Congratulations! Your comment on Fareed Zakaria Blasts Media For Oil Spill Coverage has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 4 Badge!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_0OVHcIMh0

That's what plays in my head when I see people on every news channel applauding Trump for violating international law. Fareed Zakaria claiming on the telly that the thinks that "Donald Trump became President" by ordering an attack on a sovereign nation's military, without UN mandate, without a vote by Congress, is delicious on so many levels, I had to watch it four times.

Your video, Bill Maher on Donald Trump Interview with Fareed Zakaria, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 12 Badge!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'real, time, april, 2015, Tsarnaev, Bill, Maher, Fareed, Zakaria' to 'real time, april, 2015, Tsarnaev, Bill Maher, Fareed Zakaria, islam, terrorism' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'private, prison, Fareed, Zakaria, failed, war on drugs, corrupt, lobbyists' to 'private, prison, Fareed Zakaria, failed, war on drugs, corrupt, lobbyists' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^messenger:

That Yes or No part was silly. A politician can't make promises like that, and to conclude that the answer must be yes is unfair. I'm glad Cenk went back to his YouTube-only format. Reading scripts to a camera is not his way.
That said, he still has some stupid arguments with guests on his YT show. Case in point: http://videosift.com/video/TYT-pratt-defends-zimmerman-and-cenk-loses-
it. IMO that interview was much worse. I wish he wouldn't do that. It takes away his credibility.>> ^Sotto_Voce:
On his internet show, Cenk used to have good debates with conservatives because he would remain calm and allow them to speak while still putting forward his case forcefully. You really got a sense that he was interested in having a conversation rather than using his guest as a foil for his own argument. See his interview of John Ziegler, for instance.
Now it seems like he's decided that the way to make it on cable TV is to turn into a liberal version of O'Reilly, and that's sad. Take, for instance, his ridiculous "ANSWER THE QUESTION! YES OR NO!" tactic. I hate that. There are often answers that are more complicated than just a straight yes or a no, and to demand that they be simplified just encourages a dumbing down of the discourse. I'm on Cenk's side on the substance here, but his style was really annoying.



Jesus, that is a horrible interview. But it looks like that's from his Current TV show, so it's consistent with my "TV is ruining Cenk" hypothesis. I never thought he was a particularly profound analyst, but AFAIK he wasn't always this ridiculous. I really think he's deliberately going down the route of garnering attention by providing red meat for the base. Maybe that is the way to be successful on cable news, but it's still pathetic.

Honestly, are there any good hosts on cable news? Maddow is pretty smart, but her constant snark is a little grating. Lawrence O'Donnell does the whole outrage thing a bit too much, although he does it infinitely better than Cenk. I like the format of Chris Hayes' new show a lot, but he really comes across as a smarmy tool. The best I can think of is Fareed Zakaria. Anderson Cooper is decent too, but he covers too much fluff.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Iran' to 'Iran, israel, fareed zakaria, russia, nuclear' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^Trancecoach:

Paul Krugman in today's NY Times.
And now that the Democracy has been sold to the highest bidders, the Corporate persons can determine policy based on their bottom lines. The Oligarchs can take their place at the throne and Social Darwinism can run its course. Caviar and refreshments will be served in the sunroom.


OMG! I've never been in a Sunroom!

I wish America was not fighting anyone. Being the worlds "peace keepers" and fighting for American self interest and two different things.

We should not fight anyone for any reason unless it is a direct national threat. We should not be meddling in the middle east. We should buy our oil through contracts not by installing government leaders on our behalf.

I hope what he was indicating is true. I don't think it is all correct but I wish it to be.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

I wonder what the resident neo-conservatives think of these peaceful democratic Arab/Muslim/Islamic movements.
[And the fact that there are less than/only about 50 to 100 Al Qaeda left]
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/quantumushroom" title="member since June 22nd, 2006" class="profilelink">quantumushroom
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/bobknight33" title="member since May 9th, 2009" class="profilelink">bobknight33
Kindly & Sincerely

Zakaria makes good points here, but I think he's being too generous to our political parties in suggesting that they actually pick policies based on some sort of economic theory.

Democrats seem afraid to really embrace Keynesian economic theory. If they did, they'd fire back at all this shit about deficits being an urgent problem, and point out that in the short term what we need is a big deficit. They'd also call on the Fed to do everything they can to loosen monetary policy as much as possible. Liberals generally aren't interested in macroeconomics per se. For them, it's more about the moral necessity of promoting a more egalitarian society. That often means setting up public policy that follows Keynesian economic prescriptions, but I don't get the sense that very many Democratic politicians really know much about Keynesian economics, and I can't think of any that call for the government to dogmatically follow it's advice.

Republicans on the other hand clearly don't subscribe to any economic theory in particular. Instead they just latch on to whichever one supports the political maneuver of the day. Republicans may be saying that tax cuts stimulate the economy, but that's only when it's their kind of tax cuts. They claimed the tax cuts in the stimulus wouldn't create jobs because the bulk of them went to poor & middle class people, and because they were temporary. That's primarily a Monetarist view; tax cuts are only stimulative if they're permanent.

Republicans also like to take pages from the Austrian playbook. Much of the fixation on "supply-side" policy requires you make the central Austrian mistake -- believing that supply creates its own demand. Lately we're hearing more and more BS from Republicans about wanting the Fed to tighten up monetary policy, something that's contrary to both Monetarist or Keynesian theories, but fit in just fine with the gold-obsessed Austrian zombies.

Through all of this though, you'll often find Republicans insist we dogmatically adhere to whatever economic principle it is they're parroting at the moment, and it's always fun when a journalist manages to call them out on conflicts between them (e.g. deficits kill jobs, but not when they're from tax cuts?).

Glenn Beck is a screaming child, sitting locked away in a playpen. Fareed Zakaria is a fucking journalist. Beck doesn't deserve to be honoured by this sort of attention.

Humor dude.

In reply to this comment by mizila:
Fareed Zakaria?

In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
Who was that Fareika on CNN guy?

Fareed Zakaria?

In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
Who was that Fareika on CNN guy?

>> ^HugeJerk:
"Well, for one, they can start using the agencies that regulate safety to actually, um, enforce those regulations to their fullest. If those regs are inadequate, then make new ones. But for Christ's sake, don't make new agencies! Use the ones we have!!! We have 30 billion regulatory entities that do nothing but sit on their own fingers and rotate..."
Regulating Agencies can't do anything to fix the situation now sadly... the non-enforcement or rather the lack of meaningful penalties is something that definitely needs addressed in several industries (Coal Mining has also shown their lack of adherence to safety requirements because the penalties are marginal). Breaking apart the agency to form two so they separate the enforcement from the collections will likely not fix the issue of people being corruptable and willing to look the other way.
"Something else the Federal Government can do--when help is offered, don't have red tape that prevents that help from arriving. I am not sure if the countries that made offers to help were doing so out of pro-bono expectations, or, sans that, reasonable expectations, however, that isn't the point. Let the public know why you turned down much needed help... "
From what I heard recently there are 12 countries actively assisting in the Gulf, 20 had offered to help and I agree that it's lame that we don't know why the other 8 weren't accepted. If their assistance means a quicker recovery, then they should be taken up on their offers.
"Next, don't apologize to BP for "having" to make a fund helping those that are affected by the horror of Oil-Cane BPer..."
I don't recall the actual Federal Government giving an apology to BP, just a politician or two who have contribution ties to the oil industry. If I'm wrong here, please correct me.
"Hrm, what else? Actually have a surplus of money instead of debt out the ass...this way you can actually afford to do something about catastrophes"
Unless we're going to shove dollar bills into the well to plug it, a surplus of Federal Funds isn't going to fix the spill at this point. The economic situation and the circumstances that lead to it, including two wars, are certainly things that the President needs to be working on.


First point--yes, regulating won't fix anything already messed up. But preventing future failures is more important... This would help if there was a BP2—so, in essence, if we would have started regulating, oh, before BP1, then it would have fixed the problem.

Point 2, glad we agree-ish.

Point 3, the federal government as a whole never answers something completely. However, we can generalize to a certain point in regards to certain things. Americans hate gay marriage. It is sad, but there are a lot, most in fact, of Americans who are intolerant. Does that mean we all are? No… but, what do we all do to curb this behavior? Do we truly try to change beliefs, or do we score cheap political points. Most are in for the points...

Slowly the views are dying off. However, those in inaction are nearly as responsible as those actively causing the harm. A man walks by a traffic accident and does not call for help; he is nearly as bad as the hit-and-run driver because both know that that action will result in harm.

My point is many federally employed republicans have made their support known for BP and refused the "shakedown" of BP. No one raised much of a stink until one republican apologized directly to BP's man... In other words, it was fine until that one guy did it...

4th point, I was meaning that infrastructure should have already been our focus and should start to be our future focus. We squander on two wars, as you say, and have barely any skimmers or science to stop this problem. Invest, invest, invest. We agree here, I am sure. It is all just a matter of whose fault things are.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
I can see where Carville is coming from, I really can. And if I were a Gulf Coast resident, right now I might feel the same way.
However, exactly how much should the President be doing about the oil spill? Should he be holding press conferences every day, saying, "I'm gonna get those motherfuckers!"? He's basically already done that, just without saying "motherfucker." Should he set up house in Louisiana and move his entire staff down there with him and stay until it's all cleaned up? I know those are both extreme examples, but I'm trying to make a point, which is the same one Fareed made: He can't spend so much time on just one major issue.
The last I heard, the U.S. is still at war in two countries, our economy is still shaky and 9.5% of our labor force is still out of work, Iran might be trying to make nuclear weapons, immigration is in desperate need of overhaul, and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is perpetually at risk of getting much worse, among other major issues. Should he give less attention to all of those issues just to appear to be doing more about the oil spill?
Fareed's just asking us to be more sensible about this, while Carville is just making emotional appeals. Do you want the president to be sensible, or just emotional? That's what you have to ask yourself.
He's the President of the United States, not just the Gulf Coast.


Well, four or five states have a catastrophe they cannot recover from for years on end, and that is a mighty blow to the United States as a whole. I know you understand this, and I think you make great points. However, living on the Gulf, I can say this--anything Obama or the states do that do help us is a weakness to the entire country. Imagine another calamity somewhere else... Or imagine an invading force (I know, it could never happen...unlike Rome or England...) What would we do? Chickens head cut off? Probably...

The above scenarios are far-fetched, I know. However, they illustrate the point. 9/11 was our best response to a national emergency, but that was one day of pain and hell.

Now, as to two wars and the economy... Was Fareed saying we should handle stuff like that or go to other countries like Indo? And are those other countries directly related to solving our biggest woes?

All and all, well done. I respect your points more than most people's here on the sift. Very balanced.