I've had a busy few days -- so I know I'm late for this -- but I have to comment upon how pleased I was with the latest episode. I found that Catherine Crier (having never heard of her before) made some particularly insightful remarks regarding the use of language and context (misogyny and comedic exceptions). I don't know what her political affiliation is officially, but from what I could surmise, she appeared to be moderate to right-leaning -- with some traditionally 'liberal' philosophies. Even so, I interpreted her remarks as well-grounded and well in-tune with reality.
The most interesting part of the Mississippi clip was Maher's preface: an urban-focused follow-up. There are plenty of comedians and commentators that highlight the ignorance of Republican-minded people with levity and insight; however, I've found most reciprocators from the conservative end tend to embarrass themselves more than their intended subjects e.g., Breitbart. It will be interesting to note what type of fallacious reasoning and bias uneducated liberals will employ. I've said it before in this thread: I think of notion of transitioning from relative poverty to relative wealth is an incredibly potent one. I genuinely believe those people think that if they get the right "job-creating" "private sector" president in office, that they themselves will be able to magically share in the wealth -- it's saddening and destructive. Plato's prescience is ever-unsettling.
The panel previous to this one was standard fare. Global-warming denialism is embarrassing at this point and NdGT let that tangerine of a man rabble on too long. His position on electric cars was refreshing, as well as his Berkeley anecdote, but that's about it. I'm sure if the show had dragged on any longer, I would have perceived him less and less favorably.
The worst part of this show was Bill's tone deaf defense of Limbaugh. Free speech? Give me fucking break. I didn't know it entitled you to a radio show.
That's the part that really pissed me off. Earth to Maher: pressuring sponsors isn't an affront to free speech. I can't even see how that could make sense to anyone.
I don't find anything you are saying as intelligent -- quite possibly the opposite, in fact -- but I'll defend your right to say it.