Ken Tucker

Lowlights from an elitist frustrated over his inability to defend President FailureTeleprompter: [emphasis added]

Huntsman was undoubtedly relieved he didn’t have to stand on-stage Monday night to face the most raucous, roused-rabble audience of any Republican debate held thus far.

[T]he people in the seats hailed lustily the history lesson offered by “Professor” Newt Gingrich: “Andrew Jackson knew what to do with his enemies — he killed them.”

It was a wild, schizo crowd. They yelled their approval of Rick Perry’s suggestion that America should “go to zero on foreign aid.”

The audience showed a nasty streak in the booing Fox questioner Juan Williams for asking Gingrich[.]

The jeers that erupted the second Williams uttered the phrase “black Americans” was chilling on this Martin Luther King Day. Gingrich didn’t help matters much when he said a bit later, “Barack Obama has put more people on food stamps than any president in history.”

It was a light laugh line in a night that was heavy with malice — not from the candidates, but their supporters. Moderator Bret Baier might have done a bit more to try and quell the mob.

What Tucker is doing is trying to scare off moderates from joining the “nasty mob.” This is the same approach these MSM liars used against the Tea Party.

And the left obviously hates the fact that Obama owns the food stamp record, so it’s now racist to speak the truth, especially on Martin Luther King Day — because we all know Dr. King would want his day used as racial club to stop people from speaking the truth. You know, because he was all about that. For Tucker to exploit one of our greatest Americans in such a cynical, divisive, and racially charged way is about as low as you can get.

But it’s early in the election, and you can bet the house Tucker and company haven’t come close to hitting a bottom.

People always accuse me of hating the media. I’m just hating them back.

—–

Hard to blame Cameron for not showing up to the gunfight he asked for. After all, he has no ammunition; just cooked numbers, lies, hysteria, emotion, and the inability to scream “cut” and ask for another take when things don’t roll out the way he wants.

We here at Big Hollywood are still trying to figure out which is more fun, Cameron getting his clock cleaned at a global cooling global warming climate change debate, or the ongoing ridicule that can be mined from his running like a punk from his own challenge.

Six of one, really.

So let’s get this straight: According to the President, America is the land of opportunity, and people come here because it’s a great country. Yeah, thanks for that. We’ve heard it before- it’s the vanilla filling in every single immigration speech Twinkie.

Of course, he brings up the “two poles” of the “contentious” debate (in that disapproving voice of his), saying this issue often divides, inflames and demonizes people. He calls it an emotional issue, while not-so-subtly accusing those he disagrees with of dividing, inflaming and demonizing!

So I think I finally got his definition of demagoguery: It’s only demagogic if it points a way forward, and makes him look dumb.

So what’s his solution? Well, in a swipe at Arizona, he said we can’t enforce the law that aren’t enforceable. Which means, “I got nothing.”

The American people are saying seal the border first, then let’s have reform. Because you can’t do the reverse. It’s like pouring tequila into a sieve instead of a shot glass. Logically, it’s possible – but reeks of failure and stains your pants.

The bottom line: everyone in America should send Arizona a six pack of beer. When Obama said we finally need an accountable immigration system, he did so because AZ forced his hand. He’s not leading the country, the country’s leading him. That may be better than the reverse.

And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist homophobe who reads Mein Kampf on the toilet.

Tonight’s guests:

Mike Gallagher!

Jill Dobson!

Tom Shillue!

James Cameron I accept your offer, I’ll even drive myself to your gigantic gated Malibu double mansion to shoot it out.

 It appears some negative comments about the nonsensical politics of “Avatar” by me and others did not go unnoticed by the richest man in Hollywood who described the criticism as “ranting.”

So again James Cameron I accept your invitation and I will participate in a public discussion. I think it’s important for the man who uses 1000% more mined resources than the average American, lives in a home 1000% bigger than the average American and drives/flies 1000% more than the average American to explain how the Average American is destroying the planet. 

Phelim McAleer and I are two filmmakers unafraid to step into the arena and defend our work. Are you? Hey, you called us out? ARE YOU?”

Quoting Winston Churchill, who said, “You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police. They are afraid of words and thoughts! Words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home, all the more powerful because they are forbidden. These terrify them. A little mouse – a little tiny mouse! -of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic…” Savage will attempt to ’save England from a descent into mental slavery where petty bureaucrats dictate what can and cannot be discussed.” (more…)

Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens is a kind of celebrity, even among Christians because he is an interesting character. If anything, he was warmly embraced by a crowd who generally disagreed with him even as he hurled the worst insults at God, which we consider the holiest, highest being imaginable. This is the demonstration of class and restraint I’ve noticed from a conservative Christian culture that has a much better record of tolerance than the liberal non-Christian culture.

While most of us are familiar with Christopher Hitchens, many people may not know of his opponent Dr. William Lane Craig. I simply call him, “The smartest living Christian.” Like Hitchens, Dr. Craig makes a good living at debate. Dr. Craig is a brilliant logician and eloquent advocate of the faith. He is an “evidentialist” in that he argues for the existence of God based on evidence not presupposition (which is another popular form used in debate).

I assumed Dr. Craig would win the argument and would show superior technical skills, but I didn’t know if he could beat Hitchens’ presence. In modernity, having the right arguments isn’t enough. More than ever, we are accustomed to disengaging our rational center to embrace an artful presentation. Every Republican should be woefully aware of this by now given the last election. Substance alone doesn’t cut it, so Dr. Craig’s greater challenge was to bring a presence to the room that might win over the heart, because I think he’s got a lock on the mind.

The event was moderated by radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, who managed a quick introduction of Hitch’ and Craig but barely managed to exit the stage. He tripped on his way down, attempted a mid-air correction, contorting like a drunken baby deer having a seizure in a potato-sack. Just as his feet hit the ground he tripped again, never quite giving the audience the satisfaction of completely eating it, but Hugh is famous for having a huge dissatisfied audience. After 15 minutes of flailing on the stage he managed the near impossible task of finding his seat with his life in tact. (I’m kidding, of course. I consider Hugh a valued friend and someone I deeply respect and admire.)

The debate began with Dr. Craig’s opening arguments. He made a challenge to leave our bias at the door. Impossible, I know, but he claimed that the debate would be fought on philosophical arguments. He would rule out bad arguments, offer the historicity and logic of his good arguments, then challenge Hitchens to make a positive argument for his own atheism. This demonstrates Craig’s adherence to formal debate tactics. He doesn’t take his positions based on emotion or preference, he uses argument and reason and follows the evidence.

Dr. Craig’s evidence is presented in 5 different lines of argument:

1. The Cosmological Argument; Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. God is the best explanation for that cause.

2. The Teleological Argument; The fine-tuning of the universe is so improbable that law or chance aren’t adequate explanations. God is the best explanation.

3. The Moral Argument; If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Rape isn’t just culturally unacceptable, it’s actually wrong.

4. The Resurrection of Jesus; The vast majority of historians generally agree that the tomb was empty. Separately, the vast majority of historians generally agree that Jesus appeared to people post-mortem. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of these facts.

5. The Immediate Experience of God; Belief that God exists may be rationally accepted as a basic belief not grounded in argument.

Christopher Hitchens opened with an argument that Dr. Craig had the obligation to prove God exists with some amount of certainty. The burden isn’t on the atheist in the debate to show God doesn’t exist. His position is simply that of a skeptic. Given the idea that God either does exist or does not exist, Hitch thinks doubt is the better position. He alluded that it is also the more humble position.

Hitch doesn’t claim knowledge that there is no God. He claims ignorance, though he avoids calling himself an agnostic. Because he doesn’t know and Dr. Craig claims to know that God exists, the disadvantage goes to the one who says, “I know.” He says that given the stakes are so extra-ordinary (ie judgment, Heaven and hell, dying for one’s faith, killing in the name of God) the evidence provided by Dr. Craig wasn’t extra-ordinary enough to prove a God exists.

The most common argument made by Hitchens was that the world contained so much cruelty and brutality for most living creatures across most of existence that a good God didn’t seem likely, and that if He did exist that He had a lot of bloodshed to answer for. He gave examples of the pre-Christ and even pre-Jewish people who died without ever knowing the one true God. That their lives were lost in ignorance and that only recently does God come on the scene to save some. Hitch returned to this line of reasoning so many times that I’d say it was his core reason for disbelieving God.

Hitch went back to how our belief that God should personally be so concerned with us that we should have the benefit of being born post-Christ to enjoy salvation was a form of solipsism. “It’s all about us.” he said, “Everything else was wasted, but at least we’re here.”

Throughout the rest of the debate, be it the rebuttal, the conclusion, the question/answer, Hitchens returns to this classic problem of suffering, and mocks believers for finding selfish meaning in the midst of evil; “You’re a worm but take heart, it’s all made for you.”

The debate was over two hours of complex arguments and rabbit trails, but it was Dr. Craig who refused to go off track from the argument at hand. Hitchens got a lot of laughs, even with his blunt jokes against God and Christians. Dr. Craig managed a good laugh by stating that the 10 steps necessary in the universe to produce evolution consummates a miracle. Hitchens’ smile of disbelief looking over his glasses at the audience was gold.

William Lane Craig

Hugh Hewitt concluded the event with a final question: “Why do people come out over the question of God’s existence?” Hitchens believed it was because theocratic threats around the world are getting more coverage and is on our minds. Dr. Craig said that it was because the fruit of Godless modernity is being rejected and people are looking for answers.

But in my opinion, though Dr. Craig won the argument (he was the only one who even presented a formal argument), Hitchens won the debate. It’s not the argument of the debaters, it’s the condition of the audience that wins the day. While few of Dr. Craig’s arguments are dispersed through culture, even religious culture, I’ve been raised on most of Hitchens’ arguments. Dr. Craig’s arguments are true and well-reasoned by difficult to comprehend on a first hearing. Hitchens’ arguments are what we’ll find spoken against God on prime time television, at the water-cooler, I’ve even heard some of them on Animal Planet. Culture generally makes Hitchens’ argument by default. And it’s easier to claim the skeptic’s nothing than affirm the something of God…even when I think the most robust argument is self evident to all of us…we’re here.

I think if there were atheists in the audience on the brink of salvation that Dr. Craig’s well-argued positions would find little purchase. Opposite that, the room of Christians would likely have a large segment of doubters, and the cultural arguments against God presented by Hitchens would likely change more minds in my opinion.

So are debates judged by the merit of the arguments or the embrace of the audience? In this all important subject, I think the effect on the audience is the preferred measurement. But the evening left little doubt to most of us that Hitchens did not make a case for atheism at all. He barely even acknowledged his own atheism which was oddly refreshing. It reminds me of G. K. Chesterton who said, “Somehow one can never manage to be an atheist.”

What’s more important is that the debate took place at all. The modern idea that discussions about God (especially for God) should be removed from the public square, education or even casual conversation is the worst position of all. It is good for these atheists and Christians to make a case for what is perhaps the most important question any of us will consider.

Does God exist?

Dateline: Next Thursday.

Announcer Voice Over:  Live from New York City, it’s The Bill Kristol – Matt Damon Debate, and here’s your moderator for the evening: Greg Gutfeld.

Greg Gutfeld:  Hello, I’m Greg Gutfled, host of the Fox News late night show Red Eye. Tonight I am coming to you live from the stage of Town Hall here in New York City for a debate between Mr. Bill Kristol and Mr. Matt Damon. The audience has been told to hold their applause (and their privates) except for when introducing our two debaters - which happens right now!

On my right is Mr. Bill Kristol.

Audience applause.

Gutfeld: This is a man who really needs no introduction, but here’s one for posterity kids: Editor in Chief of the Weekly Standard and a regular panelist on Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol is to politics what Madonna is to the New York Knickerbockers.

On my left, quite appropriately; Mr. Matt Damon.

Audience applause.

Gutfeld: Mr Damon is a BIG BIG movie star. He is to politics,… what Alec Baldwin is to politics.

This is an open debate forum and there are no rules except one: I will not let the tenor of this debate degrade to behavior as barbaric and frightening as the daily fight over the hormone replacement pills backstage at “The View.”

Okay! Bill Kristol, since you have the tie on you can go first.

Bill Kristol: Good evening everyone. Good evening Greg, Mr. Damon. Mr. Damon, you recently were quoted calling me an “idiot” for saying we have won the war in Iraq. Well, the simple indubitable fact is; we have won. We will have to be there for some time to come, as in other wars we have prevailed in, like Germany, Japan, etc… So, my question to you is: Are you on the Left incapable of admitting we have won, or at the very least winning significantly, or do you wish for failure in Iraq?

Matt Damon: Did you see “Good Will Hunting?”

Kristol:  Yes I did, great movie.

Damon: Then here’s one for ya: You like apples? (Shakes head ‘yes’ in a caffeinated sort of way.)

Kristol:  (After slight pause) There really isn’t any denying the success we have had in Iraq.  So, I repeat the question: Do you wish we would have lost the war?

Damon stands, does some Karate/Judo type moves, spins around, grabs the small table in front of him, tries to smash it and fails. Adjusts his jacket, sits down.

Damon: How do like them apples?

Kristol:  (Smiling politely with a pause) The fact of the matter is, Iraqi neighborhoods are back. Terrorists no longer control cities. Public works projects are flourishing, and the way of life for the average Iraqi has improved ten-fold. Benchmarks are being met and the Iraqi government is taking more and more responsibility for their own country.  Also, I would have to say that your whoop-ass moves don’t have the same impact without all the cinematic sound effects; the grunting, swishing, crashing sounds, etc.

Greg Gutfeld: Oh boy, I think I feel a famous Bill Kristol prediction coming!

Kristol: In fact Greg, I will make a prediction: President Obama and the left will never apologize to the American people for being horribly wrong about the surge, and Mr. Damon you will continue to avoid Ben Affleck like the plague.

Damon stands, hands on hips with a big “I so crazy” grin, shaking his head in a “I just got ya” fashion.

Greg Gutfeld: And that concludes our broadcast. I’m Greg Gutfeld and if you didn’t get the significance of this debate – then you sir, are worse than Hitler.

“He’s an idiot — he wrote that we should be grateful to George Bush because he won the Iraq war. We! Won! The! War!”

As the sponsor of the event, Big Hollywood is offering $100,000 to Damon (or to the charity or carbon credit of his choice) to publicly debate Kristol at a mutually agreed upon time, date and venue.

During the last election cycle the liberal activist Damon — who briefly attended Harvard University — also heaped scorn on John McCain’s vice presidential pick, Sarah Palin:

“You do the actuary tables, there’s a one out of three chance, if not more, that McCain doesn’t survive his first term, and it’ll be President Palin…. It’s like a really bad Disney movie, ‘The Hockey Mom.’ Oh, I’m just a hockey mom from Alaska, and she’s president. She’s facing down Vladimir Putin and using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink. It’s absurd.”

Damon is no stranger to left-wing politics. His Oscar-nominated screenplay, “Good Will Hunting,” co-written with Ben Affleck, was inspired by anarchist Boston University historian, Howard Zinn.

According to Wikipedia:

Damon included a reference to A People’s History in his film Good Will Hunting. In a confrontation with his psychologist, played by Robin Williams, Damon’s character tells him: “If you want to read a real history book, read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. That book will knock you on your ass.” Damon also read the latter half of People’s History for an audiobook released February 1, 2003.

If Damon agrees to participate, Big Hollywood will work with both parties to secure mutually agreed upon parameters for the debate (e.g., Did We Win the War in Iraq?)