to the divisiveness.
And it, you know, I think there's a way to work.
Yeah.
And like, you have to, you do have to kind of admire that instinct.
And when I thought the point of the rally was going to be, everybody just take a deep breath.
Like, let's just calm down for a minute.
That's one thing that was going to be we're going to get together.
We're going to have some jokes and comedy and stuff.
And then he sort of gave that editorial at the end where he got a little specific about it's everybody like, you know, everyone's doing the same thing.
And that's where it went off the rails a little bit.
Okay, Jay, thanks for being with us.
Did you have fun?
Oh, absolutely.
I appreciate it.
And that's Jay Tomlinson from the Best of the Left podcast, which is one of my favorite podcasts.
Don't miss it.
Ten episodes drop every month, right, Jay?
That's exactly right.
Okay, thanks for coming on, buddy.
I appreciate it.
Thanks, Jay.
Okay, and right now, I just wanted to remind people, hey, are you looking for a fun way to support KPFK?
How about a night of subversive comedy, starring and presented by award-winning comedian Jimmy Dore, host of KPFK's Jimmy Door Show?
Hey, that's you!
That's me who wrote that.
I'll be joined by Emmy Award winner David Feldman from HBO's Flight of the Concords, Eddie Pepetone, Paul Gilmartin from Dinner in a Movie, Al Madrigal, and Jimmy Dore's own Robert Yasimura.
It's a hilarious evening of ridicule, blasphemy, and disrespect with Los Angeles' top comedians.
The Subversive Comedy Show, it's tonight, November 18th at 8 p.m. at Flappers Comedy Club, 102 East Magnolia Boulevard in Burbank.
Ticket information and more details at kpfk.org, where you'll see a link to the subversive comedy show tonight, November 18th at Flappers Comedy Club, 102 East Magnolia Boulevard.
Don't have the internet.
You can call 818-845-9721.
This is Jimmy Dore on Pacifica.
We'll be right back after a break.
We'll be right back.
Now it's time to check in with our good friend Jim Hightower and see what's on his mind this week.
Every time some dim-witted bozo tries to pull off a screwy terrorist attack against us, the knee-jerk reaction of our authorities is to secure our liberties by putting more restrictions on our liberties.
One goofball guy on a plane, for example, tried to ignite his shoe in 2001.
His effort fizzled.
But since then, every American who travels on an airplane, some hundred million of us each year, must bow to al-Qaeda by bending over to remove our shoes before shuffling through a security system that assumes all Americans are terrorists.
Then came the incompetent who tried, but failed, to detonate his underwear.
In response, our government is spending billions of our tax dollars to put pricey and invasive super x-ray machines in America's airports.
How invasive?
The machines peer right through our clothing, exposing everyone's privates to screeners who assume that all of us have bombs in our undies.
What Al-Qaeda has learned is that they do not even have to succeed to succeed.
Just by sending some hapless, low-level bunglers on a harebrained mission, they know that our officials will obligingly withdraw yet another freedom from the American people.
Worse, they've altered our society's historic culture of liberty by prompting U.S. officials to impose an Orwellian ethic of fear, suspicion, and repression.
We now live, for example, under a McCarthy-esque law called the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative.
This ludicrous, un-American waste of tax dollars includes electronic signs on our highways urging us to spy on each other and report even the most innocent activities to police authorities.
Likewise, airport PA systems now ceaselessly boom out authoritarian messages asserting sternly that security is everyone's business.
This is Jim Hightower saying, Excuse me, but no, in America, liberty is everyone's business.
Meet John Tyner.
He's a 31-year-old software programmer going on a hunting trip with his father-in-law.
When he got to the San Diego airport to start his trip, a man from the government put his hand on his inner thigh and said this.
I'm going to place my hand on your hip, put another hand on your inner thigh, slowly go up and slide down.
Okay, two times in the front and two times in the back.
Yes, that was the man from the TSA letting John Tyner know if he wanted to go on a hunting trip, he was going to have to get groped by a government worker first.
Well, that didn't sit right with our friend John Tyner, and he said this.
But if you touch my junk, I'm going to have you arrested.
And for that, they didn't let him fly on the plane.
Mm-hmm.
Which is totally ridiculous because the last time I was at the airport, I asked them to please touch my junk, and they still wouldn't let me on the plane.
You know what I like most about this is the graphic description of the pat down before they give it to you?
Sounds like a penthouse letter.
I'm going to place my hand on your hip, put another hand on your inner thigh, slowly go up.
Ooh, I'm going to put my hand on your inner thigh.
I'm going to slowly move it up.
I bet if you keep that tape playing, you can hear the TSA guy say, and tomorrow morning, I'll take you out for a nice breakfast anywhere you want because you're my special little fella.
You know, my question is: why the preview of the coming attractions?
What is that supposed to do?
Why do they tell you about the pat down?
What is that supposed to do?
Does it make it any less awkward or awful?
Oh, you're going to give me a squeezer at 10 a.m. on a weekday in front of a bunch of tourists with their shoes off?
No problem.
Thanks for the heads up.
Okay, here's the thing about this: either travel within the United States is a right or it's a privilege.
If it's a privilege, fine, great.
Let's get back to luxurious flights with great food and really hot flight attendants.
You know, the ones we used to call stewardesses.
You know, flying the way it was back in the 50s when it was prohibitively expensive.
Can you imagine that?
Imagine that.
Feeling like just by getting on a plane, you are better than most people.
And then they kiss your ass and pamper you like you're a gangster or a hedge fund manager.
Instead of what flying currently is today, a flying greyhound bus with smaller seats and a smellier bathroom.
I'm just saying, if you have entitlement issues, take a Northwest commuter flight.
Go ahead.
And in just a couple hours, you're going to get humble, my friend.
Or you're going to get a victim complex, right?
Which is going to make you feel even more in type.
And then you'll probably act like a big douchebag, and then you're going to end up making somebody, I don't know, let's say a male flight attendant, lose his mind, cursing you out, going down an emergency escape slide, and becoming the hero to millions.
The thing is, I'm pretty sure flying within the United States is a basic right.
I mean, after all, you're spending your money in the free market.
And even though there aren't any regulatory agencies involved in the airline industry, it's not like they're issuing travel licenses the way the DMV issues driver's licenses, right?
Although, wouldn't that be sweet if the people who are too stupid to fly weren't allowed to?
Okay, there's a bunch of people behind you, so you can't stand in the aisle.
We're trying to get out, can't stand in the aisle.
You have to move it, can't stand in.
Okay, you're too dumb to fly.
You have to give me your flying license.
Wouldn't that be nice?
And I'm not a constitutional scholar, but shouldn't the Fourth Amendment come into play here?
The one against unreasonable search and seizure?
And how about the implied right to privacy in the Constitution?
Although I know it's not explicit on the subject, I'm pretty sure it would have a problem with forced electronic nudity, right?
Or getting felt up by some embittered civil servant with six hours of training at an airport.
I mean, I don't think Thomas Jefferson would be cool with having to be groped by some black woman he didn't know.
I mean, one he didn't own.
And let's remember, our pal John Tyner refused to search and he just wanted to go home.
And guess what that can get you?
That can get you arrested and fined $10,000 for not complying.
Imagine if prostitutes work like that, because that's how my brain works.
Okay, sex is $300, but if you don't let me give you a handy, you owe me $10,000 and a bouncer's going to work you over.
And by the way, that's a pretty worthwhile discussion to have, don't you think, CNN news team?
Civil liberties versus safety?
That's a good discussion, am I right?
Well, here's how they handled it.
I understand his paying, but you got to remember the underwear bomber.
Boy, aren't we lucky to always have a cable news person around to remind us that since terrorism, the Constitution no longer replies.
And what made it okay in the CNN news anchor's mind for them to grope this guy?
Refuse to go through the big x-ray check that shows you're kind of natural.
Yeah, because he refused to have an x-ray text, which shows you naked, and according to the CNN news anchor there, he should get patted down and felt up sexually by a government employee.
It doesn't even dawn on them to ask the question or even have the debate between civil rights or safety.
And that's a debate we've been having since the foundation of this country.
And instead of giggling at the don't touch my junk guy and then sort of going, well, there's an underwear bomber, so privacy is screwed.
What are you going to do?
Maybe you see this coming.
Maybe you don't wait for a private citizen to challenge the government.
Maybe you question the government when they pass the laws or change the rules.
Maybe it's okay to talk about something important before someone emails you a YouTube clip of it.
For that great American John Tyner, this is Jimmy Doerr reminding CNN that just because they're not talking about it on Facebook, that doesn't mean it's not news.
Chili Chili Yes, it's understandable that a former altar boy would have overreacted to that.
I should clarify there was one factual misstep in that, which was there are regulatory agencies that oversee flying.
There's the FAA and the TSA and other agencies, but they don't oversee the citizens who fly.
They oversee.
And there was just a misstatement.
No, I appreciate you being a stickler.
But I disagree with you.
I think that what do you think?
It's not like somebody passing their hand over you as a part of a search.
I don't have that big of a test.
Okay, that's not what's happening anymore.
I'm not sure you're aware what they're doing now.
They're actually, they're groping you.
I had it done.
They had a full groin check on you.
The guy took his hand and put it up my thigh, brought it across my, you know, it happened because they found a lump.
And that's cool with you.
I go to the doctor.
The doctor does it.
Once a week.
That's a doctor once a week.
That's not a doctor, man.
That's not some $12 an hour employee.
It's not like his hand is lingering there and he's getting off on it.
He's patting me down.
Okay.
All right.
I actually.
And you don't have a problem.
I mean, that kind of government intrusion.
So could he stick a finger in you?
You know what?
Where do you draw the line?
And him sticking a finger in me.
So that's it?
Wait, which side of that?
What if he bent you over a bunch of people?
If this is necessary, if this is necessary to keep bombs being not, but that's a different discussion.
Okay.
Oh, really?
Yeah.
Because I think that would be, how is that not central?
I mean, it's like the old torture thing.
Well, torture works.
First of all, we know it doesn't.
And this is the, I saw the guy from L. He was on the L. And he was saying he was laughing at us.
He was like, you guys are.
And first of all, I was wondering, like, so.
What was he laughing at?
He was laughing at, he goes, you're always one step behind the terrorists.
He said that there was a shoe bomber, so now you guys can't take your shoe.
We're the only country that does that.
I would agree with him on that stuff.
He said, and now there's an underwear bomber, so now you want to have an underwear test.
He says, you know, this all can be taken care of by questioning people as they're standing in line.
And the guy said, the interviewer said, you ask every person?
He goes, yeah, they're standing there.
You have professionals go up to him, and what do you ask?
He said, nothing brilliant.
You ask him, what are they doing?
Where are they coming from?
And he gave complete examples of how people reveal themselves.
Like one lady said, well, where are you?
I'm going to Tel Aviv.
Where are you staying?
She said, I'm staying at some five-star hotel.
Oh, really?
Do you have a reservation?
No, I don't have a reservation.
You don't have a reservation?
Well, how much are the rooms?
She said, the rooms are $50.
Well, that didn't make sense to them.
They take her out of Babala and they find out that she was in Somalia and she's a terrorist.
So that's how he.
They can afford to do that.
We have just a massive flight infrastructure.
No, but I mean, you still, you have the same amount of, I mean, we have, you wouldn't need to hire any more TSA agents.
They have time to check everybody's ID and have time to pat down everybody or send them through a scanner.
Instead of doing that, you just ask them questions as they're waiting in line.
But the point that Paul made earlier was: in Israel, the people who do that, those questioning, they're intelligent.
They have what, one or two airports in Israel?
Yeah.
And they're intelligence officers.
They're trained.
Yeah, but so intelligence people are not TSA people.
You add like $100 now.
You act like we're not doing more intrusive things right now.
We're doing things that are bigger.
They're intrusive.
So we have more people flying than Israel, and we don't feel like spending the money to do security properly.
So let's do this thing that is meaningless.
And waste money.
Well, but here's the thing.
That's not the right solution.
The thing is to say, well, look, we don't feel like spending the money to make sure that flights are truly secure.
So everyone just get on and don't worry about it.
But we're not going to do it right.
So why waste the money to do it wrong?
I agree.
I mean, they're in agreement.
The scanner is ridiculous.
And by the way, let me say this.
We've just spent billions to put these scanners in.
And first of all, you know, we're basically, and I'm iffy on this too, but we're basically screwing some civil liberties for something that basically is less likely than being struck by lightning.
Yeah.
Okay.
So that's happening.
And the other thing is, it's not even an issue.
The bigger danger on a flight now is a bomb in the cargo.
Yes.
By far and away, that's a much bigger danger.
Which is not being checked.
Yes, I know, but they're checking my junk, but they're not checking the junk.
But did you see what Rick Overton said on Facebook?
No, he suggested that you just pop a Cialis while you're in line.
Well, that's a little simple.
Stephen Colbert says, you know, you know that when he's funneling your change purse, if your pickle moves one inch, you're gay, buddy.
That's it.
So, you know, you said we're spending millions and maybe, I don't know how it's billions, but we're spending millions for sure on these new scanners.
And Michael Cherdoff, who was the head of the Homeland Security, has been pushing these scanners since 2005.
And after the underwear bomber, he's really pushing them.
And I heard him talking on CNN, and here's what he said.
But there are a few things we could do to make things better.
First, we could deploy the scanning machines that we currently are beginning to deploy in the U.S. that would give us the ability to see what someone has concealed underneath their clothing.
That has been vigorously opposed by the ACLU and privacy advocates.
The House of Representatives voted to prevent us from using it.
But I think now there's been a very vivid lesson in the value of that machinery.
Okay, can I stop you there for a second?
I know you've been an advocate of this technology for a long time.
Correct.
But just in the interest of full disclosure, I also want to point out in your current role as a security consultant, you are representing some of the companies who manufacture that technology.
Correct.
Absolutely correct.
Shocking.
I would never have imagined that the guy who was the head of the Homeland Security Department is now representing companies that sell these scanners.
And now he's out there scaring the crap out of everyone to sell more scanners, which Elala La La Lao tells us we don't need.
The clue to me was that he's just got a little of that military-industrial complex vibe to him as he said, we can deploy these machines.
You know, the people that love war love to use war words whenever they can.
In the arena and the theater of war.
No, I don't know if he alluded to something in that clip.
I don't know if you remember this, but when they first came out with these, Congress passed a law that banned these.
And now somehow they got back.
What happened?
They give you cancer, don't they?
No, I don't know.
I don't know the radiation isn't it?
No, like radiation.
No, no, because this, you know, the no, no, no.
I thought there was just a thing.
I thought I just read something that was when I go.
Yes, I did.
You read.
But when I get an x-ray at the dentist, the person goes down the hall into the next room and behind the lead curtain.
I mean, that doesn't mean that anything is.
But think of they're doing it every day.
Oh, okay.
I don't know how much radiation you get by just flying.
You get like the equivalent of a chest x-ray by flying across the country.
You do know that.
Not in the first class.
The curtain, the curtain, the chest curtain, the lead curtain, right?
Really?
Do you get that much?
But here's the thing: you know, we're supposed to trust the government that told us putting my hiding under my desk would shield me from a nuclear explosion.
That the government's x-ray machines are working perfectly.
The government who told us that the oil rigs were working perfectly and that the regulations were in check.
The government who told me that the banking system was working perfectly and they had enough regulations and nothing could hurt us.
That same government is now telling me that the x-ray machine that they've set up at the airport is working perfectly and don't worry about anything.
And then, by the way, put your kid through it.
Well, actually, to be more on point, it's the way procurement works.
Like, dealing with this kind of thing, it's like the same government that told soldiers in Vietnam that the new M16s worked perfectly and then, you know, thousands of them died because they jammed.
Or the same people who told Agent Orange, there's nothing wrong with Agent Orange.
There's nothing wrong with Agent Orange.
There is nothing wrong with the Bradley fighting vehicle, except when it gets hit, you die of poison gas.
Is it true that Agent Orange is the main ingredient in Orange Julius?
Is that a myth?
No, I've heard that.
I've heard that.
I've heard that.
I don't know if that's true.
Oh, hang on, you guys.
I got to take this.
Hold on.
Hey, it's Jimmy.
Who's this?
Hey, Jimmy.
How you doing?
It's Moron.
Hey, Moron.
Hi.
How are you doing, buddy?
Good to see you.
Did you say good to see you, Jim?
Are you on the medical marijuana?
No, I just slipped at the chest.
Jim, I gotta tell you, did you see that Teresa's cousin on the CNN there?
I don't know.
Who are you talking about?
Yeah, well, they wanted to bat him down at the airport.
That was Teresa's cousin, John Tyner, John Tyner?
Yeah.
You're kidding me.
Software programmer.
Got his nose up in the air.
Remember at the barbecue anyway?
What do you mean he's stuck?
What do you mean he's stuck up?
He's eating venison like he's a big man.
Oh, he was eating the deer?
Yeah, he's some big shot because he's a hunter.
You ever go hunting, moron?
Yeah.
Well, I don't know.
What do you mean?
Is it hunting if what?
It's in some guy's backyard and there's a fence?
No, that's illegal.
Well, then no.
So what does Teresa have to say about this?
I tell you, I'm not looking forward to seeing him again.
I'll say that.
Because if I thought he was a conceited a-hole before, this guy's going to be coming at Bull Biros now.
Why do you keep saying big man?
He loves to walk around like he's a big man.
Shut up.
He's not going to be walking around like nothing.
Oh, you know what I'm talking about, Therese.
You know what you're talking about!
You know, the funny thing is, the funny thing is, Jim, he thinks he's a big man, but I'm actually taller than him.
You are not!
Yes, I am, Therese.
You guys are the same height!
No, I'm a little taller.
I don't think so.
No, I'm a little taller, Therese.
Well, Moron, what did you think about what he did?
Did you think that was a heroic thing?
Listen, Jim, nobody wants to get felt up at the airport or get radiated, but what are you going to do, you know?
If you don't get felt up at the airport, the unfortunate thing is that the terrorists will win.
No, Moron, I actually think that that's the option.
You get it backwards.
No, Jim, if you don't get radiated or felt up at the airport, the terrorists will win.
No, that terrorists have won because we're already living in terror.
That's what that's a sign of, Moron.
I thought if you see them like feeling up an old lady in a wheelchair or patting down a baby, then you know that we've won.
We beat the terrorists because you're like, ha ha, they can't sneak a bomb in on them when we're even checking them, right?
No, that's how we win.
No, that's actually how we lose, moron.
Man, that's hard to keep straight.
How to beat the terrorists, right?
If they're winning or if we're losing.
God, do you find that confusing, Jim?
Sometimes I do, Moron.
What are you going to do, though?
You know, it's not going to happen.
But, Moron, how do you feel about it?
Don't you feel good letting a government worker who you don't know feel you up?
Or how about it getting radiated?
Having to have the government give you an x-ray that doesn't bother you, I think that would...
Yeah, I mean, it bothers me.
I mean, of course it does.
I think about it.
You know, I mean, you have to trust the government, I guess, you know, and just trust that they're not going to have any creepos that get those jobs that pay $12 to $17 an hour that feel you up because that would be pretty uncomfortable.
You know, if they touch your junk or your grandpa's junk or your mother's junk or your wife or even your wife's mother's junk.
I mean, yeah, that would be embarrassing.
Kind of creeps me out.
You know who I actually feel sorry for, Moron?
Charlie Sheen?
No, not Charlie Sheen.
Oh.
I feel sorry for the TSA workers who are the ones who have to do the pat downs.
You know how many people are planning on traveling by air this Thanksgiving holiday?
A billion people?
No.
No, Moron.
2.3 million people are planning on traveling by air this thing, Skip.
That's still a lot.
Yeah, that's a lot.
How are they going to make the flights on time with that many people flying and getting x-rayed and panted down?
I don't, that's a good question.
But you know, Jim, I don't really care because it doesn't immediately affect me.
Well, you're a good American.
Besides, I'm excited I just got this new tongue scraper.
It's sensational.
If you are using a tongue scraper, Morton.
It's the copper tongue scraper.
It's copper.
Does that make it better?
removes more mucus bacteria and debris from the tongue than anything else with a terrific ease and efficiency.
You know, Moron, isn't this just like another fad that you're going to...
Yes.
And they have the lowest incidence of tongue diseases and disorders.
I didn't know you were worried about your tongue diseases and disorders.
Yeah, Jim.
You just glide in a couple of times and watch those ugly coats that cause bad breath to come off with remarkable ease.
I can't believe you.
You'll be surprised at the ease in which the copper tongue cleaner removes mucus and debris even after what seemed as a wonderful brushing session.
Did you say session?
Okay, Jim.
I gotta go.
Well, what do you got going, buddy?
What do you have something to do?
Yeah, Teresa's bleaching her back, and there's some spots she can't get.
Okay, well, it was good talking to you, pal.
Okay, Jim, take care.
Bye.
Okay, that was another Tuesday with Moron.
Thanks, Moron.
You know, we both.
Now, a point of clarity.
They're not patting down every single person, just people that are selected.
No, no, no.
People who refuse the scan.
The scan or for some logistical reason can't do the scan.
Like if they're in a wheelchair or.
Yes.
Yes.
I'm not sure how it works, but it's going to be harder to fly with pot, I'm for sure.
And that's what bothers me because, you know, even if I put it in, they won't be able to, even if they give me a crotch or crackier butt, quarter ounce, you're good.
First of all, by the way, one of the things that we're not saying that no one is saying that somebody should say is we are avoiding the discussion of a national identity card.
That has a lot to do with travel security within the United States.
And then the other thing I wanted to mention is this is actually a worthwhile discussion.
The way the people at CNN did it, they sort of like giggle about it, and then they just kind of move on.
And I was like, screw you.
I was so affronted by that.
And well, my whole point was why did they get behind the ball on this?
Why did they have to wait for John Tyner to stand up to the federal government?
Why didn't they do some kind of investigate?
Like, they were caught flat footed because they're actors.
They're not journalists.
That is correct.
That's what's wrong with our media.
And by the way, that's why people like, and we talked about this earlier.
You guys sound liberal.
So many journalists are now working for multiple masters that they shouldn't be working for for the same reason because the journalism is actually being dominated by actors.
They're getting paid properly.
But the actual reporters have to have three jobs.
They have to work for NPR and Fox and Washington Post.
Well, it's their fault for not being good looking.
Oh, yeah.
That's really fair.
You know what?
There's a lot of truth in what you say, man.
Let me remind people that if you like the Jimmy Dore show and you're looking for a fun way to support KPFK, tonight, November 18th at Flappers Comedy Club in Burbank, California, it's the Subversive Comedy Show with Jimmy Dore, Paul Gilmartin, Robert Yasimura, Al Madrigal, David Feldman, and Eddie Pepitone.
What a show that is.
That's PowerPack.
That is a power.
And so go to flapperscomedy.com or KPFK.org for more information.
Proceeds, benefit, KFC.
What time is the show?
The show is at 8 p.m.
Oh, that's a good time for a show.
Is it true that you will pat down one lucky audience member?
I will probably more.
Tonight at the Flappers Comedy Club in Burbank, 102 East Magnolia Boulevard.
You guys, did you have fun today?
Was this a fun show for you guys?
I did.
Me too.
No.
I really.
Hey, I want to remind people: if you like the show, it's always available as a podcast at iTunes for free.
And please go to JimmyDoorComedy.com and click there.
You can subscribe there too.
And you can sign the email list.
I'll let you know when the Jimmy Door show is coming to your town to tell jokes and when our next show at Flappers is or at the UCB Theater, which is coming up in December.
And that's it for everybody here.
I want to thank everybody who makes this show possible.
My guests, Jay Tomlinson, Robert Yasimura, Paul Gilmartin, Ben Zalovansky.
I want to thank Stan Stankos, Steph Zamorano, and a special thanks to my producer, Ali Lexa, for getting it done.
And we'll be back.
We won't be here next Thursday because it's Thanksgiving, although we probably drop a podcast show.
But we'll be back right after that, after Thanksgiving with the Jimmy Dore show.
▲
Export Selection